scholarly journals Eribulin as a first-line treatment for soft tissue sarcoma patients with contraindications for doxorubicin

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenji Tsuchihashi ◽  
Hitoshi Kusaba ◽  
Tomoyasu Yoshihiro ◽  
Toshifumi Fujiwara ◽  
Nokitaka Setsu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Soft Tissue Sarcoma ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Safety Management ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Treatment

AbstractDoxorubicin is a first-line therapy for patients with unresectable advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS). However, because of cardiotoxicities, it is not used for patients with cardiac problems. Eribulin has exhibited efficacy for advanced STS in second- or later-line treatments. In the present study, we retrospectively analyzed the efficacy and safety of first-line eribulin therapy for patients with advanced STS unable to receive doxorubicin. Six of 28 patients who received eribulin as any line treatment received eribulin as a first-line treatment. The reasons for avoiding doxorubicin were as follows: cardiac problems for four patients and advanced age for two. Median progression-free survival (PFS) of the patients who received eribulin as first-line and, second or later-line therapy were 9.7 months (95% CI: 1.0-not reached) and 3.9 months (95% CI: 2.7–5.9), which were not significantly different. The reasons for discontinuation of eribulin were disease progression and adverse events (2 fatigue and 1 neuropathy) for three patients each. No treatment-related cardiotoxicity was observed. The findings of this study indicated that eribulin exhibits meaningful efficacy for the patients with contraindications for doxorubicin as a first-line treatment without cardiac adverse events. However, appropriate safety management is necessary because older patients are typically among those intolerable of doxorubicin.

Progression-free survival as a predictor of overall survival in patients with advanced breast cancer: A real-world study from the China National Cancer Center.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e12590-e12590
Author(s):  
Hongnan Mo ◽  
Binghe Xu ◽  
Fei Ma ◽  
Qing Li ◽  
Pin Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Advanced Breast Cancer ◽  
Real World ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Advanced Breast ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Treatment

e12590 Background: Use of progression-free survival (PFS) as a clinical trial endpoint in first-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer is attractive, but would be enhanced by establishing a correlation between PFS and overall survival (OS). Methods: From January 2003 to December 2012, 1851 patients with advanced breast cancer at start of first-line therapy were enrolled in this real-world study. An independent cohort of patients hospitalized in 2013 was used for external validation. All data were collected from the Database of China National Cancer Cancer. Results: The correlation coefficient (Pearson’s r) between PFS and OS was 0.807 in patients only receiving endocrine therapy as first-line treatment, 0.643 in those treated with chemotherapy, and 0.642 in the whole cohort. Receiver operating characteristic curve indicated that PFS = 12 months was the optimal cutoff value for predicting patient’s survival. The median OS was 30.0 months (95% CI 27.8-32.2) in the PFS < 12 months group, and 69.0 months (95% CI 60.8-77.2) in the other group (P < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed that compared with patients who did not progress at 12 months, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for death was 2.681 (95% CI, 2.301-3.124; P < 0.0001) for patients with PFS < 12 months. Subgroup analysis based on patient’s age, molecular subtype, visceral metastasis and types of first-line treatment further confirmed that PFS < 12 months was associated with significant poor prognosis in all these subgroups. In patients with luminal type of breast cancer, the HR for death was 2.567 (95%CI 2.147-3.069; P < 0.0001) for patients with PFS < 12 months. Notably, for these patients with luminal type breast cancer who had progressed within 12 months after first-line treatment, addition of chemotherapy in the second-line therapy would surprisingly have adverse effects on patients’ survival when compared with endocrine therapy alone (HR = 1.627, 95%CI 1.016-2.604, P = 0.043). The findings were externally validated in the independent cohort. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first real-world study revealed that PFS at 12 months in first-line therapy predict OS of patients with advanced breast cancer.

Cetuximab-based or bevacizumab-based first-line treatment in patients with KRAS p.G13D mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)? A meta-analysis of 54 cases.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 511-511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Volker Heinemann ◽  
Anke Reinacher-Schick ◽  
Sebastian Stintzing ◽  
Clemens Albrecht Giessen ◽  
Andrea Tannapfel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Treatment

