Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: Prognosis and survival for patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (STS) are dismal. Standard first-line systemic chemotherapy is anthracycline-based. Gemcitabine/docetaxel (GD) is a therapeutic option in the second-line setting. Here we present the data of our single center retrospective analysis, using GD in locally advanced or metastatic disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2005 and 2012, a total of 34 patients were identified. The majority of tumors were located in the extremities (19/34, 56%) and abdomen/retroperitoneum (10/34, 29%). Most frequent histologies included leiomyosarcoma (13/34, 38%), liposarcoma (7/34, 21%), and pleomorphic sarcoma (6/34, 18%). RESULTS: Objective response to treatment by RECIST criteria after 3 cycles was low with 6% partial responses (PR, 2/34), 65% stable disease (SD, 22/34), and 29% progressive disease (PD, 10/34). Progression-free survival at 3 and 6 months was 77 and 62%, respectively. Patients with a clinical benefit (defined as PR or SD after the 3rd treatment cycle) had a significantly prolonged median progression-free and overall survival with 8.6 months (p < 0.0001; hazard ratio (HR) 33.1) and 22.4 months (p < 0.0001; HR 12.9), respectively. Most common toxicities included hand-foot syndrome, edema, pancytopenia, febrile neutropenia, and mucositis. CONCLUSION: Overall, we conclude that GD is an active second-line regimen in metastatic STS, with manageable side effects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schmitt et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: