BACKGROUND: The prognoses for patients with relapsed and refractory osteosarcoma are poor and the optimal treatment strategy is still to be defined. We conducted this retrospective study to compare the feasibility and efficacy of pirarubicin-based chemotherapy with gemcitabine-docetaxel combination regimens for the salvage of these patients. METHODS: The clinical data of 75 patients who received pirarubicin-based (n = 52) or gemcitabine-docetaxel (n = 23) chemotherapy as a second-line treatment for relapsed and refractory osteosarcoma between January 2005 and September 2011were reviewed retrospectively. Tumor response was evaluated every two chemotherapy cycles by computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MRI) scans using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Toxicity was examined according to the National Cancer Institute Toxicity Criteria grading system. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were well balanced in the two groups. The response rate was 25.0 % in patients who received pirarubicin-based chemotherapy, while it was 13.0 % in the gemcitabine-docetaxel group. Moreover, the median OS was longer in the pirarubicin-based chemotherapy group (14.0 vs. 9.0 months, P < 0.05), especially in the pirarubicin-ifosfamide (14.0 months) and pirarubicin-cisplatin (15.0 months) subgroups. The incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia was higher in the gemcitabine-docetaxel group (5.8 vs. 43.5 %, P < 0.05); other grade 3-4 toxicities were comparable in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, pirarubicin-based chemotherapy was comparable with gemcitabine-docetaxel as a second-line treatment for relapsed and refractory osteosarcoma, and it even seemed to show greater efficacy, with milder toxicity. Further studies, especially prospective clinical trials, focusing on pirarubicin-based treatments for relapsed and refractory osteosarcoma patients should be strongly considered.
BACKGROUND: The prognoses for patients with relapsed and refractory osteosarcoma are poor and the optimal treatment strategy is still to be defined. We conducted this retrospective study to compare the feasibility and efficacy of pirarubicin-based chemotherapy with gemcitabine-docetaxel combination regimens for the salvage of these patients. METHODS: The clinical data of 75 patients who received pirarubicin-based (n = 52) or gemcitabine-docetaxel (n = 23) chemotherapy as a second-line treatment for relapsed and refractory osteosarcoma between January 2005 and September 2011were reviewed retrospectively. Tumor response was evaluated every two chemotherapy cycles by computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MRI) scans using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Toxicity was examined according to the National Cancer Institute Toxicity Criteria grading system. RESULTS:Patient characteristics were well balanced in the two groups. The response rate was 25.0 % in patients who received pirarubicin-based chemotherapy, while it was 13.0 % in the gemcitabine-docetaxel group. Moreover, the median OS was longer in the pirarubicin-based chemotherapy group (14.0 vs. 9.0 months, P < 0.05), especially in the pirarubicin-ifosfamide (14.0 months) and pirarubicin-cisplatin (15.0 months) subgroups. The incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia was higher in the gemcitabine-docetaxel group (5.8 vs. 43.5 %, P < 0.05); other grade 3-4 toxicities were comparable in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, pirarubicin-based chemotherapy was comparable with gemcitabine-docetaxel as a second-line treatment for relapsed and refractory osteosarcoma, and it even seemed to show greater efficacy, with milder toxicity. Further studies, especially prospective clinical trials, focusing on pirarubicin-based treatments for relapsed and refractory osteosarcomapatients should be strongly considered.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: E P Cortes; J F Holland; J J Wang; L F Sinks; J Blom; H Senn; A Bank; O Glidewell Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1974-11-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Carlos Rodríguez-Galindo; Najat C Daw; Sue C Kaste; William H Meyer; Jeffrey S Dome; Alberto S Pappo; Bhaskar N Rao; Charles B Pratt Journal: J Pediatr Hematol Oncol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 1.289
Authors: G Grignani; E Palmerini; P Dileo; S D Asaftei; L D'Ambrosio; Y Pignochino; M Mercuri; P Picci; F Fagioli; P G Casali; S Ferrari; M Aglietta Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2011-04-28 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Ya Zhang; Jingqing Yang; Na Zhao; Cao Wang; Santosh Kamar; Yonghong Zhou; Zewei He; Jifei Yang; Bin Sun; Xiaoqian Shi; Lei Han; Zuozhang Yang Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 2.967