C. Hermans

Doxorubicin alone versus intensified doxorubicin plus ifosfamide for first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma: a randomised controlled phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Effective targeted treatment is unavailable for most sarcomas and doxorubicin and ifosfamide-which have been used to treat soft-tissue sarcoma for more than 30 years-still have an important role. Whether doxorubicin alone or the combination of doxorubicin and ifosfamide should be used routinely is still controversial. We assessed whether dose intensification of doxorubicin with ifosfamide improves survival of patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma compared with doxorubicin alone. METHODS We did this phase 3 randomised controlled trial (EORTC 62012) at 38 hospitals in ten countries. We included patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma, age 18-60 years with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. They were randomly assigned (1:1) by the minimisation method to either doxorubicin (75 mg/m(2) by intravenous bolus on day 1 or 72 h continuous intravenous infusion) or intensified doxorubicin (75 mg/m(2); 25 mg/m(2) per day, days 1-3) plus ifosfamide (10 g/m(2) over 4 days with mesna and pegfilgrastim) as first-line treatment. Randomisation was stratified by centre, performance status (0 vs 1), age (<50 vs ≥50 years), presence of liver metastases, and histopathological grade (2 vs 3). Patients were treated every 3 weeks till progression or unacceptable toxic effects for up to six cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00061984. FINDINGS Between April 30, 2003, and May 25, 2010, 228 patients were randomly assigned to receive doxorubicin and 227 to receive doxorubicin and ifosfamide. Median follow-up was 56 months (IQR 31-77) in the doxorubicin only group and 59 months (36-72) in the combination group. There was no significant difference in overall survival between groups (median overall survival 12·8 months [95·5% CI 10·5-14·3] in the doxorubicin group vs 14·3 months [12·5-16·5] in the doxorubicin and ifosfamide group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·83 [95·5% CI 0·67-1·03]; stratified log-rank test p=0·076). Median progression-free survival was significantly higher for the doxorubicin and ifosfamide group (7·4 months [95% CI 6·6-8·3]) than for the doxorubicin group (4·6 months [2·9-5·6]; HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·60-0·90], stratified log-rank test p=0·003). More patients in the doxorubicin and ifosfamide group than in the doxorubicin group had an overall response (60 [26%] of 227 patients vs 31 [14%] of 228; p<0·0006). The most common grade 3 and 4 toxic effects-which were all more common with doxorubicin and ifosfamide than with doxorubicin alone-were leucopenia (97 [43%] of 224 patients vs 40 [18%] of 223 patients), neutropenia (93 [42%] vs 83 [37%]), febrile neutropenia (103 (46%) vs 30 [13%]), anaemia (78 [35%] vs 10 [5%]), and thrombocytopenia (75 [33%]) vs one [<1%]). INTERPRETATION Our results do not support the use of intensified doxorubicin and ifosfamide for palliation of advanced soft-tissue sarcoma unless the specific goal is tumour shrinkage. These findings should help individualise the care of patients with this disease. FUNDING Cancer Research UK, EORTC Charitable Trust, UK NHS, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Amgen.

Randomised phase II trial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (DOXIL®/CAELYX®) versus doxorubicin in the treatment of advanced or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma : a study by the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group

CAELYX/DOXIL, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, has shown antitumour activity and reduced toxicity compared with standard doxorubicin in other tumour types. In this prospective randomised trial, 94 eligible patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) were treated, 50 with CAELYX (50 mg/m(2) by a 1 h intravenous (i.v.) infusion every 4 weeks) and 44 with doxorubicin (75 mg/m(2) by an i.v. bolus every 3 weeks). Histological subtypes were evenly matched, 33% were leiomyosarcoma (CAELYX: 18; doxorubicin: 13). Primary disease sites were well matched. CAELYX was significantly less myelosuppressive, only 3 (6%) patients had grade 3 and 4 neutropenia, versus 33 (77%) on doxorubicin; febrile neutropenia occurred in 7 (16%) patients given doxorubicin, but only 1 (2%) given CAELYX. 37 (86%) patients on doxorubicin had grade 2-3 alopecia, but only 3 (6%) on CAELYX, and the major toxicity with CAELYX was to the skin. Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia with CAELYX was grade 1: 4 (8%) patients, grade 2: 11 (22%) patients, grade 3: 9 (18%) patients and grade 4: 1 (2%) patient. Other non-haematological grade 3 and 4 toxicities were rare. Confirmed responses were observed with both agents: CAELYX: complete response (CR) 1 (uterine), partial response (PR) 4 (response rate (RR) 10%); and doxorubicin: CR 1, PR 3 (RR of 9%); with the best response being stable disease (NC) in 16 and 18 patients, respectively. The reason for the low response rate is unknown, but it may be due partly to a high proportion of gastrointestinal stromal tumours. In conclusion, CAELYX has equivalent activity to doxorubicin in STS with an improved toxicity profile and should be considered for further investigation in combination with other agents such as ifosfamide.

