Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions in second- or later-line treatment of patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma: a systematic review

  • Sheetal Sharma1,
  • Shweta Takyar1,
  • Stephanie C Manson2Email author,
  • Sarah Powell2 and
  • Nicolas Penel3
BMC Cancer201313:385

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-13-385

Received: 16 July 2012

Accepted: 31 July 2013

Published: 13 August 2013

Abstract

Background

Current guidelines recommend anthracycline-based chemotherapy primarily with doxorubicin either as monotherapy or in combination with ifosfamide as the first-line treatment for most advanced STS subtypes. Therapeutic options after failure of doxorubicin and/or ifosfamide are limited. This study aimed to comprehensively review available data on the activity and safety of interventions in second- or later-line treatment of advanced STS.

Methods

Electronic literature databases (Embase®, MEDLINE®, MEDLINE® In-Process, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) were searched from 1980 to 01 March 2012 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (both prospective and retrospective) evaluating pharmacological interventions in patients with advanced STS pre-treated with anthracycline- and/or ifosfamide-based therapy.

Results

The review identified six RCTs (one phase III and five phase II trials) and 94 non-randomised studies. Based on the primary trial endpoints, RCTs demonstrated favourable efficacy for pazopanib over placebo (PFS: 4.6 months vs. 1.6 months), gemcitabine plus dacarbazine over dacarbazine monotherapy (3-month PFS rate: 54.2% vs. 35.2%), and trabectedin 3-weekly schedule over weekly schedule (TTP: 3.7 months vs. 2.3 months. The non-randomised studies demonstrated heterogeneity in efficacy and safety results.

Conclusions

Across the RCTs, pazopanib over placebo, gemcitabine-dacarbazine over dacarbazine, and trabectedin 3-weekly over weekly regimen clearly demonstrated a PFS advantage in the second- and later-line treatment of advanced STS. With only one phase III trial in this setting, there is a clear need for additional comparative trials to better understand the risk: benefit ratios of available agents and combinations.

Keywords

Systematic review Pazopanib Soft tissue sarcoma

Background

Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are a heterogeneous group of rare tumours that arise predominantly from the embryonic mesoderm [1]. STS has more than 50 distinct histological subtypes, with leiomyosarcoma, liposarcoma, synovial sarcoma, undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours being among the most common subtypes [1]. STS occurs rarely and accounts for approximately 1% of malignancies in adults and 2% of cancer mortality [2, 3]. Nearly half of the patients diagnosed with STS develop advanced/metastatic disease and eventually die from the disease [4]. Patients typically demonstrate a median survival ranging from 11 to 18 months from diagnosis of advanced disease [5, 6].

The treatment for STS is largely dictated by the tumour grade, size, location of metastatic sites, and the histological subtype [4, 6, 7]. Outside of clinical trials, cytotoxic chemotherapy is the only available systemic therapy for patients with advanced disease and its goal is primarily palliative [6]. Current guidelines including the European Society for Medical Oncology and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network treatment guidelines recommend anthracycline-based chemotherapy - primarily with doxorubicin, either as monotherapy or in combination with ifosfamide, as the first-line treatment for most advanced STS subtypes [7, 8]. Therapeutic options after failure of doxorubicin and/or ifosfamide are limited and there are no standard recognised therapies. Options used in clinical practice include ifosfamide, trabectedin, gemcitabine in combination with docetaxel, and dacarbazine-based regimens [9]. With the advent of new targeted therapies for treatment of advanced STS, it is important to understand the current evidence base in this setting. We aimed to comprehensively review available data on the efficacy and safety of treatments used for patients with advanced STS pre-treated with anthracycline- and/or ifosfamide-based therapy. The comparability amongst this evidence was examined in light of recent Phase III trial evidence for pazopanib, a new oral selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor for the treatment of advanced STS.

Methods

In order to provide a robust assessment of the available evidence, a systematic review was undertaken to identify, describe and interpret the current state of evidence. The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (See Additional file 1) [10].

Searching

The review was based on a comprehensive search of MEDLINE®, including MEDLINE® In-Process, Embase®, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1980 to 01 March 2012. An additional file describes the search strategy used for MEDLINE® and Embase® (see Additional file 2).

In addition to the literature database search, abstracts from conference proceedings including American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society for Medical Oncology, European Conference for Clinical Oncology, Connective Tissue Oncology Society and Musculoskeletal Tumour Society were hand searched from 2007 to March 2012. For trials in progress, Clinicaltrials.gov, UK clinical trials gateway, and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number were searched. Bibliographic searching of included trials and systematic reviews was also performed.

Study selection and characteristics

The review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (prospective and retrospective studies) in patients with pre-treated advanced STS. The review was limited to studies in which patients had received prior anthracycline and/or ifosfamide therapy since these are generally considered to be the standard of care for the first-line treatment of advanced STS [79]. References were excluded from the review if they recruited paediatric patients (<18 years old). Studies exclusively enrolling patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST), Kaposi sarcoma, and Ewing’s family of tumours were also excluded because of their unique biology and management compared with other STS subtypes. Studies that recruited a mixed STS population including GIST, Kaposi sarcoma, or Ewing tumours with no appropriate subgroup data by histological subtype were excluded. Other exclusion criteria were where no subgroup data for patients with advanced stage STS were available across trials recruiting both patients with early stage and advanced STS, or where studies included a mixed population of treatment-naive patients and patients previously treated with anthracycline- and/or ifosfamide-based therapy with no subgroup data for the pre-treated patients.

Further, to be included in the review, studies were required to be published in English and investigating a therapy identified either in STS treatment guidelines [68, 11], cited in STS treatment review papers [2, 12, 13] or being researched in the pre-treated advanced STS setting (carboplatin, cyclophosphamide, dacarbazine, docetaxel, doxorubicin, epirubicin, etoposide, gemcitabine, ifosfamide, liposomal doxorubicin, paclitaxel, pazopanib, trabectedin, vincristine, cisplatin, vinblastine, methotrexate, tamoxifen, sunitinib, sorafenib, deforolimus, temsirolimus, everolimus, gefitinib, erlotinib, cetuximab, or brostallicin alone or in combination). Comparative studies were included if the intervention of interest was compared with placebo, best supportive care, or any of the included interventions.

All studies retrieved by searches were screened according to above defined eligibility criteria. Initial screening of the retrieved citations was conducted independently by two reviewers on the basis of the title and abstract. Any discrepancies between the reviewers were resolved by a third independent reviewer. The full-text publications of all citations of potential interest were then screened for inclusion by two reviewers (SS and ST), with disagreements resolved by a third independent reviewer.

Validity assessment

Quality assessment of RCTs was performed using a comprehensive critical appraisal tool based on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence’s and Cochrane’s critical appraisal tool [14, 15]. Critical appraisal of comparative studies (other than RCTs) and single-arm studies was conducted using the Downs and Black checklist [16]. The data endpoints extracted included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), progressive disease (PD), time to progression (TTP), duration of response (DOR), time to response (TTR), EORTC Quality of Life-Questionnaire-C30 score, EQ-5D score, adverse events, and withdrawals.

Data abstraction

Relevant data from all included studies were extracted using a pre-defined extraction grid. Data extraction was conducted in parallel by two independent reviewers with any differences resolved by a third independent reviewer. Where more than one publication was identified that described a single trial, the data were compiled into a single entry to avoid double counting of patients.

Quantitative data synthesis

There was considerable heterogeneity across studies in terms of interventions, comparisons, patient population, and study designs. Further, the available evidence base was limited with no more than one study directly comparing the same set of interventions. Therefore meta-analysis, indirect, and mixed treatment comparison of the included interventions were not appropriate. We describe the results qualitatively with detailed results presented in supporting tables. The results are presented separately for RCTs and non-randomised studies.

Results

Trial flow / flow of included studies

The flow of studies through the review, according to PRISMA guidelines [17], is shown in Figure 1.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2407-13-385/MediaObjects/12885_2012_Article_4023_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Flow of studies through the systematic review process. The figure describes the flow of studies through the review, according to PRISMA guidelines. The search of the literature databases yielded 9542 separate references. Following the screening of abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion/exclusion criteria a total of six RCTs (reported in 13 publications) and 94 non-randomised studies (reported in 105 publications) met the inclusion criteria for the review.

The search of the literature databases yielded 9542 separate references. Following the screening of abstracts against the inclusion/exclusion criteria, 545 full-text reports were obtained for detailed evaluation. Additionally, 29 references meeting the inclusion/exclusion criteria for the review were identified from conference proceedings. After screening, a total of six RCTs (reported in 13 publications and two Clinical Study Reports) and 94 non-randomised studies (reported in 105 publications) met the inclusion criteria for the review. The list of the 457 studies excluded from the review along with exclusion rationale is available on request.

RCTs

Study characteristics

The key patient and study design characteristics of the six included RCTs are presented in Table 1. All included RCTs were Phase II trials, except for the PALETTE study, which was the only Phase III RCT [18, 19]. All the studies included in the review aimed to evaluate the activity and safety of the interventions under investigation, with PFS being the primary outcome in two studies [1821] and TTP [2226], response [27], and 12-week progression-free rate [28], as the primary outcomes in one study each. There was no primary endpoint identified in the remaining one study [29]. The secondary outcome measures evaluated across these studies included OS, response, DOR, TTR, dose reductions/interruptions, safety, and withdrawals.
Table 1

Summary of relevant randomised controlled trials included in the review

Interventions

Study

Study design

N*

Age median (range)

Males (%)

Median duration of follow-up (weeks)

Prior therapy for advanced disease

Performance status, n (%)

STS subtypes, (%)

Pazopanib 800 mg per day orally

PALETTE study 2011 [18, 19, 30]

R, DB, PC, MC-I, Phase III

246

56.0 (20.0-83.0)

40.0%

49.5 weeks

Anthracycline: 98.8%; ifosfamide: 66.7%

PS 0: 118 (48.0); PS 1: 128 (52.0)

Leiomyosarcoma: 44.3%; Synovial sarcoma: 10.2%; Others: 45.5%

Placebo

PALETTE study 2011 [18, 19, 30]

 

123

51.0 (18.0-78.0)

44.0%

45.3 weeks

Anthracycline: 98.4%; ifosfamide: 75.6%

PS 0: 60 (48.8); PS 1: 67 (51.2)

Leiomyosarcoma: 39.8%; Synovial sarcoma: 10.6%; Others: 49.6%

Trabectedin 1.5 mg/m2 24-hour infusion q3w

Demetri 2009 [2226]~

R, OL, DR, MC-I, Phase II

136

53 (20–80)

32.4%

177.67 weeks

Anthracycline: 100%; anthracycline and ifosfamide: 99.3%

PS 0: 70 (51.5); PS 1: 66 (48.5)

Leiomyosarcoma: 61.5%; Liposarcoma: 25.6%; Others: 12.8%

Trabectedin 0.58 mg/m2 3-hour infusion qw

Demetri 2009 [2226]~

 

134

54 (23–77)

41.8%

  

PS 0: 67 (50.0); PS 1: 67 (50.0)

Leiomyosarcoma: 55.5%; Liposarcoma: 37.8%; Others: 6.7%

Gemcitabine 1800 mg/m2 as a fixed dose infusion rate (10 mg/m2/minutes) + dacarbazine 500 mg/m2 q2w

GEIS study [20, 21]~

R, BU, AC, MC, Phase II

59

49 (18–78)

53.0%

62.83 weeks

Out of total eligible population of 109 patients 107 patients had received anthracycline and two patients had received ifosfamide

PS 0:22 (38.6); PS 1:30 (52.6); PS 2:5 (8.8)

Leiomyosarcoma: 28.1%; Liposarcoma/adipocytic sarcoma: 17.5%; Undifferentiated pleomorphic: 19.3%; Miscellaneous sarcoma: 24.6%; Synovial sarcoma: 10.5%

Dacarbazine 1200 mg/m2 q3w

GEIS study [20, 21]~

 

54

51 (25–73)

54.0%

60.67 weeks

 

PS 0: 17 (32.7); PS 1: 31 (51.6); PS 2: 4 (7.7)

Leiomyosarcoma: 30.8%; Liposarcoma/adipocytic sarcoma: 17.3%; Undifferentiated pleomorphic: 15.4%; Miscellaneous sarcoma: 26.9%; Synovial sarcoma: 9.6%

Gemcitabine 900 mg/m2 over 90 minutes, D1+D8 + docetaxel 100 mg/m2 over 60 min, D8 q21 days

Pautier 2009 [27, 31]~

R, BU, AC, MC, Phase II

84**

-

-

Unclear

Anthracycline: 100%

-

Leiomyosarcoma: 100%

Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 over 100 minutes, d1+d8+d15 q28 days

Pautier 2009 [27, 31]~

  

-

-

 

Anthracycline: 100%

-

Leiomyosarcoma: 100%

Sorafenib 400 mg twice daily orally

Pacey 2011 [28]

R, DB, PC, MC-I, Phase II

2

-

-

Unclear

Anthracycline and/or ifosfamide: 100%

-

Fibrosarcoma: 0.0%

Placebo

Pacey 2011 [28]

 

2

67 (62–72)

0

  

PS 0: 2 (100)

Leiomyosarcoma: 50.0%; Fibrosarcoma: 50.0%

PS 1: 0 (0.0)

Ifosfamide 5 g/m2/1 day given as 24-hour infusion; all cycles were repeated q3w

van Oosterom 2002 [29]

R, BU, DR, MC-I, Phase II

27

-

-

Unclear

Anthracycline: 100%

-

-

Ifosfamide 3 g/m2/day given over 4 hour on 3 consecutive days; all cycles were repeated q3w

van Oosterom 2002 [29]

 

31

-

-

 

Anthracycline: 100%

-

-

AC: Active-controlled; BU: Blinding Unclear; DB: Double-blind; DR: Dose Ranging; ECOG: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; q3w: Every Three Weeks; q2w: Every Two weeks; qw: Every week; MFH: Malignant Fibrous Histiocytoma; min: Minutes; MC: Multicentre; MC-I: Multicentre International; OL: Open Label; PS: Performance Status; STS: Soft Tissue Sarcoma; *N represents number of patients randomised except for Pacey 2011 study and van Oosterom 2002 where N represents the patient population of interest with respect to prior treatment for advanced disease; **Represents total number of patients randomised in the study (number of patients randomised to each arm not reported); -Represents data not reported; ¶Represents data for the complete study population; ~Represents secondary reference.

The number of patients randomised across all RCTs was greater than 50, except for the study by Pacey and colleagues that randomised five patients [28]. Of the five patients randomised in this study, one patient was chemotherapy-naive and hence did not meet the inclusion criteria of the review. In addition, this small-sized study was not a true RCT [28]. All the patients initially received sorafenib in a 12-week open-label run-in period following which patients with ≥25% tumour shrinkage continued sorafenib, those with ≥25% tumour growth discontinued, and the remaining patients were randomised to treatment with sorafenib (2 patients) or placebo (2 patients) [28]. In terms of the patient population recruited across these studies, leiomyoscaroma was the most commonly enrolled subtype of STS followed by liposarcoma and undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma. Across all the included RCTs, at least 90% of patients received prior treatment in an advanced setting, except for the study by van Oosterom and colleagues [29]. This study recruited a mixed population of patients previously treated in an adjuvant or advanced setting, with limited subgroup data for the patients previously treated in the advanced setting [29].

The quality assessment of the included RCTs using the comprehensive critical appraisal tool based on the NICE and Cochrane’s critical appraisal tool is detailed in an additional file (see Additional file 3). None of the RCTs included in the review were identified as being at a high risk of bias.

Efficacy/activity results

Table 2 summarises the various efficacy/activity results observed across the included RCTs. The RCTs included in the review have been examined separately according to the phase of the trial.
Table 2

Summary of various efficacy/activity outcomes observed across randomised controlled trials

Intervention

Study

N

Progression free survival

Overall survival

Response rate

Progressive disease

   

PFS rate, n (%)

PFS in months

1 year OS

OS in months

ORR

CR

PR

SD

PD

   

3-month

6-month

median (95% CI)

n (%)

median (95% CI)

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

Pazopanib

PALETTE study 2011/2

246

-

-

4.6†

-

12.6

11 (4.5) †

0 (0.0) †

11 (4.5) †

134 (54.5)†

66 (26.8) †

Placebo

PALETTE study 2011

123

-

-

1.6†

-

10.7

0 (0.0) †

0 (0.0) †

0 (0.0) †

33 (26.8) †

76 (61.8) †

Trabectedin 1.5 mg/m2 q3w

Demetri 2009

136

70 (51.5)

48 (35.5)

3.3† (2.1 - 4.6)

82 (60.0)

13.9 (12.5 - 18.6)

8 (5.6)†

-

-

-

-

Trabectedin 0.58 mg/m2 qw

Demetri 2009

134

60 (44.7)

37 (27.5)

2.3† (2.0 - 3.4)

67 (50.0)

11.8 (9.9 - 14.9)

2 (1.6)†

-

-

-

-

Dacarbazine

GEIS study

54

19 (35.2); p=0.001

-

2.0#

-

8.2§

2 (3.7)‡, p=0.16

-

2 (4.0)*#

10 (19.0)*#

-

Gemcitabine + Dacarbazine

GEIS study

59

32 (54.2); p=0.001

-

4.2#

-

16.8§

7 (11.9)‡, p=0.16

-

5 (9.0)* #

22 (38.0)*#

-

Sorafenib

Pacey 2011

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0 (0.0) #

Placebo

Pacey 2011

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0 (0.0) #

2 (100) #

0 (0.0) #

Gemcitabine

Pautier 2009

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Gemcitabine + Docetaxel

Pautier 2009

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Ifosfamide 5 g/m2/day

van Oosterom 2002

27

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Ifosfamide 3 g/m2/day

van Oosterom 2002

31

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CI: Confidence Interval; CR: Complete Response; INV: Investigator; IRC: Independent Review Committee; N: Number of evaluable Patients; n: Number with Outcome; ORR: Overall Response Rate; OS: Overall Survival; PFS: Progression-free Survival; PR: Partial Response; q3w: Every Three Weeks; qw: Every Week; SD: Stable Disease; *p=0.01; †Assessments were made by the independent review committee; ‡Assessments were made by the investigator; #Unclear if assessed by investigator or the Independent Review Committee; §Kaplan-Meier estimates reported; -Represents data not reported.

Phase III trials

The only Phase III trial included in the review was the PALETTE trial evaluating pazopanib (N=246) versus placebo (N=123) in advanced STS patients (excluding GIST, liposarcoma and other subtypes). The data presented here are from an analysis conducted by the manufacturer for regulatory purposes [18, 19] and differ slightly from an analysis conducted by the study’s collaborative partner [30, 32] as a consequence of small differences in censoring rules and data handling. A summary of these minor differences in results between analyses can be found in Additional file 4. This trial demonstrated a significantly prolonged primary endpoint of PFS (per independent review) for pazopanib compared with placebo (Hazard Ratio (HR): 0.35 [95% CI: 0.26 - 0.48]; p<0.001) [18, 19]. The benefit in PFS was consistently observed across all three histological sub-types included in the study (leiomyosarcoma [p<0.001], synovial sarcoma [p=0.005], and other STS sub-types [p<0.001]). The best overall response based on the independent radiology review also favoured pazopanib. However, there was no statistically significant difference between pazopanib and placebo for median OS (HR: 0.87 [95% CI: 0.67 - 1.12]; p=0.256) [18, 19]. These results should be interpreted in view of the fact that patients treated with pazopanib and placebo received post-study therapy including trabectedin (25% vs. 32%), gemcitabine (17% vs. 23%), a taxane (10% vs. 18%) and ifosfamide (10% vs. 17%) that might have potentially confounded the OS results [19]. This was the only study to report quality of life data. Based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, no clinically meaningful or statistically significant differences in global health status were observed between pazopanib and placebo patients remaining on treatment at the assessment time points [18, 19].

Phase II trials

PFS rate at 3 months was the primary activity measure in the GEIS study comparing the combination of gemcitabine and dacarbazine (N=59) against dacarbazine monotherapy (N=54) [20, 21]. The PFS rate at 3 months was significantly better for gemcitabine plus dacarbazine than dacarbazine monotherapy (p=0.001). Similar results, favouring the combination, were observed in terms of the secondary efficacy endpoints evaluated including median PFS (HR: 0.58 [95% CI: 0.39 - 0.86]; p=0.005), median OS (HR: 0.56 [95% CI: 0.36 - 0.90]; p=0.014), and response rate [20, 21]. Fifty-three percent of patients initially treated with dacarbazine monotherapy and 51% of patients treated with the combination of gemcitabine and dacarbazine received post-study therapy comprising mainly gemcitabine-based regimens, trabectedin, and taxanes [20, 21].

TTP was the primary activity endpoint in the study by Demetri and colleagues evaluating the two dosing schedules of trabectedin [2226]. Median TTP favoured the trabectedin q3w 24-hour dosing schedule (N=136) over the qw 3-hour dosing schedule (N=134) when assessment was made by investigator (4.2 months vs. 2.5 months; HR: 0.668 [95% CI: 0.506 – 0.883]; p=0.0042) and IRC (3.7 months vs. 2.3 months; HR: 0.734 [95% CI: 0.554 - 0.974]; p=0.03) [2226]. In terms of the secondary activity measures, median PFS was significantly longer with the q3w 24-hour schedule than the qw 3-hour schedule (p=0.0418), while no significant differences between the two dosing schedules were observed in median OS (HR: 0.843 [95% CI: 0.653 - 1.090]; p=0.1920) [2226]. The PFS rate, 1-year OS rate, and ORR also favoured the q3w 24-hour dosing schedule over the qw 3-hour dosing schedule. Forty-nine patients in this study received post-study therapy by crossing-over to the other schedule (35 patients crossed-over after progression as allowed by the protocol [29 patients from qw 3-hour arm to q3w 24-hour arm, and 6 patients from q3w 24-hour arm to qw 3-hour arm] and 14 patients before progression [following independent data monitoring committee recommendation, all from qw 3-hour to q3w 24-hour arm]) [2226].

Limited activity data were obtained from the remaining three RCTs included in the review [2729]. The study by van Oosterom and colleagues evaluating two different ifosfamide regimens provided no subgroup efficacy data including OS, TTP, PFS, and response duration specifically for patients previously treated in an advanced setting [29]. Similarly, in the study by Pacey and colleagues, although the PFS rate at 12 weeks was the primary activity endpoint, the study did not report data for patients randomised to sorafenib or placebo. The only activity data reported in this study was SD in all four patients receiving sorafenib or placebo at 12 weeks [28]. Activity data were also not reported in the conference abstract for the TAXOGEM study by Pautier and colleagues [27].

