Randomized Multicenter and Stratified Phase II Study of Gemcitabine Alone Versus Gemcitabine and Docetaxel in Patients with Metastatic or Relapsed Leiomyosarcomas: A Federation Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer (FNCLCC) French Sarcoma Group Study (TAXOGEM study)

Institut Gustave-Roussy, 114 rue Edouard Vaillant, 94805 Villejuif, France. .
The Oncologist (Impact Factor: 4.87). 08/2012; 17(9):1213-20. DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0467
Source: PubMed


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.

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.

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.

1 Follower
18 Reads
  • Source
    • "Patients treated with ifosfamide were assumed to receive concomitant treatment with mesna to prevent urotoxicity. Patients receiving gemcitabine plus docetaxel were assumed to receive treatment with lenograstim to prevent neutropenic complications; those with prior pelvic irradiation were assumed to receive a 25% dose reduction of gemcitabine plus docetaxel [33]. Administration costs included the cost of dispensing pazopanib based on the hourly cost of a hospital pharmacist (as reported by Personal Social Services Research Unit) [34] and assumed each dispensation requires 15 minutes. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the phase III PALETTE trial, pazopanib improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo in patients with advanced/metastatic soft tissue sarcomas (mSTS) who had received prior chemotherapy. We used a multistate model to estimate expected PFS, overall survival (OS), lifetime STS treatment costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for patients receiving pazopanib, placebo, trabectedin, ifosfamide, or gemcitabine plus docetaxel as second-line mSTS therapies. The cost-effectiveness of pazopanib was expressed as the incremental costs per QALY gained. Estimates of PFS/OS, adverse events, and utilities for pazopanib and placebo were from the PALETTE trial. Estimates of relative effectiveness of the other comparators were from an unadjusted indirect comparison versus pazopanib. Costs were from published sources. Pazopanib is estimated to increase QALYs by 0.128 and costs by £ 7,976 versus placebo; cost per QALY gained with pazopanib versus placebo is estimated to be £ 62,000. Compared with the other chemotherapies, pazopanib provides similar QALYs at a lower cost. Pazopanib may not be cost-effective versus placebo but may be cost-effective versus the most commonly used active treatments, although this conclusion is uncertain. Given the unmet need for effective treatments for mSTS, pazopanib may be an appropriate alternative to some currently used medications in the United Kingdom.
    Sarcoma 06/2014; 2014(10):481071. DOI:10.1155/2014/481071
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients with widespread metastatic disease are best managed with chemotherapy. The choice of regimen should be determined based on the patient's performance status, symptom burden, and the toxicity profile of agents to be used. Select patients with oligometastatic or limited metastatic disease may benefit from surgical metastasectomy or interventional radiology-based approaches for disease control. In retrospective series, impressive 5-year survival rates of up to 50% have been documented. Given the absence of randomized controlled trials and the diversity of STS clinical behavior, it is best that these treatment decisions are made in a multidisciplinary setting with pathologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and surgeons who specialize in the care of such patients.
    Current problems in cancer 03/2013; 37(2):74-86. DOI:10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2013.03.003 · 0.53 Impact Factor
  • The Oncologist 08/2012; 17(9):1129-32. DOI:10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0209 · 4.87 Impact Factor
Show more