Randomized Phase III Study Comparing Conventional-Dose Doxorubicin Plus Ifosfamide Versus High-Dose Doxorubicin Plus Ifosfamide Plus Recombinant Human Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor in Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcomas: A Trial of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group

PURPOSE This randomized multicenter study was designed to compare the activity of a high-dose doxorubicin-containing chemotherapy regimen with a conventional standard-dose regimen in adult patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas (ASTS). PATIENTS AND METHODS Between 1992 and 1995, 314 patients were randomized to receive a standard-dose regimen (arm A), containing doxorubicin (50 mg/m(2) on day 1) and ifosfamide (5 g/m(2) on day 1), or an intensified regimen (arm B), combining doxorubicin (75 mg/m(2) on day 1), the same ifosfamide dose, and recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (rhGM-CSF; sargramostim, 250 microgram/m(2) on days 3 to 16); all courses were repeated every 3 weeks. RESULTS The median age of the 294 eligible patients was 50 years. They received a median of five chemotherapy cycles. The median dose and relative doxorubicin dose-intensity achieved were 245 mg and 97% in arm A and 360 mg and 99% in arm B, respectively. Thirty-eight percent and 23% of patients presented with leiomyosarcomas and liver metastases, respectively. Objective responses were observed in 31 (21%) of 147 assessable patients in arm A and in 31 (23.3%) of 133 in arm B (P =.65). No change was observed in 41.6% and 46.2% of patients in arm A and B, respectively. Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer in the intensive arm (P =.03). The median duration of the time to progression was 19 weeks in the conventional arm and 29 weeks in the intensified arm. There was no difference in overall survival (P =.98) between the two therapeutic arms. Toxicities were manageable in both arms. A grade 3/4 neutropenia and infection occurred in 92% and 4.6% of patients in arm A, respectively, and in 90% and 16.6% in arm B, respectively. Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia was more frequent in arm B. CONCLUSION The use of rhGM-CSF allowed safe escalation of chemotherapy doses. Despite a 50% increase of the doxorubicin dose-intensity, the high-dose regimen failed to demonstrate any impact on survival in patients with ASTS. The low complete response rate, the high incidence of leiomyosarcomas, and liver metastases may in part explain these results. However, the lengthening of the PFS in the intensive arm, because of the quality of stable disease and inappropriate tumor evaluation policies that potentially lead to an underestimation of antitumor activity, does not definitively refute the use of a high-dose chemotherapy regimen in selected patients with ASTS.

Effect of high-dose ifosfamide in advanced soft tissue sarcomas. A multicentre phase II study of the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group

In this phase II study the effect of high-dose ifosfamide (HDI) given as a 3-day continuous infusion at a dose of 12 g/m2 repeated every 4 weeks with adequate mesna protection and hydration was evaluated in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas. A total of 124 patients entered the trial of which 10 were ineligible. HDI was given both as first-line and second-line chemotherapy. Median age was 46 years (19-66 years). Median World Health Organization (WHO) performance status was 1 (0-1). Fifty two per cent of the patients were males. The predominant histology was leiomyosarcoma (33%). A maximum of six cycles was given. At the time of analysis 55 patients have died. The partial response (PR) rate was 16%. The median time to progression was 15 weeks. 8 of the 18 responding patients (44%) had synovial sarcomas, whereas only 5% of the patients having leiomyosarcomas responded. The grade 3 + 4 haematological toxicity encountered was neutrophils in 78% and platelets in 12%. The major grade 3 + 4 non-haematological toxicities encountered were febrile neutropenia in 39%, infection in 20%, and acute renal failure in 4%. In conclusion, it is possible to administer HDI on a multicentre basis, but the toxicity is substantial. HDI given as a continuous infusion at this dose cannot be recommended as the standard treatment of advanced soft tissue sarcomas, even in selected patients.

Temozolomide in adult patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma: a phase II study of the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group

Temozolomide, an oral imidazotetrazine derivative, was given to 31 patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma. The dose of 750 mg/m2 was divided over 5 consecutive days, and escalated to 1000 mg/m2 over 5 days at cycle 2 if myelosuppression no worse than common toxicity criteria grade 2 was noted in the first 28-day cycle. A total of 99 treatment cycles were given to 31 patients. The drug was well tolerated, with nausea and vomiting as the most common side-effects. Only one partial tumour response was documented, giving a response rate of 3.33%, 95% confidence interval, (CI) 0.1-17.2%. The median time to progression was 8 weeks and the median survival was 27 weeks. These results indicate that temozolomide in this schedule is not active as second-line treatment in advanced soft tissue sarcoma.

Phase II study of XR 5000 (DACA), an inhibitor of topoisomerase I and II, administered as a 120-h infusion in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

XR5000 is a tricyclic carboxamide-based cytotoxic agent that binds to DNA by intercalation and stimulates DNA cleavage by inhibition of both topoisomerase I and II. The aim of this study was to evaluate the antitumoral activity and safety profile of XR5000 given as second-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients received XR5000 at the dose of 3010 mg/m(2) as a 120-h central venous infusion every 3 weeks. The 15 patients (median age 56 years, range 48-71 years) enrolled had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 (3 patients), 1 (11 patients) or 2 (1 patient). A total of 32 cycles of XR5000 (median 2, range 1-6) were given to 14 patients. No objective response (assessed according to World Health Organization (WHO) criteria) was documented in the 12 evaluable patients by an external review panel; in 4 out of the 12 patients disease stabilisation was recorded. The following toxicities graded according to the Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) version 2.0. were observed: one grade 3 and two grade 4 granulocytopenia, one grade 3 and one grade 4 thrombocytopenia, one grade 3 deep venous thrombosis, one grade 3 fatigue, and grade 3 undocumented epileptic seizures which led to death in 2 patients. With only 4 out of 12 patients reaching stable disease when using this dose and regimen, further evaluation of XR5000 in advanced NSCLC is not justified.