Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorVerweij, Jaap
dc.contributor.authorLee, Siow Ming
dc.contributor.authorRuka, W
dc.contributor.authorBuesa, J
dc.contributor.authorColeman, R
dc.contributor.authorVan Hoessel, R
dc.contributor.authorSeynaeve, C
dc.contributor.authorDi Paola, E D
dc.contributor.authorVan Glabbeke, Martine M
dc.contributor.authorTonelli, D
dc.contributor.authorJudson, Ian R
dc.date.accessioned2009-11-05T15:44:46Z
dc.date.available2009-11-05T15:44:46Z
dc.date.issued2000-05
dc.identifier.citationRandomized 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. 2000, 18 (10):2081-6 J. Clin. Oncol.en
dc.identifier.issn0732-183X
dc.identifier.pmid10811673
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/85438
dc.description.abstractPURPOSE: To assess antitumor response and time to progression (TTP) with docetaxel compared with doxorubicin in first-line treatment of advanced and/or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with measurable soft tissue sarcoma lesions and adequate bone marrow, liver, and renal function were entered onto the study. They were randomized to either docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) given as a 1-hour intravenous infusion every 3 weeks or doxorubicin 75 mg/m(2) given as a bolus injection every 3 weeks. A maximum of seven cycles of treatment were scheduled. The study was designed as a randomized phase III study evaluating TTP by log-rank model. There was a clause for premature closure of the trial if fewer than five responses were observed among the first 25 assessable patients in the docetaxel treatment arm. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were entered onto the study; 85 were assessable for toxicity and 83 for response. The rate of severe granulocytopenia was not significantly different between the two arms. Nausea (P =.001), vomiting (P <.001), and stomatitis (P =.005) were more common with doxorubicin therapy, whereas neurotoxicity was more frequent with docetaxel treatment. The response rate to doxorubicin therapy was 30% (95% confidence interval, 17% to 46%), whereas no responses to docetaxel therapy were seen (P <.001). In view of this, the trial was closed prematurely and the phase III study part was not conducted. CONCLUSION: Docetaxel is inactive in soft tissue sarcomas and cannot be recommended for further use in treatment of this disease.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectSoft Tissue Canceren
dc.subject.meshAdult
dc.subject.meshAntineoplastic Agents
dc.subject.meshAntineoplastic Agents, Phytogenic
dc.subject.meshCross-Over Studies
dc.subject.meshDisease Progression
dc.subject.meshDoxorubicin
dc.subject.meshFemale
dc.subject.meshHumans
dc.subject.meshMale
dc.subject.meshPaclitaxel
dc.subject.meshSarcoma
dc.subject.meshSoft Tissue Neoplasms
dc.subject.meshSurvival Analysis
dc.subject.meshTaxoids
dc.subject.meshTreatment Outcome
dc.titleRandomized 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.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Medical Oncology, Rotterdam Cancer Institute, and University Hospital Rotterdam, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.en
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Clinical Oncologyen
html.description.abstractPURPOSE: To assess antitumor response and time to progression (TTP) with docetaxel compared with doxorubicin in first-line treatment of advanced and/or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with measurable soft tissue sarcoma lesions and adequate bone marrow, liver, and renal function were entered onto the study. They were randomized to either docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) given as a 1-hour intravenous infusion every 3 weeks or doxorubicin 75 mg/m(2) given as a bolus injection every 3 weeks. A maximum of seven cycles of treatment were scheduled. The study was designed as a randomized phase III study evaluating TTP by log-rank model. There was a clause for premature closure of the trial if fewer than five responses were observed among the first 25 assessable patients in the docetaxel treatment arm. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were entered onto the study; 85 were assessable for toxicity and 83 for response. The rate of severe granulocytopenia was not significantly different between the two arms. Nausea (P =.001), vomiting (P <.001), and stomatitis (P =.005) were more common with doxorubicin therapy, whereas neurotoxicity was more frequent with docetaxel treatment. The response rate to doxorubicin therapy was 30% (95% confidence interval, 17% to 46%), whereas no responses to docetaxel therapy were seen (P <.001). In view of this, the trial was closed prematurely and the phase III study part was not conducted. CONCLUSION: Docetaxel is inactive in soft tissue sarcomas and cannot be recommended for further use in treatment of this disease.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record