Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Oncology. 2018 Oct 18:1-11. doi: 10.1159/000492597. [Epub ahead of print]

Differences in the Efficacies of Pazopanib and Gemcitabine/Docetaxel as Second-Line Treatments for Metastatic Soft Tissue Sarcoma.

Author information

1
Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
2
College of Medicine, Yonsei University Graduate School, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
3
Department of Pathology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
4
Department of Pediatric Hemato-Oncology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
5
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
6
Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
7
Department of Urology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
8
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
9
Department of Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

We retrospectively investigated the treatment outcomes of second-line treatment with pazopanib or gemcitabine/docetaxel in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS).

METHODS:

Ninety-one patients who were treated with pazopanib or gemcitabine/docetaxel for advanced STS between 1995 and 2015 were analyzed.

RESULTS:

Forty-six and 45 patients received pazopanib and gemcitabine/docetaxel, respectively. The median progression-free survival for the group treated with pazopanib was 4.5 months compared with 3.0 months for the gemcitabine/docetaxel group (p = 0.593). The median overall survival for the group treated with pazopanib was 12.6 months compared with 14.2 months for the gemcitabine/docetaxel group (p = 0.362). The overall response rates (ORRs) were 6.5 and 26.7% in the pazopanib and gemcitabine/docetaxel groups, respectively. The following parameters had ORRs favoring gemcitabine/docetaxel: age ≥50 years (31.6 vs. 2.9%, p = 0.006), histologic grade 1-2 (40.9 vs. 0%, p = 0.001), and poor first-line treatment response (23.3 vs. 3.0%, p = 0.022). Gemcitabine/docetaxel was associated with better ORRs for the following histologic subtypes: leiomyosarcoma (p = 0.624), malignant fibrous histiocytoma/undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (p = 0.055), and angiosarcoma (p = 0.182). However, the ORR of synovial sarcoma favored pazopanib (p = 0.99).

CONCLUSIONS:

The efficacies of pazopanib and gemcitabine/docetaxel as second-line treatments after doxorubicin or ifosfamide failure differed among clinical and histologic subgroups and appeared to facilitate a more personalized treatment approach for advanced STS.

KEYWORDS:

Docetaxel; Gemcitabine; Pazopanib; Second-line treatment; Soft tissue sarcoma

PMID:
30336470
DOI:
10.1159/000492597

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for S. Karger AG, Basel, Switzerland
Loading ...
Support Center