Safety results

Overall, AEs were not consistently reported across the RCTs included in the review. The most commonly reported grade 3/4 AEs (≥5%) in association with pazopanib in the Phase III PALETTE trial were fatigue (14%), lymphopenia (10%) tumour pain (8%), increased alanine transaminase (ALT) (10%), increased aspartate aminotransferase (AST) (8%), hypertension (7%), dyspnoea (6%), anaemia (6%), decreased appetite (6%), and diarrhoea (5%) [18, 19]. Across the Phase II trials, haematological AEs were commonly experienced with treatments including dacarbazine, gemcitabine plus dacarbazine, and trabectedin. In addition to haematological AEs, ≥5% of patients experienced grade 3/4 ALT increase, creatinine phosphokinase increase, and fatigue with the two dosing schedules of trabectedin [2226] and grade 3/4 asthenia with gemcitabine plus dacarbazine and dacarbazine monotherapy [20, 21]. Grade 3/4 nausea, vomiting, and AST increase were also experienced by ≥5% of patients treated with trabectedin 24-hour schedule [2226]. Summaries for grade 3 and/or 4 AEs reported in >1% patients across the included studies are shown in Table 3.
Table 3

Summary of grade 3 and/or 4 specific adverse events reported in >1% patients across randomised controlled trials

AEs by class

PALETTE study 2011#

Demetri 2009

GEIS study 2011

Pautier 2009

Pacey 2011*

van Oosterom 2002

 

Pazopanib, n (%)

Placebo, n (%)

Trabectedin 1.5 mg/m2 q3w, n (%)

Trabectedin 0.58 mg/m2 qw, n (%)

Dacarbazine, n (%)

Gemcitabine + Dacarbazine, n (%)

Gemcitabine, n (%)

Gemcitabine + Docetaxel, n (%)

Placebo, n (%)

Sorafenib, n (%)

Ifosfamide 5 g/m2/day, n (%)

Ifosfamide 3 g/m2/day, n (%)

Evaluable N

240

123

130

130

52

57

-

-

2

2

27

31

GI disorders

 Abdominal pain

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

6 (4.6)

6 (4.6)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Constipation

1 (0.4)

3 (2.4)

0 (0.0)

2 (1.5)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Diarrhoea

11 (4.6)

1 (0.8)

1 (0.8)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

-

-

-

-

-

-

 GI pain

6 (2.5)

5 (4.1)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Mucositis/stomatitis

1 (0.4)

0 (0.0)

-

-

0 (0.0)

1 (1.8)

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Nausea

8 (3.3)

2 (1.6)

7 (5.4)

3 (2.3)

1 (1.9)~

0 (0.0)~

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Nausea/vomiting

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0 (0.0)$

-

 Vomiting

8 (3.3)

1 (0.8)

7 (5.4)

2 (1.5)

0 (0.0)~

1 (1.8)~

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Small intestinal obstruction

3 (1.3)

0 (0.0)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

General disorders

 Asthenia

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

-

-

5 (9.6)~

4 (7.0)~

-

-

-

-

 

-

 Back pain

-

-

4 (3.1)

4 (3.1)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Fatigue

33 (13.7)

6 (4.9)

10 (7.7)

9 (6.9)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Peripheral oedema

5 (2.1)

2 (1.6)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Chest pain

4 (1.7)

0 (0.0)

          

Skin and subcutaneous tissues disorders

 Skin disorder

4 (1.7)

0 (0.0)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Investigations

 ALT increased

23 (9.6)

4 (3.3)

62 (47.7)

12 (9.2)

-

-

-

-

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

-

-

 Alkaline phosphatase

7 (2.9)

1 (0.8)

2 (1.5)

3 (2.3)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 AST increased

19 (7.9)

2 (1.6)

41 (31.5)

4 (3.1)

-

-

-

-

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

-

-

 Creatinine increased

1 (0.4)

0 (0.0)

3 (2.3)

1 (0.8)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Creatinine phosphokinase

-

-

7 (5.4)

12 (9.2)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Bilirubin increased

3 (1.3)

2 (1.6)

1 (0.8)

1 (0.8)

-

-

-

-

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

-

-

 Gamma-glutamyltransferase

4 (1.7)

0 (0.0)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Weight loss

9 (3.8)

0 (0.0)

-

-

-

-

-

-

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

-

-

 ENT examination abnormal

4 (1.7)

0 (0.0)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Hypoalbuminemia

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

-

-

Hemorrhagic events

 Hemorrhagic event (any)

5 (2.0)

2 (1.6)

-

-

-

-

-

-

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

-

-

Metabolism and nutrition disorders

 Decreased appetite

14 (5.9)

0 (0.0)

1 (0.8)

0 (0.0)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Dehydration

3 (1.4)

0 (0.0)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders

 Arthralgia/myalgia

5 (2.1)

0 (0.0)

-

-

-

-

-

-

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

-

-

 Musculoskeletal pain

5 (2.1)

2 (1.6)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Respiratory, thoracic, and medistinal disorders

 Dyspnoea

15 (6.3)

7 (5.7)

5 (3.8)

8 (6.2)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Pleural effusion

5 (2.1)

0 (0.0)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Blood and lymphatic system disorders

 Anaemia

15 (6.3)

2 (1.6)

10 (7.7)

12 (9.2)

6 (11.5)

2 (3.5)

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Febrile neutropenia

-

-

-

-

3 (5.8)

5 (8.8)

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Leukopenia

3 (1.3)

0 (0.0)

-

-

16 (30.8)

15 (26.3)

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Neutropenia

10 (4.2)

0 (0.0)

61 (46.9)

17 (13.1)

17 (32.7)

27 (47.4)

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Thrombocytopenia

9 (3.8)

0 (0.0)

15 (11.5)

7 (5.4)

14 (26.9)

3 (5.3)

-

-

-

-

0 (0.0)$

-

 Lymphopenia

23 (9.6)

13 (10.6)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Cardiac disease

 Hypertension

16 (6.7)

0 (0.0)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Myocardial/LVEF Dysfunction

4 (1.7)

0 (0.0)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Other disorders

 Tumour pain

20 (8.3)

9 (7.3)

          

 Non-haemotological

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

The data for the PALETTE study is likely to be more comprehensive than for the other studies since extracted from the CSR versus published reports for the other studies; AE: Adverse Events; ALT: Alanine Transaminase; AST: Aspartate Aminotransferase; GI: Gastrointestinal; N: Number of Patients; n: Number with Outcome; q3w: Every Three Weeks; qw: Every Week; *Grade 3–5 AEs are reported in Pacey 2011 trial; #Data reported for haematology and liver enzyme abnormalities in PALETTE study by maximum grade shift (any increase in grade) based on clinical laboratory evaluations; all other data for PALETTE based on AE reports; -Represents data not reported; $Represents Grade 4 event; ~Represents Grade 3 event; ¶ Number of patients analysed was not reported and hence, percentage of patients could not be computed.

Treatment discontinuations

Overall, four of the six included RCTs reported data related to treatment discontinuations. In the Phase III PALETTE trial, pazopanib was associated with a higher proportion of patients discontinuing treatment due to AEs compared with placebo (Table 4) [19]. Across the Phase II RCTs, the proportion of patients discontinuing treatment due to AEs were comparable with the two dosing schedules of trabectedin [2226], while in the GEIS study none of the patients treated with gemcitabine plus dacarbazine discontinued therapy due to AEs [20, 21]. Summaries of the treatment discontinuations observed across the included RCTs are shown in Table 4.
Table 4

Results of treatment discontinuations across randomised controlled trials

Intervention

Study

N

Treatment discontinuation, n (%)

Most common AEs leading to discontinuations

   

All

Due to AE

Due to death

Due to PD

Due to lost to follow-up

Due to patient decision

Due to other reasons

 

Pazopanib

PALETTE study 2011/2

246

240 (97.6)

41 (16.7)

3 (1.2)

178 (72.4)

0 (0.0)

14 (5.7)

4 (1.6)¶

ALT elevation, dyspnoea, left ventricular dysfunction, fatigue, hypertension, vomiting, depressed mood, embolism, nausea, pericardial effusion, and small intestinal obstruction

Placebo

PALETTE study 2011/2

123

123

(100)

3 (2.4)

0 (0)

119 (96.7)

0 (0.0)

1 (0.8)

0 (0.0)

Dyspnoea

Trabectedin 1.5 mg/m2 q3w

Demetri 2009

136

128 (94.1)

12 (8.8)

2 (1.5)

89 (65.4)

2 (1.5)

17 (12.5)

6 (4.4)†

AEs leading to disconsolation were not reported

Trabectedin 0.58 mg/m2 qw

Demetri 2009

134

134 (100)

10 (7.5)

3 (2.2)

94 (70.1)

0 (0.0)

6 (4.5)

21 (15.7)‡

AEs leading to disconsolation were not reported

Dacarbazine

GEIS study 2011

54

50 (92.6)

2 (3.7)

-

41 (75.9)

0 (0.0)

-

7 (13.0)

-

Gemcitabine + Dacarbazine

GEIS study 2011

59

47 (79.7)

0 (0.0)

-

36 (61.0)

0 (0.0)

1 (1.7)

10 (16.9)

-

Gemcitabine

Pautier 2009

84*

-

3

-

-

-

-

-

AEs leading to disconsolation were not reported

Gemcitabine + Docetaxel

Pautier 2009

 

-

9

-

-

-

-

-

Hypersensitivity in one patient

AE: Adverse Events; N: Number of Patients; n: Number with Outcome; PD: Progressive Disease; q3w: Every Three Weeks; qw: Every Week; -Represents data not reported; *Represents total population randomised in the study (patients randomised in each arm not reported); ¶Includes three patients discontinuing treatment due to protocol violation; †Includes patients discontinuing due to screening failure (n=3) and ineligibility of patients (n=2); ‡Includes patients discontinuing due to screening failure (n=2), cross-over before progression (n=14), and ineligibility of patients (n=1).

Non-randomised studies

Trial characteristics

A summary of the 52 prospective non-randomised studies with sample size more than 10 [3372] is presented in Table 5. Further details regarding the study design and patient characteristics for these studies are presented in an additional file (see Additional file 5). The list of retrospective studies and studies with a sample size less than 10 is also provided as an additional file (see Additional file 6).
Table 5

Summary of relevant prospective non-randomised trials (with sample size more than 10) included in the review

Intervention

Dose

Study

N

STS subtypes (%)

Brostallicin

10 mg/m2

Leahy 2007 [33]

43

Multiple

Cisplatin

50 mg/m2

Thigpen 1986 [34]

20

Leiomyosarcoma

Cyclophosphamide

1.5 g/m2

Bramwell 1993 [35, 36]~

18

NS

Dacarbazine

1200 mg/m2

Buesa 1991 [73]

47

Multiple

Docetaxel

100 mg/m2

Kostler 2001 [37]

25

Multiple

Docetaxel

100 mg/m2

Santoro 1999 [38]

37

Multiple

Docetaxel

100 mg/m2

van Hoesel 1994 [39, 40]~

21

NS

Doxorubicin

75 mg/m2

Mouridsen 1987 [41]

23

NS

Etoposide

200-240 mg/m2/day

Crawley 1997 [42]

17

Multiple

Etoposide

130 mg/m2

Dombernowsky 1987 [43]

26

NS

Gefitinib

500 mg

Ray-Coquard 2008 [44]

48

Synovial sarcoma≈

Gemcitabine

1000 mg/m2

Ferraresi 2008 [74]

14

Multiple

Gemcitabine

1000 mg/m2

Hartmann 2006 [45]

15

Multiple

Gemcitabine

1000 mg/m2

Look 2004 [75]

35

Leiomyosarcoma

Gemcitabine

200-250 mg/m2

Spath-Schwalbe 2000 [46]

18

Multiple

Ifosfamide

2 g/m2 for 4d q3w

Antman 1985 [47]

31

Multiple

Ifosfamide

2 g/m2 for 4d q3w

Antman 1989 [48]

94

Multiple

Ifosfamide

1 g/m2 daily until Gr3 granulocytopenia q4w

Babovic 1998 [76]