511 Background: KRAS p.G13D mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has been identified to represent a cetuximab-sensitive subtype of KRAS mutant mCRC. This analysis aims to answer the question whether first-line treatment of p.G13D mCRCs should contain cetuximab or bevacizumab. Methods: Fifty-four patients with p.G13D mutant mCRC were pooled in this analysis. All patients underwent systemic 1st-line treatment with a fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin/irinotecan that was combined with either cetuximab or bevacizumab. Results: Overall response rate was comparable between cetuximab- and bevacizumab-based regimens (58% vs 57%). Progression-free survival was comparable (8.0 months-cetuximab-group vs 8.7 months bevacizumab-group). Overall survival (OS) was longer in patients treated with cetuximab as first-line therapy (20.1 months vs 14.9 months). Logistic regressions modelling OS revealed oxaliplatin-based first-line treatment to correlate significantly with poor outcome (p=0.03). Moreover, a strong trend in favour of capecitabine compared to infusional 5-FU (p=0.06) was seen.. Responders among our cohort showed a benefit concerning PFS and OS undergoing cetuximab- but not bevacizumab-based regimen. Conclusions: This retrospective pooled analysis suggests that cetuximab-based first-line therapy in p.G13D mutant mCRC shows similar activity compared to bevacizumab-containing regimen. Infusional 5-FU and oxaliplatin may represent inferior options compared to capecitabine and irinotecan in p.G13D mutant mCRC 1st-line treatment.

Efficacy and safety of anlotinib combined with liposomal doxorubicin in first-line treatment of advanced soft-tissue sarcoma.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e23530-e23530
Author(s):  
Xin Sun ◽  
Wei Guo ◽  
Ranxin Zhang ◽  
Lu Xie ◽  
Jie Xu
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Soft Tissue Sarcoma ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Liposomal Doxorubicin ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
First Line ◽  
Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome ◽  
First Line Treatment

e23530 Background: Anthracycline-based chemotherapy is the main first-line treatment option for advanced soft-tissue sarcoma (STS). Anlotinib has been approved for the treatment of STS by the Chinese agency. This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Anlotinib combined with liposomal doxorubicin in first-line treatment of patients with advanced STS. Methods: This is a single-center, retrospective study. Eligible patients were those ≥14 years old, ECOG performance state of 0-1, with histologically confirmed locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic STS, previously untreated, with measurable disease by RECIST v1.1. All patients received Anlotinib (12mg once daily, 2 weeks on and 1 week off) and liposomal doxorubicin (40-50 mg/m2, IV, D1, every 3 weeks) until disease progression or unacceptable adverse events. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Disease control rate (DCR), objective response rate (ORR), and side effects were also calculated. Results: Between April 2019 and December 2020, 8 patients were evaluated, including 2 undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, 1 liposarcoma, 4 fibrosarcomas, and 1 synovial sarcoma. The median age was 42 years. 2 patients (25%) achieved a confirmed partial response (PR) and 3(37.5%) had stable disease (SD). The ORR and DCR were 25% and 62.5% respectively. The median PFS was 11.3 months, and the PFS rate at 4 months was 50%. Treatment-related adverse events included hand-foot syndrome (3/8, 37.5%), pneumothorax (1/8, 12.5%), oral mucositis (2/8, 25%), epistaxis (2/8, 25%), hypertension (2/8, 25%), arrhythmias (1/8, 12.5%), and pharyngeal pain (1/8, 12.5%). Three patients experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events, 2 hand-foot syndrome (2/8, 25%) and 1 pneumothorax (1/8, 12.5%). Conclusions: This study suggested that the combination of Anlotinib and liposomal doxorubicin might have anti-tumor activity and acceptable toxicity in first-line treatment of patients with advanced STS.

scholarly journals Survival of soft tissue sarcoma patients after completing six cycles of first-line anthracycline containing treatment: an EORTC-STBSG database study

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Arie Jan Verschoor ◽  
Saskia Litière ◽  
Sandrine Marréaud ◽  
Ian Judson ◽  
Maud Toulmonde ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Soft Tissue Sarcoma ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Median Progression Free Survival ◽  
First Line Treatment

Abstract Background Doxorubicin based chemotherapy is standard first line treatment for patients with soft tissue sarcoma. Currently several options to improve survival after doxorubicin based chemotherapy are being studied. This study reports on survival after completing 6 cycles of doxorubicin containing first line treatment, which is important when designing studies trying to improve outcomes of first line treatment. Methods A retrospective database analysis was performed on 2045 patients from 12 EORTC sarcoma trials (inclusion period 1980–2012) receiving first line doxorubicin based chemotherapy for advanced soft tissue sarcoma in order to establish progression free survival and overall survival after completing 6 cycles of first line doxorubicin based chemotherapy. Endpoints were overall survival and progression free survival. Factors studied were histologic subtype and type of doxorubicin chemotherapy. Results 748 of 2045 (36.6%) received at least 6 cycles and did not progress during or at the end of chemotherapy. 475 of 2045 (23.2%) of patients received exactly 6 cycles and did not progress during or at the end of chemotherapy. Median progression free survival after 6 cycles of doxorubicin based chemotherapy was 4.2 months (95% confidence interval 3.7–4.8) and median overall survival 15.7 months (14.0–17.8). Median progression free survival and overall survival from randomisation/registration were 8.7 months (95% confidence interval 8.2–9.1) and 20.1 months (95% confidence interval 18.3–22.3) respectively. Significant differences in progression free survival were found between chemotherapy regimens, but not for overall survival. These data are also reported for patients receiving 7 or more cycles of chemotherapy and for patients with 3 or more cycles of chemotherapy. Conclusion This large retrospective study is the first to report progression free survival and overall survival after completion of 6 cycles of first line doxorubicin containing chemotherapy. These results are important when designing new studies exploring for example maintenance therapy after doxorubicin based chemotherapy.

