BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of single-agent gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus docetaxel as second-line therapy in patients with uterine and nonuterine leiomyosarcoma (LMS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had metastatic or unresectable LMS and had received one prior anthracycline-based regimen. A total of 90 patients received either single-agent gemcitabine (arm A; gemcitabine, 1,000 mg/m(2) i.v. for 100 minutes on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle) or a combination of gemcitabine and docetaxel (arm B; gemcitabine, 900 mg/m(2) i.v. for 90 minutes on days 1 and 8, plus docetaxel, 100 mg/m(2) i.v. for 1 hour on day 8 of a 21-day cycle with lenograstim). The primary endpoint was the objective response rate. RESULTS: The objective response rates were 19% and 24% in arm A (gemcitabine) and arm B (gemcitabine plus docetaxel), respectively, for patients with uterine LMS. For patients with nonuterine LMS, the objective response rates were 14% and 5% for arms A and B, respectively. The median progression-free survival times for arms A and B were 5.5 months and 4.7 months, respectively, for patients with uterine LMS. For patients with nonuterine LMS, the median progression-free survival times were 6.3 months and 3.8 months for arms A and B, respectively. One toxic death occurred in arm B. CONCLUSIONS: Both single-agent gemcitabine and gemcitabine plus docetaxel were found to be effective second-line therapies for leiomyosarcomas, with a 3-month progression-free survival rate of 40% for LMS with both uterine and nonuterine sites of origin. Single-agent gemcitabine yielded results similar to those of gemcitabine plus docetaxel in this trial, but patients using single-agent gemcitabine experienced less toxicity.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of single-agent gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus docetaxel as second-line therapy in patients with uterine and nonuterine leiomyosarcoma (LMS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had metastatic or unresectable LMS and had received one prior anthracycline-based regimen. A total of 90 patients received either single-agent gemcitabine (arm A; gemcitabine, 1,000 mg/m(2) i.v. for 100 minutes on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle) or a combination of gemcitabine and docetaxel (arm B; gemcitabine, 900 mg/m(2) i.v. for 90 minutes on days 1 and 8, plus docetaxel, 100 mg/m(2) i.v. for 1 hour on day 8 of a 21-day cycle with lenograstim). The primary endpoint was the objective response rate. RESULTS: The objective response rates were 19% and 24% in arm A (gemcitabine) and arm B (gemcitabine plus docetaxel), respectively, for patients with uterine LMS. For patients with nonuterine LMS, the objective response rates were 14% and 5% for arms A and B, respectively. The median progression-free survival times for arms A and B were 5.5 months and 4.7 months, respectively, for patients with uterine LMS. For patients with nonuterine LMS, the median progression-free survival times were 6.3 months and 3.8 months for arms A and B, respectively. One toxic death occurred in arm B. CONCLUSIONS: Both single-agent gemcitabine and gemcitabine plus docetaxel were found to be effective second-line therapies for leiomyosarcomas, with a 3-month progression-free survival rate of 40% for LMS with both uterine and nonuterine sites of origin. Single-agent gemcitabine yielded results similar to those of gemcitabine plus docetaxel in this trial, but patients using single-agent gemcitabine experienced less toxicity.
Authors: M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; J W Oosterhuis; H Mouridsen; D Crowther; R Somers; J Verweij; A Santoro; J Buesa; T Tursz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Xavier García-Del-Muro; Antonio López-Pousa; Joan Maurel; Javier Martín; Javier Martínez-Trufero; Antonio Casado; Auxiliadora Gómez-España; Joaquín Fra; Josefina Cruz; Andrés Poveda; Andrés Meana; Carlos Pericay; Ricardo Cubedo; Jordi Rubió; Ana De Juan; Nuria Laínez; Juan Antonio Carrasco; Raquel de Andrés; José M Buesa Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-05-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: P Pautier; C Genestie; K Fizazi; P Morice; C Mottet; C Haie-Meder; A Le Cesne; C Lhommé Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2002 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Robert G Maki; J Kyle Wathen; Shreyaskumar R Patel; Dennis A Priebat; Scott H Okuno; Brian Samuels; Michael Fanucchi; David C Harmon; Scott M Schuetze; Denise Reinke; Peter F Thall; Robert S Benjamin; Laurence H Baker; Martee L Hensley Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-07-01 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Juan Martin-Liberal; Antonio López-Pousa; Javier Martínez-Trufero; Javier Martín-Broto; Ricardo Cubedo; Javier Lavernia; Andrés Redondo; José Antonio López-Martín; Nùria Mulet-Margalef; Xavier Sanjuan; Òscar M Tirado; Xavier Garcia-Del-Muro Journal: Target Oncol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 4.493
Authors: Martee L Hensley; Brigitte A Barrette; Klaus Baumann; David Gaffney; Anne L Hamilton; Jae-Weon Kim; Johanna U Maenpaa; Patricia Pautier; Nadeem Ahmad Siddiqui; Anneke M Westermann; Isabelle Ray-Coquard Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 3.437