21

Multiple

Ifosfamide

4 g/m2 for 3d q4w

Le Cesne 1995 [49, 77]~

40

Multiple

Ifosfamide

4 g/m2 for 3d q4w

Nielsen 2000 [78]

13

NS

Ifosfamide

3.5 g/m2 for 4d q3w

Palumbo 1997 [79]

38

Multiple

Ifosfamide

4 g/m2 for 3.5d q3w

Patel 1997 [80]

12

Multiple

Ifosfamide

2g/m2 loading dose followed by 4g/m2 for 3d q3w

Patel 1997 [80]

32

Multiple

Ifosfamide

60 mg/kg for 5d q3-4w

Scheulen 1983 [81]

16

NS

Liposomal doxorubicin

55 mg/m2

Skubitz 2003 [50]

20

Multiple

Liposomal doxorubicin

30-50 mg/m2

Toma 2000 [51]

25

Multiple

Methotrexate

40 mg/m2

Buesa 1984 [52]

37

NS

Paclitaxel

135-175 mg/m2

Palumbo 1997 [53]

12

Multiple

Paclitaxel

200 mg/m2

Patel 1997 [54]

12

Multiple

Paclitaxel

120 mg/m2

Skubitz 1997 [55]

17

Multiple

Sorafenib

400 mg

Bertuzzi 2010 [56, 57]~

61

Multiple

Sorafenib

400 mg

Pacey 2011 [28]

16

Multiple

Sunitinib

50 mg

Decoster 2010 [58]

24

NS

Trabectedin

1.5 mg/m2

Garcia-Carbonero 2004 [59, 60, 82]~

36

Multiple

Trabectedin

1.5 mg/m2

Le Cesne 2005 [83]

104

Multiple

Trabectedin

1.5 mg/m2

Yovine 2004 [61, 84]~

27

Multiple

Biricodar + doxorubicin

B - 120 mg1.5 mg/m2/hr; D – 60 mg/m2

Bramwell 2002 [62]

18

Multiple

Cisplatin + ifosfamide

C – 100 mg/m2 day 2&9; I −2.5 g/m2 for 3d

Budd 1993 [85]

38

Multiple

Cisplatin + vinblastine

C – 50–100 mg/m2 day 1; V – 1.0-1.2 mg/m2 for 5d

Keohan 1997 [63]

18

Multiple

D + IL-2

D – 70 mg/m2; IL-2 - 18 MIU/m2

Le Cesne 1999 [64]

12

NS

Epirubicin + lonidamine

E – 120 mg/m2; I – 150–450 mg

Lopez 1995 [65]

25

Multiple

Etoposide + ifosfamide

E – 200 mg/m2 for 3d; I – 1.5 g/m2 for 3d

Saeter 1995 [86]

11

NS

Etoposide + ifosfamide

E – 50 mg/m2 for 8d; I - 1.5 g/m2 for 6d

Skubitz 1993 [87]

16

Multiple

Gemcitabine + dacarbazine

G – 800–2160 mg/m2; DTIC – 500 mg/m2

Buesa 2004 [66]

22

Multiple

Gemcitabine + dacarbazine

G – 1800 mg/m2; DTIC – 500 mg/m2

Losa 2007 [67]

26

Multiple

Gemcitabine + docetaxel

G – 900 mg/m2; D – 100 mg/m2

Hensley 2002 [88]

16

Leiomyosarcoma

Gemcitabine + docetaxel

G – 900 mg/m2; D – 100 mg/m2

Hensley 2008 [89]

51

Leiomyosarcoma

Gemcitabine + docetaxel

G – 900 mg/m2; D – 100 mg/m2

Montalar 2008 [68]

12

Multiple

Methotrexate + vincristine

M – 5 g/m2; V – 1 mg/m2

Vaughn 1984 [69]

14

NS

VAC + IE

V – 2 mg; A – 70 mg/m2; C – 600 mg/m2; I – 1.8 g/m2; E – 500 mg/m2

Palumbo 1998 [70]

12

NS

C + VC + D + DTIC + IL-2

IL-2 – 18 m units/d, followed by CYVADIC

Gravis 2001 [71]

1

Leiomyosarcoma

D + I + DTIC + IL-2

IL-2 – 18 m units/d, followed by D+I+DTIC

Gravis 2001 [71]

9

Multiple

D + IL-2

IL-2 – 18 m units/d, followed by D

Gravis 2001 [71]

3

Multiple

Carboplatin + etoposide

C – 300 mg/m2; E – 300 mg/m2

Holstein 1996 [72]

8

Multiple

Dacarbazine

1200 mg/m2

Holstein 1996 [72]

14

Multiple

C + VC + D + DTIC + IL-2: Cyclophosphamide + Vincristine + Doxorubicin + Dacarbazine + Interleukin-2; D + IL-2: Doxorubicin + Interleukin-2; D + I + DTIC + IL-2: Doxorubicin + Ifosfamide + Dacarbazine + Interleukin-2; N: Number of Included Patients; n-RCT: Non-Randomised Controlled Trials; VAC + IE: Vincristine + Adriamycin + Cyclophosphamide + Ifosfamide + Etoposide; ~Represents secondary reference; NS: Not Specified; ≈Comprise 4.2% other soft tissue sarcoma.

The majority of the included prospective studies were Phase II trials with a variety of chemotherapeutic regimens evaluated across these studies. Ifosfamide was the most commonly evaluated monotherapy (nine studies) followed by gemcitabine (four studies), docetaxe l (three studies), paclitaxel (three studies), and trabectedin (three studies), while gemcitabine-based regimens were the most frequently evaluated combination therapy (five studies). Response, PFS, DOR, TTP, OS, and safety were the most commonly assessed outcomes in the included studies.

The quality assessment of the included non-randomised studies based on the Downs and Black checklist demonstrated that studies were reported reasonably well in terms of study question, methods, patient population, outcomes measures, and results [16].

Efficacy results

Across the non-randomised evidence, there was heterogeneity in the efficacy results. For example, in nine studies assessing ifosfamide monotherapy, variable activity was observed in terms of response rate (4.8% [76] to 62.5% [81]) (Table 6). Although a wide variety of doses and schedules was used in these trials, with cumulative dose per cycle ranging from 8 to 14 mg/m2, this did not have a clear impact on efficacy. Gemcitabine as monotherapy (four studies) and in combination therapy demonstrated a variable efficacy in terms of median OS (monotherapy: 6.0 months to 11.8 months; combination therapy: 14.7 months) and ORR (monotherapy: 6.7% to 21.2%; combination therapy: 3.8% to 50.0%). However, a superior response rate (>20%) was observed with gemcitabine monotherapy (21.2% vs. 6.7% to 11.1%) and gemcitabine plus docetaxel (25.5% to 50.0% vs. 8.3%) among patients with uterine leiomyosarcoma compared with patients with mixed STS subtypes (Table 6). Once more, there were no clear trends relating to dose of gemcitabine.
Table 6

Efficacy/Activity outcomes across prospective non-randomised trials with sample size more than 10

Intervention

Study

N

Response rate n (%), IRC or unclear

PFS

TTP in months

OS

DOR in months

Progressive disease

   

ORR

CR

PR

MR

SD

n (%) or median (95% CI)

Median (range)

n (%) or median (range)

Median (range)

n (%), IRC or unclear

Brostallicin

Leahy 2007

40

2 (5.0%)~

0 (0.0 %)~

2 (5.0%) ~

-

20 (50.0 %)~

3 mo: 18 (45.0%)~; 6 mo: 9 (22.5%)~

2.9 months~ (1.4 - 3.7)

7.6 months (5.2 - 13.8)

-

17 (42.5%)~

Cisplatin

Thigpen 1986

19

1 (5.3%)

1 (5.3%)

0 (0.0%)

-

7 (36.8%)

-

-

-

9 months (N = 1)

11 (57.9%)

Cyclophosphamide

Bramwell 1993

18

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Dacarbazine

Buesa 1991

44

8 (18.2%)

1 (2.3%)

7 (15.9%)

-

8 (18.2%)

-

-

-

-

28 (63.6%)

Docetaxel

Kostler 2001

25

4 (16.0%)

0 (0.0%)

4 (16.0%)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Docetaxel

Santoro 1999

36

1 (2.8%)#

0 (0.0%)

1 (2.8%)

-

10 (27.8%)

1.4 months (N = 37)

-

11.5 months (N = 37)

-

25 (69.4%)

Docetaxel

Van Hoesel 1994

21

-

0 (0.0%)~

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Doxorubicin

Mouridsen 1987

23

2 (8.7%)~

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Etoposide

Crawley 1997

16

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

-

8 (50.0%)

-

-

3.7 months (2.1 - 5.2)* (N = 17)

-

8 (50.0%)

Etoposide

Dombernowsky 1987

26

-

-

1 (3.8%)

-

-

-

-

-

19 months (N = 1)

-

Gefitinib

Ray-Coquard 2008

46

0 (0.0%)~

0 (0.0%)~

0 (0.0%)~

0 (0.0%)~

10 (21.7%)~

4 mo: 10 (21.7%)~; 6 mo: 3 (6.5%)~

1.4 months~

-

-

32 (69.6%)~

Gemcitabine

Ferraresi 2008

14

1 (7.1%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (7.1%)

-

3 (21.4%)

-

3.1 months (1.0 - 9.5)

11.8 months (1.0 - 54.5)

6.5 months (N = 1)

10 (71.4%)

Gemcitabine

Hartmann 2006

15

1 (6.7%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (6.7%)

-

7 (46.7%)

3 mo: 7 (46.7%); 6 mo: 2 (13.3%); 3.0 months (1.0 – 33.0)

3 months

6.0 months (3.0 - 33.0)

-

7 (46.7%)

Gemcitabine

Look 2004

33

7 (21.2%)

1 (3.0%)

6 (18.2%)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Gemcitabine

Spath-Schwalbe 2000

18

2 (11.1%)#

0 (0.0%)

2 (11.1%)

-

6 (33.3%)

-

-

12 mo: 5 (27.8%); 8 months

5.5 months (5.0 - 6.0) (N = 2)

9 (50.0%)

Ifosfamide

Antman 1985

26

8 (30.8%)#

0 (0.0%)

8 (30.8%)

3 (11.5%)

11 (42.3%)

-

-

-

(2.0 – 10.0+) (N = 11)

4 (15.4%)

Ifosfamide

Antman 1989

94

17 (18.1%)

2 (2.1%)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Ifosfamide

Babovic 1998

21

1 (4.8%)

1 (4.8%)

0 (0.0%)

-

4 (19.0%)

-

-

-

-

16 (76.2%)

Ifosfamide

Le Cesne 1995

36

12 (33.3%)

0 (0.0%)

12 (33.3%)

-

8 (22.2%)

-

-

20.0 months (6.0 – 91.0+) (N = 40)

8.0 months (6.0 – 13.0+) (N = 12)

16 (44.4%)

Ifosfamide

Nielsen 2000

Unclear

1 (7.7%)~

0 (0.0%) ~

1 (7.7%) ~

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Ifosfamide

Palumbo 1997a

38

15 (39.5%)

1 (2.6%)

14 (36.8%)

-

17 (44.7%)

-

-

13.0 months (6.0 – 30.0+)

9.0 months (5.0 – 21.0+) (N = 15)

6 (15.8)

Ifosfamide

Patel 1997b

11

5 (45.5%)

0 (0.0%)

5 (45.5%)

-

2 (18.2%)

-

-

-

-

4 (36.4%)

Ifosfamide

Patel 1997b

32

6 (18.8%)

2 (6.3%)

4 (12.5%)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Ifosfamide

Scheulen 1983

16

10 (62.5%)