Economic evaluation of crizotinib, alectinib, ceritinib, and brigatininb in anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as second-line treatment.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21104-e21104
Author(s):  
Nimer S. Alkhatib ◽  
Briana Choi ◽  
Hala Halawah ◽  
Matthias Calamia ◽  
Dexter Gulick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Reference Drug ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Life Years

e21104 Background: Crizotinib, alectinib, ceritinib, and brigatinib are approved as second line treatment for ALK+ NSCLC. Crizotinib was the first ALK inhibitor for first line therapy approved by Food and Drug Administration (2011) then ceritinib (2014), alectinib (2015), and brigatinib (2017) were approved as second line drugs. Following more data, these agents were approved as the first line therapy (2017 for ceritinib and alectinib; 2020 for brigatinib). These remain as a treatment option in patients who fail the first line therapy. Cost-effectiveness/utility analyses were conducted to assess clinical efficacy with varying costs of the agents. Methods: A three state Markov model were assumed (progression free, progression and death). Progression free survival (PFS) curves were digitized and fitted with exponential function. US payer perspective, a lifetime horizon, and discount rate of 3% were applied. Drug costs were Redbook wholesale acquisition cost. Other costs included were monitoring, adverse events and disease progression from published data (US$ 2020). Adverse events reported >5% in patients were included. Measured outcomes were PFS life years (PFSLY) and quality adjusted life years (PFSQALY). Crizotinib was the reference drug. Incremental cost-effectiveness and utility ratios (ICER/ICUR) of PFSLY and PFSQALY gained (PFSLYG, PFSQALYG) and lost were estimated. Base case (BCA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted. Results: Crizotinib was the reference drug for the following outcomes. For alectinib, with the decremental cost of -$14,653 (-$14,712), the incremental PFSLY of 0.16 (0.16) and PFSQALY of 0.05 (0.05) resulted in an ICER / PFSLYG of -$89,337 (-$88,604) and an ICUR / PFSQALYG of -$269,835 (-$266,510). For brigatinib, with the decremental cost of -$14,975 (-$14,954), the incremental PFSLY of 0.01 (0.01) and PFSQALY of ̃0.01 (0.02) yielded an ICER / PFSLYG of -$1,982,962 (-$1,431,631) and an ICUR / PFSQALYG of -$2,140,534 (-$570,538). For ceritinib, with the incremental cost of $7,590 ($7,514), there were decremental PFSLY of -0.01 (-0.01) and PFSQALY of -0.03 (-0.03). Conclusions: As second line treatment, crizotinib, ceritinib, and brigatinib had comparable PFSLYs and PFSQALYs while alectinib had the most PFSLY and PFSQALY and the lowest cost. Therefore, alectinib is the most cost-effective treatment for treating ALK+ NSCLC as the second line therapy.[Table: see text]

Randomized Comparison of Pazopanib and Doxorubicin as First-Line Treatment in Patients With Metastatic Soft Tissue Sarcoma Age 60 Years or Older: Results of a German Intergroup Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (30) ◽  
pp. 3555-3564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Viktor Grünwald ◽  
Annika Karch ◽  
Markus Schuler ◽  
Patrick Schöffski ◽  
Hans-Georg Kopp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Soft Tissue Sarcoma ◽  
Febrile Neutropenia ◽  
Geriatric Assessment ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Life Questionnaire ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
First Line Treatment

PURPOSE Doxorubicin is a standard of care in patients with advanced, inoperable soft tissue sarcoma (STS). We tested whether pazopanib has efficacy comparable to that of doxorubicin in elderly patients with STS and offers superior tolerability for hematologic toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients age 60 years or older without previous systemic treatment for progressive advanced or metastatic STS who had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2 and adequate organ function were included. Treatment consisted of pazopanib 800 mg once per day or doxorubicin 75 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks (≤ 6 cycles) after being randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio. Noninferiority was assumed for progression-free survival (PFS), if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) was less than 1.8. Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were key secondary end points. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (30-item) Quality of Life Questionnaire and geriatric assessment were used to measure patient-reported outcomes. Cox regression analysis and Kaplan-Meier curves were used for analysis. RESULTS Pazopanib and doxorubicin were given to 81 and 39 patients, respectively. The median age was 71 years (range, 60-88 years). PFS was noninferior (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.53) and the incidence of grade 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia favored pazopanib. Objective response rates for pazopanib and doxorubicin were 12.3% and 15.4%, respectively. Overall survival did not differ significantly between arms (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.72; P = .735). Geriatric assessment revealed 2 or more comorbidities in 15.8% of the patients and impairment of activities of daily living in 28.3% of patients. CONCLUSION Pazopanib was noninferior to doxorubicin, rendering pazopanib a putative therapeutic option in the first-line treatment of STS in patients age 60 years or older. The distinct adverse event profile may be used to counsel patients and tailor therapy to individual needs.

Modified FOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab beyond first progression in advanced colorectal cancer: CCOG-0801 study.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 641-641
Author(s):  
Kiyoshi Ishigure ◽  
Goro Nakayama ◽  
Keisuke Uehara ◽  
Hiroyuki Yokoyama ◽  
Akiharu Ishiyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Bleeding Event ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
To Receive

641 Background: Bevacizumab provides survival benefit as the first-line and second-line therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). A large observational study suggested use of bevacizumab beyond first progression (BBP) improved survival. This prompted us to conduct a multicenter phase II study of mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizimab in mCRC to further explore the strategy of BBP in Japanese patients. Methods: Previously untreated patients with assessable disease were treated with mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab until tumor progression, followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. The primary endpoint of the study was the second progression-free survival (2nd PFS), defined as duration from enrollment until progression after the second-line therapy. If the patient failed to receive the second-line treatment due to medical reasons or refusal, the PFS during the first-line therapy was used for analysis. Secondary endpoints were PFS, overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), disease control rate (DCR) and safety. Results: In the first-line therapy, 47 patients treated with mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab achieved RR of 61.7%, DCR of 89.4% and median PFS of 11.7 months. Thirty patients went on to receive the second-line therapy with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab and achieved RR of 27.6%, DCR of 62.1%, and median PFS of 6.0 months. Median 2nd PFS was 16.2 months. Median survival time did not reach the median follow-up time of 27.4 months. Severe adverse events associated with bevacizumab during the first-line therapy were a venous thromboembolic event in one case (2%), a grade 2 bleeding event in one case (2%) and GI perforation in one case (2%). However, no critical events associated with bevacizumab were reported during the second-line therapy. Conclusions: The planned continuation of bevacizumab during the second line treatment is feasible in Japanese mCRC patients. A prospective randomized control study to confirm the efficacy has to be conducted in the future.

Phase 1/2 study of safety/efficacy using trabectedin, ipilimumab and nivolumab triple therapy as first line treatment of advanced soft tissue sarcoma.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS11591-TPS11591
Author(s):  
Erlinda Maria Gordon ◽  
Victoria S. Chua-Alcala ◽  
Katherine Kim ◽  
Shiva Sreenath Andrali ◽  
Marie Del Rosario ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Soft Tissue Sarcoma ◽  
Triple Therapy ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma ◽  
First Line Treatment

scholarly journals Cost Effectiveness of First-Line Treatment with Doxorubicin/Ifosfamide Compared to Trabectedin Monotherapy in the Management of Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma in Italy, Spain, and Sweden

Sarcoma ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian F. Guest ◽  
Monica Panca ◽  
Erikas Sladkevicius ◽  
Nicholas Gough ◽  
Mark Linch
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Soft Tissue Sarcoma ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma ◽  
Effective Use ◽  
The Cost ◽  
First Line Treatment

Background. Doxorubicin/ifosfamide is a first-line systemic chemotherapy for the majority of advanced soft tissue sarcoma (ASTS) subtypes. Trabectedin is indicated for the treatment of ASTS after failure of anthracyclines and/or ifosfamide; however it is being increasingly used off-label as a first-line treatment. This study estimated the cost effectiveness of these two treatments in the first-line management of ASTS in Italy, Spain, and Sweden.Methods. A Markov model was constructed to estimate the cost effectiveness of doxorubicin/ifosfamide compared to trabectedin monotherapy, defined as the cost per QALY gained, in each country.Results. First-line treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide resulted in lower two-year healthcare costs and more QALYs than first-line treatment with trabectedin monotherapy in all three countries. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a cost per QALY threshold of €35,000, >90% of a cohort would be cost effectively treated with doxorubicin/ifosfamide compared to trabectedin monotherapy in all three countries.Conclusion. Within the model’s limitations, first-line treatment of patients with ASTS with doxorubicin/ifosfamide instead of trabectedin monotherapy affords a cost-effective use of publicly funded healthcare resources in Italy, Spain, and Sweden and is therefore the preferred treatment in all three countries. These findings support the recommendation that trabectedin should remain a second-line treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document