N Penel1, M Van Glabbeke2, S Marreaud2, M Ouali2, J Y Blay3, P Hohenberger4. 1. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Headquarters, EORTC, Brussels, Belgium; Oscar Lambret Comprehensive Cancer Centre and Lille-Nord-de-France University, Lille, France; European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group, EORTC, Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: n-penel@o-lambret.fr. 2. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Headquarters, EORTC, Brussels, Belgium; European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group, EORTC, Brussels, Belgium. 3. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Headquarters, EORTC, Brussels, Belgium; European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group, EORTC, Brussels, Belgium; Léon Bérard Comprehensive Cancer Centre, University Claude Bernard Lyon I, Lyon, France. 4. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Headquarters, EORTC, Brussels, Belgium; European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group, EORTC, Brussels, Belgium; Division of Surgical Oncology and Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prognosis of advanced soft tissue sarcoma remains poor. Many phase II trials investigating new regimens have been published in the last 10 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Full English-language reports of phase II clinical trials from January 1999 to October 2009 have been reviewed. We have defined those that provided 3- and 6-month progression-free survival rates (PFSR) >39% and 14%, respectively, as promising second-line regimens. For studies enrolling both chemonaive and pretreated patients, we have compared the reported PFSR3 to the expected PFSR3 of an active treatment administered in the same proportions of pretreated and nonpretreated patients. RESULTS: Forty-nine trials were identified. Among the trials investigating new regimens in pretreated patients alone, the promising second-line regimens were ifosfamide, brostallicin, pazopanib (except in liposarcoma), temozolomide, trabectedin, dacarbazine-gemcitabine and docetaxel (Taxotere)-gemcitabine combinations (in uterine leiomyosarcoma). Among the trials enrolling both chemonaive and pretreated patients, most regimens reached the level of efficacy; moreover, in three trials, the reported PFSR3 was particularly high: weekly paclitaxel (Taxol) in angiosarcoma, docetaxel-gemcitabine combination (in uterine leiomyosarcoma) and oral perifosine. CONCLUSIONS: In the past 10 years, several drugs or combinations have demonstrated promising activity in exploratory phase II trials and warrant further investigation in appropriate phase III trials.
BACKGROUND: The prognosis of advanced soft tissue sarcoma remains poor. Many phase II trials investigating new regimens have been published in the last 10 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Full English-language reports of phase II clinical trials from January 1999 to October 2009 have been reviewed. We have defined those that provided 3- and 6-month progression-free survival rates (PFSR) >39% and 14%, respectively, as promising second-line regimens. For studies enrolling both chemonaive and pretreated patients, we have compared the reported PFSR3 to the expected PFSR3 of an active treatment administered in the same proportions of pretreated and nonpretreated patients. RESULTS: Forty-nine trials were identified. Among the trials investigating new regimens in pretreated patients alone, the promising second-line regimens were ifosfamide, brostallicin, pazopanib (except in liposarcoma), temozolomide, trabectedin, dacarbazine-gemcitabine and docetaxel (Taxotere)-gemcitabine combinations (in uterine leiomyosarcoma). Among the trials enrolling both chemonaive and pretreated patients, most regimens reached the level of efficacy; moreover, in three trials, the reported PFSR3 was particularly high: weekly paclitaxel (Taxol) in angiosarcoma, docetaxel-gemcitabine combination (in uterine leiomyosarcoma) and oral perifosine. CONCLUSIONS: In the past 10 years, several drugs or combinations have demonstrated promising activity in exploratory phase II trials and warrant further investigation in appropriate phase III trials.
Authors: Luca G Campana; Giuseppe Bianchi; Simone Mocellin; Sara Valpione; Laura Campanacci; Antonella Brunello; Davide Donati; Elisabetta Sieni; Carlo R Rossi Journal: World J Surg Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: William W Tseng; Shouhao Zhou; Christina A To; Peter F Thall; Alexander J Lazar; Raphael E Pollock; Patrick P Lin; Janice N Cormier; Valerae O Lewis; Barry W Feig; Kelly K Hunt; Matthew T Ballo; Shreyaskumar Patel; Peter W T Pisters Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: M Toulmonde; S Bonvalot; I Ray-Coquard; E Stoeckle; O Riou; N Isambert; E Bompas; N Penel; C Delcambre-Lair; E Saada; A Lecesne; C Le Péchoux; J Y Blay; S Piperno-Neumann; C Chevreau; J O Bay; V Brouste; P Terrier; D Ranchère-Vince; A Neuville; A Italiano Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-02-03 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Mark A Dickson; William D Tap; Mary Louise Keohan; Sandra P D'Angelo; Mrinal M Gounder; Cristina R Antonescu; Jonathan Landa; Li-Xuan Qin; Dustin D Rathbone; Mercedes M Condy; Yelena Ustoyev; Aimee M Crago; Samuel Singer; Gary K Schwartz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-04-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: N Penel; G D Demetri; J Y Blay; S Cousin; R G Maki; S P Chawla; I Judson; M von Mehren; P Schöffski; J Verweij; P Casali; S Rodenhuis; H J Schütte; A Cassar; J Gomez; A Nieto; P Zintl; M J Pontes; A Le Cesne Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-11-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: James R Hackney; Cheryl Ann Palmer; Kristen O Riley; Joel K Cure; Hassan M Fathallah-Shaykh; Louis B Nabors Journal: J Med Case Rep Date: 2012-08-21