2 (12.5%)

3 (18.8%)

5 (31.3%)

1 (6.3%)

-

-

-

-

5 (31.3%)

Liposomal doxorubicin

Skubitz 2003

20

1 (5.0%)#

1 (5.0%)

0 (0.0%)

3 (15.0%)

3 (15.0%)

-

-

-

-

12 (60.0%)

Liposomal doxorubicin

Toma 2000

25

3 (12.0%)

0 (0.0%)

3 (12.0%)

2 (8.0%)

17 (68.0%)

-

-

12.0 months (6.0 – 16.0+)

(3.0 – 9.0+) (N = 3)

3 (12.0%)

Methotrexate

Buesa 1984

21

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Paclitaxel

Palumbo 1997b

12

1 (8.3%)#

0 (0.0%)

1 (8.3%)

1 (8.3%)

6 (50.0%)

-

3 months

6 months

4 months (N = 1)

4 (33.3%)

Paclitaxel

Patel 1997a

12

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

-

-

-

-

-

 

-

Paclitaxel

Skubitz 1997

15

1 (6.7%)#

0

1 (6.7%)

-

-

-

-

-

12 months (N = 1)

-

Sorafenib

Bertuzzi 2010

61

-

-

9 (14.8%)

-

-

6 mo: 20 (32.7%)

-

6 mo: 41 (67.2%) (N = 61)

-

-

Sorafenib

Bertuzzi 2010

30$

2 (6.7%)#

1 (3.3%)

1 (3.3%)

-

18 (60.0%)

-

-

-

-

10 (33.3%)

Sorafenib

Pacey 2011

16

-

-

-

-

0 (0.0%)

-

-

-

-

-

Sunitinib

Decoster 2010

20

1 (5.0%)#

0 (0.0%)

1 (5.0%)

-

4 (20.0%)

-

-

-

8.3 months (N =1)

15 (75.0%)

Trabectedin

Garcia-Carbonero 2004

36

3 (8.3%)

1 (2.8%)

2 (5.6%)

2 (5.6%)

-

12 mo: 4 (11.1%)

1.7 months (1.3 - 4.4)*

6 mo: 27 (75.0%); 12 mo: 19 (52.7%); 12.1 months (8.1 - 26.5)*

9.0 months (4.0 – 20.0) (N = 3)

-

Trabectedin

Le Cesne 2005

104

8 (8.7%)~ (N = 92)

0 (0.0%) ~ (N = 92)

8 (8.7%) ~(N = 92)

-

44 (47.8%) ~† (N=92)

3 mo: 54 (52%)~; 6 mo: 30 (29%)~; 9 mo: 21 (20%)~; 12 mo: 18 (17%)~

3.4 months (2.5 - 4.1)* ~ (N = 99)

12 mo: 44 (42%); 9.1 months (7.8 - 12.1)*

11.6 months~ (N = 8)

35 (38.0%)~ (N = 92)

Trabectedin

Yovine 2004

27

2 (7.4%) ~

0 (0.0%) ~

2 (7.4%) ~

2 (7.4%) ~

4 (14.8%) ~

-

-

-

12.2 months~ (N = 2)

-

Biricodar + doxorubicin

Bramwell 2002

15

2 (13.3%) ~#

0 (0.0%) ~

2 (13.3%) ~

-

7 (46.7%) ~

3.1 months~ (N = 15)

-

-

-

6 (40.0%)~

Cisplatin + ifosfamide

Budd 1993

38

8 (21.0%)

3 (7.9%)

5 (13.2%)

-

-

-

-

11 months

-

-

Cisplatin + vinblastine

Keohan 1997

15

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

-

7 (46.7%)

-

2.0 months (0.7 - 12.0) (N =18)

-

-

8 (53.3%)

D + IL-2

Le Cesne 1999

12

2 (16.7%)

0 (0.0%)

2 (16.7%)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Epirubicin + lonidamine

Lopez 1995

24

2 (8.3%)

0 (0.0%)

2 (8.3%)

-

1 (4.2%)

-

-

14 months (N =24)

6.5 months (N =2)

-

Etoposide + ifosfamide

Saeter 1995

10

6 (60.0%)

0 (0.0%)

6 (60.0%)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Etoposide + ifosfamide

Skubitz 1993

15

6 (40.0%)

0 (0.0%)

6 (40.0%)

-

5 (33.3%)

-

-

-

(3.0 – 31.0+)~ (N = 6)

4 (26.7%)

Gemcitabine + dacarbazine

Buesa 2004

22

5 (26.3%)

(N = 19)

0 (0.0%) (N = 19)

5 (26.3%) (N = 19)

-

6 (31.6%) (N=19)

3 mo: 9 (40.9%) (N = 22); 6 mo: 6 (27.3%) (N = 22)

-

-

6.5 months (2.5 – 36.0) (N =5)

8 (42.1%) (N = 19)

Gemcitabine + dacarbazine

Losa 2007

23

1 (4.3%)

1 (4.3%)

0 (0.0%)

-

11 (47.8%)

3 mo: 12 (46.2%) (N = 26); 6 mo: 7 (26.9%) (N = 26)

3.6 months (N = 23)

8.5 months (N = 23)

-

11 (47.8%)

Gemcitabine + docetaxel

Hensley 2002

16

8 (50.0%) ~

1 (6.3%) ~

7 (43.8%) ~

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Gemcitabine + docetaxel

Hensley 2008

48

13 (27.1%)

3 (6.3%)

10 (20.8%)

-

24 (50.0%)

3 mo: 35 (72.9%) (N = 48); 6 mo: 25 (52.1%) (N = 48); 6.7 months (0.7 – 27.0+) (N = 48)

-

14.7 months (0.8 - 50.9+) (N = 48)

9.0 months (3.9 - 24.5) (N = 13)

8 (16.7%)

Gemcitabine + docetaxel

Montalar 2008

12

1 (8.3%)#

0 (0.0%)

1 (8.3%)

-

4 (33.3%)

-

-

-

-

7 (58.3%)

Methotrexate + vincristine

Vaughn 1984

14

2 (14.3%)

0 (0.0%)

2 (14.3%)

-

3 (21.4%)

-

-

-

-

-

VAC + IE

Palumbo 1998

12

3 (25.0%)

0 (0.0%)

3 (25.0%)

-

4 (33.3%)

-

-

-

-

3 (25.0%)

C + VC + D + DTIC + IL-2

Gravis 2001

1

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 (100%)

D + I + DTIC + IL-2

Gravis 2001

9

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

-

1 (11.1%)

-

-

-

-

8 (88.9%)

D + IL-2

Gravis 2001

3

1 (33.3%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (33.3%)

-

-

-

-

-

2.0 months (N = 1)

2 (66.7%)

Carboplatin + etoposide

Holstein 1996

8

0 (0.0%)#

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

-

2 (25.0%)†

-

-

12.0 months (4.0 – 25.0)

-

6 (75.0%)

Dacarbazine

Holstein 1996

14

0 (0.0%)#

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

-

2 (14.3%) †

-

-

5.0 months (1.0 – 11.0)

-

12 (85.7%)

CI: Confidence Interval; CR: Complete Response; C + VC + D + DTIC + IL-2: Cyclophosphamide + Vincristine + Doxorubicin + Dacarbazine + Interleukin-2; DOR: Duration of Response; D + IL-2: Doxorubicin + Interleukin-2; D + I + DTIC + IL-2: Doxorubicin + Ifosfamide + Dacarbazine + Interleukin-2; INV: Investigator; IRC: Independent Review Committee; mo: Months; MR: Minimal Response; mo: Months; N: Number of evaluable patients; n: Number with Outcome; ORR: Overall Response Rate; OS: Overall Survival; PFS: Progression-free Survival; PR: Partial Response; SD: Stable Disease; TTP: Time to progression; TTR: Time to Response; VAC + IE: Vincristine + Adriamycin + Cyclophosphamide + Ifosfamide + Etoposide; -Represents data not reported *95% Confidence Interval; ~Represents data assesssed by IRC; for other data it was unclear if assessed by investigator or the Independent Review Committee; #ORR calculated as CR + PR; †Represents no change; $Represents the subgroup of patients with both RECIST and CHOI evaluations for response.

The only treatment that demonstrated a similar anti-tumour activity across different trials was trabectedin (three studies). Trabectedin was associated with a response rate ranging from 7.4% [84] to 8.5% [83] and median OS varying between 9.1 months [77] and 12.1 months [82]. Limited anti-tumour activity (ORR ≤5%) in pre-treated patients with STS was demonstrated by treatments including brostallicin, cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, dacarbazine, gefitinib, methotrexate, and sunitinib [90]. Summaries of the efficacy results for interventions evaluated across non-randomised studies are presented in Table 6.

Safety results

Across the non-randomised studies identified in the review, haematological AEs were the most commonly reported AEs, particularly with therapies including docetaxel, gemcitabine, docetaxel plus gemcitabine, etoposide, carboplatin plus etoposide, cisplatin plus ifosfamide, and trabectedin. However, AEs were not reported in a sufficiently consistent manner for a meaningful comparison across studies. The details of the grade 3 and/or 4 AEs observed across these studies are provided in an additional file (see Additional file 7).

Data related to treatment discontinuations due to AEs were reported in only three of the included studies. Thus, it was difficult to draw any conclusions regarding the comparative tolerability of the evaluated interventions [74, 82, 83].

Discussion

The objective of this systematic review was to comprehensively review available evidence on the efficacy and safety of treatments used for advanced STS following prior therapy with anthracycline- and/or ifosfamide for advanced disease. Due to the paucity of RCT evidence in this anthracyline pre-treated setting, this review included RCTs and non-randomised studies (prospective and retrospective) to allow for a detailed description of the evidence supporting these interventions being used for the management of patients with pre-treated advanced STS.

The available RCT evidence (from six studies) suggests that pazopanib, trabectedin, and the combination of gemcitabine and dacarbazine are effective treatments for pre-treated patients with advanced STS. These agents were also among those identified as potentially active second-line treatments in a recent analysis of Phase II studies by Penel and colleagues [91]. Pazopanib has demonstrated a significant advantage over placebo with an increase of 3 months in median PFS [18, 19]. Treatment with q3w 24-hour dosing schedule of trabectedin was associated with significantly greater median PFS and TTP compared with the qw 3-hour schedule [2226], and the combination of gemcitabine and dacarbazine was more effective than dacarbazine monotherapy in terms of 3-month PFS rate, median PFS, and median OS [20, 21]. These findings should be interpreted in view of the fact that the evidence comes from Phase II studies except for the pazopanib PALETTE study. The primary aim of Phase II trials is to evaluate if the intervention under investigation demonstrates clinical activity and is well tolerated, and hence, they do not provide a definitive answer regarding the clinical benefit of the intervention in question. Further, post-study therapy was documented in three of the six included RCTs and this may have potentially confounded the OS results [1820, 2226].

In view of limited RCT evidence, data from non-randomised studies was evaluated. The 52 prospective non-randomised studies included in the review suggested anti-tumour activity (3-month PFS rate ≥39%, and/or 6-month PFS rate ≥14%, [90], and/or ORR ≥10%) of several therapies including: single-agent ifosfamide [7781] and dacarbazine [73], and that of the combinations, etoposide plus ifosfamide [86, 87] and cisplatin plus ifosfamide [85]. Antitumour activity of gemcitabine monotherapy [75] and gemcitabine plus docetaxel [88, 89] in patients with uterine leiomyosarcoma was also indicated by the non-RCT evidence. The results observed from the non-randomised evidence should be interpreted in light of the inherent limitations associated with this study design. RCTs involve randomisation which minimises the selection bias and confounding, and are therefore the most rigorous way of determining comparative efficacy.

