Dataset Information

Gemcitabine and docetaxel combination chemotherapy for advanced bone and soft tissue sarcomas: protocol for an open-label, non-randomised, Phase 2 study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The prognosis of patients with metastatic or advanced sarcomas is poor and there are few options for treatment. Several studies have shown that gemcitabine and docetaxel (GD) combination chemotherapy has antitumor activity against various subtypes of sarcoma. Recently, some studies have shown a favourable outcome for GD combination chemotherapy for relapsed high-grade osteosarcoma and spindle cell sarcoma of bone. If the effectiveness of GD is proven, this will result in new treatment options for advanced bone and soft tissue sarcomas (STS). The aim of this prospective Phase 2 study is to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of the GD combination in patients with advanced bone sarcomas and STS.

Methods

This is a Phase 2, single-arm, open-label study to investigate the efficacy and safety of combination chemotherapy with GD for advanced bone sarcomas and STS and will enrol 20 patients. The patients will receive gemcitabine 900 mg/m² on Days 1 and 8, and docetaxel 70 mg/m² on Day 8 in 3-week cycles until disease progression or other evidence of treatment failure. The primary aim of this study is to analyse GD's effect on progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary objectives are to analyse treatment efficacy and safety in terms of response rate, tumour control rate, overall survival, and adverse event rate. The length of follow-up will be 5 years.

Discussion

This study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with gemcitabine and docetaxel for bone sarcomas and STS. If this combination proves to be acceptable, it could be used for as second, third, or later line therapy for patients with sarcomas (especially bone sarcomas). In the future, the role of various treatments, including GD therapy, will be clarified for specific subtypes of sarcoma.

Trial registration

This study was registered as UMIN000031004 (University Hospital Medical Information Network-Clinical Trial Registry: UMIN-CTR) on 1 March 1 2018 and with the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT) as jRCTs051180042 on 30 January 2019. The posted information will be updated as needed to reflect protocol amendments and study progress.

SUBMITTER: Hara H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6651911 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:For many years, first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma has been doxorubicin. This study compared gemcitabine and docetaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. METHODS:The GeDDiS trial was a randomised controlled phase 3 trial done in 24 UK hospitals and one Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) hospital. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma of Trojani grade 2 or 3, disease progression before enrolment, and no previous chemotherapy for sarcoma or previous doxorubicin for any cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive six cycles of intravenous doxorubicin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks, or intravenous gemcitabine 675 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 8 every 3 weeks. Treatment was assigned using a minimisation algorithm incorporating a random element. Randomisation was stratified by age (?18 years vs >18 years) and histological subtype. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients alive and progression free at 24 weeks in the intention-to-treat population. Adherence to treatment and toxicity were analysed in the safety population, consisting of all patients who received at least one dose of their randomised treatment. The trial was registered with the European Clinical Trials (EudraCT) database (no 2009-014907-29) and with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry (ISRCTN07742377), and is now closed to patient entry. FINDINGS:Between Dec 3, 2010, and Jan 20, 2014, 257 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (129 to doxorubicin and 128 to gemcitabine and docetaxel). Median follow-up was 22 months (IQR 15·7-29·3). The proportion of patients alive and progression free at 24 weeks did not differ between those who received doxorubicin versus those who received gemcitabine and docetaxel (46·3% [95% CI 37·5-54·6] vs 46·4% [37·5-54·8]); median progression-free survival (23·3 weeks [95% CI 19·6-30·4] vs 23·7 weeks [18·1-20·0]; hazard ratio [HR] for progression-free survival 1·28, 95% CI 0·99-1·65, p=0·06). The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (32 [25%] of 128 patients who received doxorubicin and 25 [20%] of 126 patients who received gemcitabine and docetaxel), febrile neutropenia (26 [20%] and 15 [12%]), fatigue (eight [6%] and 17 [14%]), oral mucositis (18 [14%] and two [2%]), and pain (ten [8%] and 13 [10%]). The three most common serious adverse events, representing 111 (39%) of all 285 serious adverse events recorded, were febrile neutropenia (27 [17%] of 155 serious adverse events in patients who received doxorubicin and 15 [12%] of 130 serious adverse events in patients who received gemcitabine and docetaxel, fever (18 [12%] and 19 [15%]), and neutropenia (22 [14%] and ten [8%]). 154 (60%) of 257 patients died in the intention-to-treat population: 74 (57%) of 129 patients in the doxorubicin group and 80 (63%) of 128 in the gemcitabine and docetaxel group. No deaths were related to the treatment, but two deaths were due to a combination of disease progression and treatment. INTERPRETATION:Doxorubicin should remain the standard first-line treatment for most patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma. These results provide evidence for clinicians to consider with their patients when selecting first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. FUNDING:Cancer Research UK, Sarcoma UK, and Clinical Trial Unit Kantonsspital St Gallen.

Project description:Lessons learnedOur results highlight some of the challenges in the management of soft tissue sarcomas, which requires close cooperation between surgeons and medical oncologists and a careful selection of patients. The incidence of hepatotoxicity was a concerning finding and had been previously reported in patients treated with pazopanib.Although pharmacokinetic analysis was not part of this study, concomitant treatment with pazopanib has been recently reported to increase docetaxel exposure, which may explain the increased toxicity of combination regimens. It remains possible that lower doses of combined gemcitabine, docetaxel, and pazopanib may be tolerable. However, caution should be exercised in future trials investigating similar combinations.BackgroundFor extremity soft tissue sarcomas (STS), surgical resection remains the standard of care, and the addition of chemotherapy is controversial. This was a phase Ib/II trial of neoadjuvant therapy for patients with STS.MethodsPatients with high grade, extremity STS of >8 cm and amenable to definitive resection were treated with up to four 21-day cycles of 900 mg/m(2) gemcitabine on days 1 and 8, 75 mg/m(2) docetaxel on day 8, and 400 mg of pazopanib daily (GDP), followed by surgery and, if indicated, radiation therapy. Primary and secondary endpoints (phase Ib portion) were the safety and rate of pathologic response.ResultsThe trial was discontinued because of slow accrual after inclusion of five patients (leiomyosarcoma: two; undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma: three). Two patients completed four treatment cycles: one underwent surgery and one had insufficient response and received additional therapies. Three patients discontinued treatment because of toxicity. Grade 3 adverse events included hypertension, fatigue, aspartate aminotransferase (AST) or alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevation, hoarseness, and myelotoxicity. There were no complete or partial responses. One patient had ≥ 90% pathologic response. Among four patients who underwent resection, three remain free of disease, and one patient eventually relapsed.ConclusionGDP combination used in the neoadjuvant setting resulted in significant toxicity; despite pathologic responses, no objective responses occurred.