Despite the systematic approach employed in this review, it was limited by the identification of only a small number of RCTs and the lack of comparability in terms of sample size, study design, and patient populations across both the RCTs and non-randomised studies. The patient population included in the RCT by van Oosterom and colleagues varied from those recruited in other RCTs [29]. The study by van Oosterom and colleagues included a mixed patient population of both first-line and second-line patients, with limited subgroup data for the patients treated in the second-line setting [29]. Most importantly, the RCT evidence was restricted by the fact that there was a lack of head-to-head trials of active agents. Due to the paucity of evidence, indirect and mixed treatment comparison of the included interventions were also not possible as no studies evaluating a common intervention were identified, except the two placebo-controlled trials, wherein an indirect analysis was not feasible due to incompatibility of the data (lack of comparability of the study designs and patient population in these studies) [18, 19, 28]. Although, the review also included 52 prospective non-randomised studies, these studies were small in terms of sample size with majority of studies including less than 50 patients. For several treatments, only single studies were available. When there were multiple studies evaluating a single intervention, variability was often observed in the efficacy and safety results, primarily attributed to differences in patient characteristics and assessment criteria used to evaluate efficacy measures.

With respect to the inclusion criteria of the review, this study was limited to trials evaluating adult patients with sub-types of STS (excluding GIST, Kaposi sarcoma, and Ewing’s family of tumours), who had received prior anthracycline and/or ifosfamide therapy for advanced disease. Based on the inclusion criteria of the review, key RCTs including Maki 2007 (gemcitabine vs. gemcitabine plus docetaxel) and Verweij 2000 (docetaxel vs. doxorubicin) and single arm studies including Sleijfer 2009 (pazopanib) and Bay 2006 (gemcitabine plus docetaxel) were excluded as these publications did not provide information fulfilling the inclusion criteria of the review [9295]. The study by Maki and colleagues included a mixed population of patients treated with zero to three prior chemotherapy regimens with no data specifically reported for patients receiving ≥1 chemotherapy regimen; in addition, the type of prior chemotherapy was unclear [92]. The RCT by Verweij and colleagues was excluded from the review as the study included patients with GIST [93]. In the study by Sleijfer and colleagues, the type of prior therapy was not reported [94], while in the study by Bay and colleagues no sub-group data for patients receiving first-line and later-lines therapies was provided [95]. Additionally, in the study by Bay and colleagues nearly 69% of patients were treated within the adjuvant setting [95]. A further RCT (TAXOGEM study) investigating gemcitabine vs. gemcitabine plus docetaxel [27, 31], whilst identified in our review had not reported efficacy data at the cut-off date for the literature search and thus, while has done subsequently [96], the findings do not contribute to our conclusions.

Clinical perspective

The primary aim of second and later line treatment of patients with advanced/metastatic soft tissue sarcoma is to delay disease progression and maintain quality of life for as long as possible. The use of an anti-tumour treatment rather than best supportive care should be extensively discussed with the patient and their caregivers. Until now, there has been no standard of care after failure of or intolerance to doxorubicin and/or ifosfamide. An adjusted indirect comparison would be the most appropriate way to compare results of RCTs, but in this case since none of the RCTs had common arms to enable a formal indirect comparison, close attention should be paid to the findings of the individual trials.

In only one trial did the chemotherapy regimen improve overall survival (the combination of gemcitabine plus dacarbazine over dacarbazine alone; Table 2) [20, 21]. This trial was not designed to formally demonstrate an overall survival advantage, and therefore, this finding needs to be confirmed by an appropriately designed Phase III trial. Moreover, the sample size of the trial was limited (59 patients received the combination) and there is no other published study investigating this original combination [20, 21]. The full results of the TAXOGEM study [96] are not included in our review for reasons explained earlier but demonstrate the activity of gemcitabine plus docetaxel in patients with leiomyosarcomas and may explain the frequent usage of this combination in clinical practice, especially in those with leiomyosarcomas at uterine sites.

The PALETTE trial has formally demonstrated the benefit of treating patients with anti-angiogenic agent over placebo in terms of PFS in a Phase III setting (Table 2) [18, 19]. This constitutes a major breakthrough in sarcoma management. However, possibly due to the high usage rate of salvage treatment after progression, this improvement in PFS did not translate into an OS advantage (Table 2).

The every 3 week (q3w) schedule of trabectedin was associated with improvement of PFS, but because of the planned crossover, there was no advantage in term of OS over the weekly schedule (Table 2) [2226]. Moreover, the weekly schedule may be less convenient than the every 3 week schedule. It should be noted that trabectedin is not currently approved for use in sarcoma in all countries.

Because quality of life and toxicity concerns are of key importance in this setting, the consideration of tolerability and discontinuation rates is as important as efficacy. The traditional cytotoxic drugs commonly induce haematological toxicities whereas grade 3/4 toxicities seen with pazopanib included fatigue, elevated liver enzymes, and hypertension (Table 3). The safety profiles of both approaches (chemotherapy versus pazopanib) appear to be distinct; this is of particular relevance when discussing the toxicity/benefit ratio with patients. Table 4 suggests that discontinuations due to AEs may be more frequent with pazopanib, possibly because oncologists are less familiar with managing the side effects associated with this agent unlike the classical cytotoxic haemotological toxicities, which have been known for years. Discontinuations could also be related to the fact that pazopanib is given continuously unlike cytotoxic therapy, allowing less opportunity for resolution of toxicities.

This review demonstrates that non-randomised trials provide limited information (Table 6). Randomised studies are preferred when designing new trials. The safety profiles of chemotherapy agents versus pazopanib are clearly different, so additional data including compliance, quality of life and cost are needed to fully understand the extent of the differences between chemotherapy and targeted agents.

Conclusions

Based on this review, the following regimens have demonstrated a PFS advantage: pazopanib over placebo, trabectedin 3-weekly over weekly schedule, and the combination of gemcitabine plus dacarbazine over dacarbazine alone. Consequently, the choice of second- and later-line treatment for advanced STS should consider these interventions. The efficacy/toxicity ratio of therapies which have limited Phase II evidence should be further evaluated in phase III trials based on formal statistical assumptions, and should include parameters such as median overall survival and quality of life.

Abbreviations

AE: 

Adverse event

ALT: 

Alanine aminotransferase

AST: 

Aspartate aminotransferase

CR: 

Complete response

DOR: 

Duration of response

GIST: 

Gastrointestinal stromal tumour

ORR: 

Overall response rate

OS: 

Overall survival

PD: 

Progressive disease

PFS: 

Progression-Free survival

PR: 

Partial response

PRISMA: 

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses

RCTS: 

Randomised controlled trials

SD: 

Stable disease

STS: 

Soft tissue sarcoma

TTP: 

Time to progression

TTR: 

Time to response.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank Robert Isbell and Luis Javier Hernandez Pastor who reviewed and provided feedback on the content of the manuscript. This work and the resulting publication have been funded by GSK.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Heron Health Pvt. Ltd
(2)
GlaxoSmithKline
(3)
Department of General Oncology, Centre Oscar Lambret

References

  1. Cormier JN, Pollock RE: Soft tissue sarcomas. CA Cancer J Clin. 2004, 54: 94-109.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Jain A, Sajeevan KV, Babu KG, Lakshmaiah KC: Chemotherapy in adult soft tissue sarcoma. Indian J Cancer. 2009, 46: 274-287.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Weiss SW, Goldblum JR: General considerations. Enzinger and Weiss's Soft Tissue Tumors. Edited by: Weiss SW, Goldblum JR. 2001, St Louis, Missouri: CV Mosby, 1-19.Google Scholar
  4. Spira AI, Ettinger DS: The use of chemotherapy in soft-tissue sarcomas. Oncologist. 2002, 7: 348-359.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Italiano A, Mathoulin-Pelissier S, Cesne AL, Terrier P, Bonvalot S, Collin F, Michels JJ, Blay JY, Coindre JM, Bui B: Trends in survival for patients with metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. Cancer. 2011, 117: 1049-1054.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Grimer R, Judson I, Peake D, Seddon B: Guidelines for the management of soft tissue sarcomas. Sarcoma. 2010, 2010: Article ID: 506182-Google Scholar
  7. Casali PG, Blay JY: Soft tissue sarcomas: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2010, 21 (Suppl 5): v198-v203.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. NCCN: NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncolcogy: Soft Tissue Sarcoma. 2011, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, V.1.2011: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/sarcoma.pdf,Google Scholar
  9. Leahy M, Garcia DM X, Reichardt P, Judson I, Staddon A, Verweij J, Baffoe-Bonnie A, Jonsson L, Musayev A, Justo N, Burke T, Blay JY: Chemotherapy treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma. The SArcoma treatment and Burden of Illness in North America and Europe (SABINE) study. Ann Oncol. 2012, 23 (10): 2763-70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D: The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2009, 151: W65-W94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. NCCN: NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncolcogy: Soft Tissue Sarcoma. 2007, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, V.2.2007: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/sarcoma.pdf,Google Scholar
  12. Verma S, Bramwell V: Dose-intensive chemotherapy in advanced adult soft tissue sarcoma. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2002, 2: 201-215.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Vincenzi B, Frezza AM, Santini D, Tonini G: New therapies in soft tissue sarcoma. Expert Opin Emerg Drugs. 2010, 15: 237-248.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. NICE STA template: Specification for manufacturer/sponsor submission of evidence October 2009. 2009, http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/devnicetech/singletechnologyappraisalsubmissiontemplates.jsp,Google Scholar
  15. The Cochrane Collaboration: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2011, http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/cochrane/handbook/front_page.htm,Google Scholar
  16. Downs SH, Black N: The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998, 52: 377-384.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009, 151: 264-269. W64View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. PALETTE study: A randomized double blind phase III trial of pazopanib versus placebo in patients with soft tissue sarcoma whose disease has progressed during or following prior therapy. 2011, Study summary available at: http://www.gsk-clinicalstudyregister.com/quick-search-list.jsp?item=VEG110727&type=GSK+Study+ID&studyId=VEG110727 Google Scholar
  19. FDA: Votrient® (Pazopanib) Tablets For Treatment of Patients with Soft Tissue Sarcoma: FDA Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee Briefing Document (NDA 22–465), March 2012. 2012, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/OncologicDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM184003.pdf,Google Scholar
  20. Garcia-Del-Muro X, Lopez-Pousa A, Maurel J, Martin J, Martinez-Trufero J, Casado A, Gomez-Espana A, Fra J, Cruz J, Poveda A, Meana A, Pericay C, Cubedo R, Rubio J, De JA, Lainez N, Carrasco JA, de AR, Buesa JM: Randomized phase II study comparing gemcitabine plus dacarbazine versus dacarbazine alone in patients with previously treated soft tissue sarcoma: a Spanish Group for Research on Sarcomas study. J Clin Oncol. 2011, 29: 2528-2533.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Garcia Del Muro X, Fra J, Lopez Pousa A, Maurel J, Martin J, Martinez Trufero J, Casado A, Cruz J, Gomez Espana MA, Lavernia J: Randomized phase II study of dacarbazine plus gemcitabine versus DTIC alone in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma: A Spanish Group for Research on Sarcomas (GEIS) study. J Clin Oncol. 2009, 27: 10529-View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Demetri GD, Chawla SP, von MM, Ritch P, Baker LH, Blay JY, Hande KR, Keohan ML, Samuels BL, Schuetze S, Lebedinsky C, Elsayed YA, Izquierdo MA, Gomez J, Park YC, Le CA: Efficacy and safety of trabectedin in patients with advanced or metastatic liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma after failure of prior anthracyclines and ifosfamide: results of a randomized phase II study of two different schedules. J Clin Oncol. 2009, 27: 4188-4196.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Chawla S, Blay JY, Schuetze S, Morris D, Ritch P, Le Cesne A, Casali PG, Perez J, Bayever E, Demetri G: Efficacy of second-line trabectedin in patients with advanced liposarcomas and leiomyosarcomas progressing despite prior conventional chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer, Suppl. 2009, 7: 598-View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Morgan JA, Le Cesne A, Chawla S, von Mehren M, Schuetze S, Casali PG, Nieto A, Elsayed Y, Izquierdo MA, Demetri GD: Randomized phase II study of trabectedin in patients with liposarcoma and leiomyosarcoma (L-sarcomas) after failure of prior anthracylines (A) and ifosfamide (I). ASCO. 2007, Abstract No.: 10060-Google Scholar
  25. Demetri GD, Schuetze S, Blay J, Chawla S, von Mehren M, Casali P, Morris D, Bayever E, Alfaro V, Le Cesne A: Long-term results of a randomized phase II study of trabectedin by two different dose and schedule regimens in patients with advanced liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma after failure of prior anthracyclines and ifosfamide. J Clin Oncol. 2009, 27: 10509-Google Scholar
  26. Chawla S, Casali PG, von Mehren M, Le Cesne A, Blay JY, Lebedinsky C, Alfaro V, Elsayed Y, Michiels B, Demetri GD: Clinical tolerability of trabectedin administered by two different schedule (weekly for 3 of 4 weeks vs. q3 weeks) in patients with advanced/metastatic liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma (L-sarcomas) progressing despite prior treatment with at least anthracycline and ifosfamide. Abstract at European Cancer Organisation (ECCO) Ann Meet Eur J Cancer. 2007, 5: Abstract No.: 7517-Google Scholar
  27. Pautier P, Bui Nguyen B, Penel N, Piperno-Neumann S, Delcambre-Lair C, Bompas E, Collin F, Rey A, Jimenez M, Duffaud F: Final results of a FNCLCC French Sarcoma Group multicenter randomized phase II study of gemcitabine (G) versus gemcitabine and docetaxel (G+D) in patients with metastatic or relapsed leiomyosarcoma (LMS). J Clin Oncol. 2009, 27: 10527-Google Scholar
  28. Pacey S, Ratain MJ, Flaherty KT, Kaye SB, Cupit L, Rowinsky EK, Xia C, O'Dwyer PJ, Judson IR: Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in a subset of patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma from a Phase II randomized discontinuation trial. Invest New Drugs. 2011, 29: 481-488.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. van Oosterom AT, Mouridsen HT, Nielsen OS, Dombernowsky P, Krzemieniecki K, Judson I, Svancarova L, Spooner D, Hermans C, Van GM, Verweij J: Results of randomised studies of the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (STBSG) with two different ifosfamide regimens in first- and second-line chemotherapy in advanced soft tissue sarcoma patients. Eur J Cancer. 2002, 38: 2397-2406.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Van Der Graaf WT, Blay J, Chawla SP, Kim D, Bui Nguyen B, Casali PG, Schoffski P, Aglietta M, Staddon AP, Beppu Y, Le Cesne A, Gelderblom H, Judson IR, Araki N, Ouali M, Marreaud S, Hodge R, Dewji M, Dei Tos AP, Hohenberge: A randomized, double-blind, phase III trial of pazopanib versus placebo in patients (pts) with soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) whose disease has progressed during or following prior chemotherapy An EORTC STBSG Global Network Study (EORTC 62072). Abstract and oral presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting 2011. J Clin Oncol. 2011, 29: Abstract no. LBA10002-Google Scholar
  31. Duffaud F, Bui BN, Penel N, Cioffi A, Isambert N, Blay JY, Cupissol D, Jimenez M, Rey A, Pautier P: A FNCLCC French Sarcoma Group--GETO multicenter randomized phase II study of gemcitabine (G) versus gemcitabine and docetaxel (G+D) in patients with metastatic or relapsed leiomyosarcoma (LMS). Abstract American Society of Oncology (ASCO) Ann Meet J Clin Oncol. 2008, 26: Abstract No.: 10511-Google Scholar
  32. Van Der Graaf WT, Blay JY, Chawla SP, Kim DW, Bui-Nguyen B, Casali PG, Schoffski P, Aglietta M, Staddon AP, Beppu Y, Le CA, Gelderblom H, Judson IR, Araki N, Ouali M, Marreaud S, Hodge R, Dewji MR, Coens C, Demetri GD, Fletcher CD, Dei Tos AP, Hohenberger P: Pazopanib for metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (PALETTE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2012, 379: 1879-1886.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Leahy M, Ray-Coquard I, Verweij J, Le CA, Duffaud F, Hogendoorn PC, Fowst C, de BC, di Paola ED, Van GM, Judson I, Blay JY: Brostallicin, an agent with potential activity in metastatic soft tissue sarcoma: A phase II study from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group. Eur J Cancer. 2007, 43: 308-315.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Thigpen JT, Blessing JA, Wilbanks GD: Cisplatin as second-line chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced or recurrent leiomyosarcoma of the uterus. A Phase II trial of the Gynecologic Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol: Cancer Clin Trials. 1986, 9: 18-20.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Bramwell VHC, Mouridsen HT, Santoro A, Blackledge G, Somers R, Verweij J, Dombernowsky P, Onsrud M, Thomas D, Sylvester R, van Oosterom A, Suppl 2: Cyclophosphamide versus ifosfamide: a randomized phase II trial in adult soft-tissue sarcomas. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC], Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1993, 31: S180-S184.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Bramwell VHC, Mouridsen HT, Santoro A, Blackledge G, Somers R, Verweij J, Dombernowsky P, Onsrud M, Thomas D, Sylvester R, van Oosterom A: Cyclophosphamide versus ifosfamide: Final report of a randomized phase II trial in adult soft tissue sarcomas. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol. 1987, 23: 311-321.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Kostler WJ, Brodowicz T, Attems Y, Hejna M, Tomek S, Amann G, Fiebiger WC, Wiltschke CH, Krainer M, Zielinski CC: Docetaxel as rescue medication in anthracycline- and ifostamide-resistant locally advanced or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma: Results of a phase II trial. Ann Oncol. 2001, 12: 1281-1288.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Santoro A, Romanini A, Rosso A, Frustaci S, Comandone A, Apice G, De TD, Dogliotti L, Lionetto R, Dani C, Bruzzi P, Piolini M, Bergnolo P, Verusio C: Lack of activity of docetaxel in soft tissue sarcomas: Results of a phase II study of the Italian Group on Rare Tumors. Sarcoma. 1999, 3: 177-181.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Van Hoesel QG, Verweij J, Catimel G, Clavel M, Kerbrat P, Van Oosterom AT, Kerger J, Tursz T, Van GM, van PC: Phase II study with docetaxel (Taxotere®) in advanced soft tissue sarcomas of the adult. Ann Oncol. 1994, 5: 539-542.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Verweij J: Docetaxel: An interesting new drug for the treatment of head and neck cancers and soft tissue sarcomas. Anti -Cancer Drugs. 1995, 6: 19-24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Mouridsen HT, Bastholt L, Somers R, Santoro A, Bramwell V, Mulder JH, van Oosterom AT, Buesa J, Pinedo HM, Thomas D: Adriamycin versus epirubicin in advanced soft tissue sarcomas. A randomized phase II/phase III study of the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group. E J Cancer Clin Oncol. 1987, 23: 1477-1483.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Crawley CR, Judson IR, Verrill M, Hill C, Raynaud FI: A phase I/II study of a 72-h continuous infusion of etoposide in advanced soft tissue sarcoma. Sarcoma. 1997, 1: 149-154.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Dombernowsky P, Buesa J, Pinedo HM, Santoro A, Mouridsen H, Somers R, Bramwell V, Onsrud M, Rouesse J, Thomas D: VP-16 in advanced soft tissue sarcoma: A phase II study of the EORTC soft tissue and bone sarcoma group. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol. 1987, 23: 579-580.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Ray-Coquard I, Le CA, Whelan JS, Schoffski P, Bui BN, Verweij J, Marreaud S, Van GM, Hogendoorn P, Blay JY: A phase II study of gefitinib for patients with advanced HER-1 expressing synovial sarcoma refractory to doxorubicin-containing regimens. Oncologist. 2008, 13: 467-473.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Hartmann JT, Oechsle K, Huober J, Jakob A, Azemar M, Horger M, Kanz L, Bokemeyer C: An open label, non-comparative phase II study of gemcitabine as salvage treatment for patients with pretreated adult type soft tissue sarcoma. Invest New Drugs. 2006, 24: 249-253.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Spath-Schwalbe E, Genvresse I, Koschuth A, Dietzmann A, Grunewald R, Possinger K: Phase II trial of gemcitabine in patients with pretreated advanced soft tissue sarcomas. Anti -Cancer Drugs. 2000, 11: 325-329.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Antman KH, Montella D, Rosenbaum C, Schwen M: Phase II trial of ifosfamide with mesna in previously treated metastatic sarcoma. Cancer Treat Rep. 1985, 69: 499-504.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Antman KH, Ryan L, Elias A, Sherman D, Grier HE: Response to ifosfamide and mesna: 124 previously treated patients with metastatic or unresectable sarcoma. J Clin Oncol. 1989, 7: 126-131.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Tursz T: High-dose ifosfamide in the treatment of advanced soft tissue sarcomas. Semin Oncol. 1996, 23: 34-39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Skubitz KM: Phase II trial of pegylated-liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil(trademark)) in sarcoma. Cancer Invest. 2003, 21: 167-176.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Toma S, Tucci A, Villani G, Carteni G, Spadini N, Palumbo R: Liposomal doxorubicin (Caelyx) in advanced pretreated soft tissue sarcomas: A phase II study of the Italian Sarcoma Group (ISG). Anticancer Res. 2000, 20: 485-491.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Buesa JM, Mouridsen HT, Santoro A, Somers R, Bramwell V, van Oosterom AT, Wagener T, Vendrik C, Thomas D: Treatment of advanced soft tissue sarcomas with low-dose methotrexate: A phase II trial by the European Organization for Research on Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) soft tissue and bone sarcoma group. Cancer Treat Rep. 1984, 68: 683-684.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Palumbo R, Raffo P, Capello C, Castagneto B, Gatti C, Toma S: Paclitaxel (taxol) in pretreated, relapsed and/or metastatic adult soft tissue sarcomas (STS). Oncol Rep. 1997, 4: 127-130.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Patel SR, Linke KA, Burgess MA, Papadopoulos NE, Plager C, Jenkins J, Benjamin R: Phase II study of paclitaxel in patients with soft tissue sarcomas. Sarcoma. 1997, 1: 95-97.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Skubitz KM: A phase I study of ambulatory continuous infusion paclitaxel. Anti -Cancer Drugs. 1997, 8: 823-828.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Bertuzzi A: Efficacy and toxicity of sorafenib monotherapy in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma failing anthracycline-based chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2010, 28: Abstract No.: 10025-Google Scholar
  57. Bertuzzi A, Stroppa E, Secondino S, Zucali P, Quagliuolo V, Pedrazzoli P, Comandone A, Basso U, Soto Parra H, Santoro A: Efficacy and toxicity of sorafenib in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma failing anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer, Suppl. 2009, 7: 599-View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Decoster LV, Vande Broek I, Anckaert E, De Mey J, Denys H, Canon J, De Clerck D, Neyns B, De Greve J: Activity of sunitinib in advanced soft tissue sarcoma and its correlation with potential predictive biomarkers. Ann Oncol. 2010, 21: viii413-Google Scholar
  59. Schoffski P, Wolter P, Clement P, Sciot R, De WI, Wozniak A, Stefan C, Dumez H: Trabectedin (ET-743): Evaluation of its use in advanced soft-tissue sarcoma. Future Oncol. 2007, 3: 381-392.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Demetri GD: ET-743: The US experience in sarcomas of soft tissues. Anti -Cancer Drugs. 2002, 13: S7-S9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Brain EGC: Safety and efficacy of ET-743: The French experience. Anti -Cancer Drugs. 2002, 13: S11-S14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Bramwell VHC, Morris D, Ernst DS, Hings I, Blackstein M, Venner PM, Ette EI, Harding MW, Waxman A, Demetri GD: Safety and efficacy of the multidrug-resistance inhibitor biricodar (VX-710) with concurrent doxorubicin in patients with anthracycline-resistant advanced soft tissue sarcoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2002, 8: 383-393.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Keohan ML, Grever MR, Balcerzak SP, Antman K: A phase II Southwest Oncology Group study of cisplatin and continuous infusion vinblastine in the treatment of advanced soft tissue sarcoma. Invest New Drugs. 1997, 15: 255-256.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Le Cesne A, Vassal G, Farace F, Spielmann M, Le CT, Angevin E, Valteau-Couanet D, Fizazi K, Cojean I, Llombard A, Tursz T, Escudier B: Combination interleukin-2 and doxorubicin in advanced adult solid tumors: Circumvention of doxorubicin resistance in soft-tissue sarcoma?. J Immunother. 1999, 22: 268-277.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Lopez M, Carpano S, Dilauro L, Chiatti L, Vici P, Cavaliere F, Gentile P, Citro G: Clinical modulation of epirubicin resistance by lonidamine in patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcomas. Int J Oncol. 1995, 6: 363-367.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Buesa JM, Losa R, Fernandez A, Sierra M, Esteban E, Diaz A, Lopez-Pousa A, Fra J: Phase I clinical trial of fixed-dose rate infusional gemcitabine and dacarbazine in the treatment of advanced soft tissue sarcoma, with assessment of gemcitabine triphosphate accumulation. Cancer. 2004, 101: 2261-2269.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Losa R, Fra J, Lopez-Pousa A, Sierra M, Goitia A, Una E, Nadal R, Del Muro JG, Gion M, Maurel J, Escudero P, Esteban E, Buesa JM: Phase II study with the combination of gemcitabine and DTIC in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2007, 59: 251-259.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Montalar J, Diaz R, Santaballa A, de la Cueva H, Richart P, Cortbellas M, Garcia J, Segura Huerta AA, Aparisi F: Second-line chemotherapy with gemcitabine-docetaxel in patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcomas after treament with high-dose ifosfamide and adriamycin : A single-centre experience. Ann Oncol. 2008, 19: viii270-Google Scholar
  69. Vaughn CB, McKelvey E, Balcerzak SP, Loh K, Stephens R, Baker L: High-dose methotrexate with leucovorin rescue plus vincristine in advanced sarcoma: A Southwest Oncology Group study. Cancer Treat Rep. 1984, 68: 409-410.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Palumbo R, Palmeri S, Gatti C, Villani G, Cesca A, Toma S: Combination chemotherapy using vincristine, adriamycin, cyclophosphamide (VAC) alternating with ifosfamide and etoposide (IE) for advanced soft tissue sarcomas: A phase II study. Oncol Rep. 1998, 5: 69-72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Gravis G, Mousseau M, Douillard JY, Dorval T, Fabbro M, Escudier B, Mignot L, Viens P: Can interleukin-2 reverse anthracyclin chemoresistance in metastatic soft tissue sarcoma patients. Results of a prospective phase II clinical trial. Eur Cytokine Netw. 2001, 12: 239-243.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Holstein K, Welt HJ, Walter TA, Llossfeld DK: Salvage chemotherapy with dacarbazine or carboplatin/VP-16 of advanced soft tissue sarcoma pretreated with doxorubicin/ifosfamide. Onkologie. 1996, 19: 496-499.Google Scholar
  73. Buesa JM, Mouridsen HT, van Oosterom AT, Verweij J, Wagener T, Steward W, Poveda A, Vestlev PM, Thomas D, Sylvester R: High-dose DTIC in advanced soft-tissue sarcomas in the adult. Ann Oncol. 1991, 2: 307-309.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Ferraresi V, Ciccarese M, Cercato MC, Nuzzo C, Zeuli M, Di FF, Giannarelli D, Cognetti F: Gemcitabine at fixed dose-rate in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas: A mono-institutional phase II study. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2008, 63: 149-155.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Look KY, Sandler A, Blessing JA, Lucci JA, Rose PG: Phase II trial of gemcitabine as second-line chemotherapy of uterine leiomyosarcoma: A Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) Study. Gynecol Oncol. 2004, 92: 644-647.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Babovic N, Jelic S, Milanovic N, Matkovic S: Pilot study of daily ifosfamide 1 g/m2 until grade III granulocytopenia as second-line chemotherapy for anthracycline-pretreated advanced soft tissue sarcoma. Tumori. 1998, 84: 677-680.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Le Cesne A, Antoine E, Spielmann M, Le CT, Brain E, Toussaint C, Janin N, Kayitalire L, Fontaine F, Genin J: High-dose ifosfamide: circumvention of resistance to standard-dose ifosfamide in advanced soft tissue sarcomas. J Clin Oncol. 1995, 13: 1600-1608.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Nielsen OS, Judson I, van HQ, Le CA, Keizer HJ, Blay JY, van OA, Radford JA, Svancarova L, Krzemienlecki K, Hermans C, Van GM, Oosterhuis JW, Verweij J: Effect of high-dose ifosfamide in advanced soft tissue sarcomas. A multicentre phase II study of the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group. Eur J Cancer. 2000, 36: 61-67.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Palumbo R, Palmeri S, Antimi M, Gatti C, Raffo P, Villani G, Toma S: Phase II study of continuous-infusion high-dose ifosfamide in advanced and/or metastatic pretreated soft tissue sarcomas. Ann Oncol. 1997, 8: 1159-1162.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Patel SR, Vadhan-Raj S, Papadopolous N, Plager C, Burgess MA, Hays C, Benjamin RS: High-dose ifosfamide in bone and soft tissue sarcomas: Results of phase II and pilot studies - Dose–response and schedule dependence. J Clin Oncol. 1997, 15: 2378-2384.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Scheulen ME, Niederle N, Bremer K, Schutte J, Seeber S: Efficacy of ifosfamide in refractory malignant diseases and uroprotection by mesna: Results of a clinical phase II-study with 151 patients. Cancer Treat Rev. 1983, 10: 93-101.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Garcia-Carbonero R, Supko JG, Manola J, Seiden MV, Harmon D, Ryan DP, Quigley MT, Merriam P, Canniff J, Goss G, Matulonis U, Maki RG, Lopez T, Puchalski TA, Sancho MA, Gomez J, Guzman C, Jimeno J, Demetri GD: Phase II and pharmacokinetic study of ecteinascidin 743 in patients with progressive sarcomas of soft tissues refractory to chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2004, 22: 1480-1490.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Le Cesne A, Blay JY, Judson I, van OA, Verweij J, Radford J, Lorigan P, Rodenhuis S, Ray-Coquard I, Bonvalot S, Collin F, Jimeno J, Di PE, Van GM, Nielsen OS: Phase II study of ET-743 in advanced soft tissue sarcomas: A European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group trial. J Clin Oncol. 2005, 23: 576-584.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Yovine A, Riofrio M, Blay JY, Brain E, Alexandre J, Kahatt C, Taamma A, Jimeno J, Martin C, Salhi Y, Cvitkovic E, Misset JL: Phase II study of ecteinascidin-743 in advanced pretreated soft tissue sarcoma patients. J Clin Oncol. 2004, 22: 890-899.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Budd GT, Metch B, Weiss SA, Weick JK, Fabian C, Stephens RL, Balcerzak SP: Phase II trial of ifosfamide and cisplatin in the treatment of metastatic sarcomas: A Southwest Oncology Group study. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1993, 31: S213-S216.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Saeter G, Talle K, Solheim OP: Treatment of advanced, high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma with ifosfamide and continuous-infusion etoposide. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1995, 36: 172-175.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Skubitz KM, Hamdan H, Thompson RC: Ambulatory continuous infusion ifosfamide with oral etoposide in advanced sarcomas. Cancer. 1993, 72: 2963-2969.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Hensley ML, Maki R, Venkatraman E, Geller G, Lovegren M, Aghajanian C, Sabbatini P, Tong W, Barakat R, Spriggs DR: Gemcitabine and docetaxel in patients with unresectable leiomyosarcoma: Results of a phase II trial. J Clin Oncol. 2002, 20: 2824-2831.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Hensley ML, Blessing JA, Degeest K, Abulafia O, Rose PG, Homesley HD: Fixed-dose rate gemcitabine plus docetaxel as second-line therapy for metastatic uterine leiomyosarcoma: A Gynecologic Oncology Group phase II study. Gynecol Oncol. 2008, 109: 323-328.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  90. Van Glabbeke M, Verweij J, Judson I, Nielsen OS: Progression-free rate as the principal end-point for phase II trials in soft-tissue sarcomas. Eur J Cancer. 2002, 38: 543-549.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Penel N, Van GM, Marreaud S, Ouali M, Blay JY, Hohenberger P: Testing new regimens in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma: analysis of publications from the last 10 years. Ann Oncol. 2011, 22: 1266-1272.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Maki RG, Wathen JK, Patel SR, Priebat DA, Okuno SH, Samuels B, Fanucchi M, Harmon DC, Schuetze SM, Reinke D, Thall PF, Benjamin RS, Baker LH, Hensley ML: Randomized phase II study of gemcitabine and docetaxel compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcomas: results of sarcoma alliance for research through collaboration study 002 [corrected]. J Clin Oncol. 2007, 25: 2755-2763.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Verweij J, Lee SM, Ruka W, Buesa J, Coleman R, van HR, Seynaeve C, di Paola ED, Van GM, Tonelli D, Judson IR: Randomized phase II study of docetaxel versus doxorubicin in first- and second-line chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic soft tissue sarcomas in adults: a study of the european organization for research and treatment of cancer soft tissue and bone sarcoma group. J Clin Oncol. 2000, 18: 2081-2086.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Sleijfer S, Ray-Coquard I, Papai Z, Le CA, Scurr M, Schoffski P, Collin F, Pandite L, Marreaud S, De BA, Van GM, Verweij J, Blay JY: Pazopanib, a multikinase angiogenesis inhibitor, in patients with relapsed or refractory advanced soft tissue sarcoma: a phase II study from the European organisation for research and treatment of cancer-soft tissue and bone sarcoma group (EORTC study 62043). J Clin Oncol. 2009, 27: 3126-3132.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Bay JO, Ray-Coquard I, Fayette J, Leyvraz S, Cherix S, Piperno-Neumann S, Chevreau C, Isambert N, Brain E, Emile G, Le CA, Cioffi A, Kwiatkowski F, Coindre JM, Bui NB, Peyrade F, Penel N, Blay JY: Docetaxel and gemcitabine combination in 133 advanced soft-tissue sarcomas: a retrospective analysis. Int J Cancer. 2006, 119: 706-711.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Pautier P, Floquet A, Penel N, Piperno-Neumann S, Isambert N, Rey A, Bompas E, Cioffi A, Delcambre C, Cupissol D, Collin F, Blay JY, Jimenez M, Duffaud F: 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). Oncologist. 2012, 17: 1213-1220.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  97. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/13/385/prepub

Copyright

© Sharma et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement