{"title":"澳大利亚肉瘤中心使用吉西他滨标准化剂量和比例以及多西他赛治疗晚期软组织肉瘤患者的实际效果。","authors":"Isabella Wilson, Madeleine Strach, Vivek Bhadri, Michelle Harrison, Whiter Tang, Peter Grimison","doi":"10.1111/ajco.14138","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Gemcitabine and docetaxel (GD) is a common chemotherapy regimen for metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (STS). The GeDDiS trial compared GD with doxorubicin in the first-line setting, using gemcitabine 675 mg/m<sup>2</sup> over a prolonged rate of 90 min-reporting a 20% response rate and 5.4-month median progression-free survival (PFS). We aimed to examine the real-world efficacy and toxicity of GD in our center, using a standardized dose of gemcitabine 900 mg/m<sup>2</sup> over 30 min on Days 1 and 8 and intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m<sup>2</sup> over 60 min on Day 8 every 21 days.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients with unresectable or metastatic STS receiving GD between July 2018 and October 2022. Data collected included patient and tumor characteristics, dose intensity, toxicity, response, PFS, and overall survival (OS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-eight patients were included. Median follow-up was 19 months (range 3-30). Line of treatment (n) was first line (10), second line (13), ≥ third line (15). The median number of cycles was 6. Response rate was 42%, including 5% with a complete response. At the time of data collection, 33 patients had disease progression and 24 patients had died. PFS (median, 6-month rate) was 4.5 months and 44%. OS (median, 12-month rate) was 15 months and 65%. Grade 3/4 toxicity included anemia (21%), neutropenia (5%), thrombocytopenia (5%), and febrile neutropenia (3%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These data demonstrate the activity of gemcitabine using a standardized dose and rate with docetaxel comparable to other published data and favorable toxicity in a real-life patient population despite altered gemcitabine dosing and a heavily pretreated patient population.</p>","PeriodicalId":8633,"journal":{"name":"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Real-World Outcomes of Patients Treated With Gemcitabine Using Standardized Dose and Rate and Docetaxel for Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma in an Australian Sarcoma Center.\",\"authors\":\"Isabella Wilson, Madeleine Strach, Vivek Bhadri, Michelle Harrison, Whiter Tang, Peter Grimison\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ajco.14138\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Gemcitabine and docetaxel (GD) is a common chemotherapy regimen for metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (STS). The GeDDiS trial compared GD with doxorubicin in the first-line setting, using gemcitabine 675 mg/m<sup>2</sup> over a prolonged rate of 90 min-reporting a 20% response rate and 5.4-month median progression-free survival (PFS). We aimed to examine the real-world efficacy and toxicity of GD in our center, using a standardized dose of gemcitabine 900 mg/m<sup>2</sup> over 30 min on Days 1 and 8 and intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m<sup>2</sup> over 60 min on Day 8 every 21 days.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients with unresectable or metastatic STS receiving GD between July 2018 and October 2022. Data collected included patient and tumor characteristics, dose intensity, toxicity, response, PFS, and overall survival (OS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-eight patients were included. Median follow-up was 19 months (range 3-30). Line of treatment (n) was first line (10), second line (13), ≥ third line (15). The median number of cycles was 6. Response rate was 42%, including 5% with a complete response. At the time of data collection, 33 patients had disease progression and 24 patients had died. PFS (median, 6-month rate) was 4.5 months and 44%. OS (median, 12-month rate) was 15 months and 65%. Grade 3/4 toxicity included anemia (21%), neutropenia (5%), thrombocytopenia (5%), and febrile neutropenia (3%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These data demonstrate the activity of gemcitabine using a standardized dose and rate with docetaxel comparable to other published data and favorable toxicity in a real-life patient population despite altered gemcitabine dosing and a heavily pretreated patient population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8633,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.14138\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.14138","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Real-World Outcomes of Patients Treated With Gemcitabine Using Standardized Dose and Rate and Docetaxel for Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma in an Australian Sarcoma Center.
Background: Gemcitabine and docetaxel (GD) is a common chemotherapy regimen for metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (STS). The GeDDiS trial compared GD with doxorubicin in the first-line setting, using gemcitabine 675 mg/m2 over a prolonged rate of 90 min-reporting a 20% response rate and 5.4-month median progression-free survival (PFS). We aimed to examine the real-world efficacy and toxicity of GD in our center, using a standardized dose of gemcitabine 900 mg/m2 over 30 min on Days 1 and 8 and intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 over 60 min on Day 8 every 21 days.
Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients with unresectable or metastatic STS receiving GD between July 2018 and October 2022. Data collected included patient and tumor characteristics, dose intensity, toxicity, response, PFS, and overall survival (OS).
Results: Thirty-eight patients were included. Median follow-up was 19 months (range 3-30). Line of treatment (n) was first line (10), second line (13), ≥ third line (15). The median number of cycles was 6. Response rate was 42%, including 5% with a complete response. At the time of data collection, 33 patients had disease progression and 24 patients had died. PFS (median, 6-month rate) was 4.5 months and 44%. OS (median, 12-month rate) was 15 months and 65%. Grade 3/4 toxicity included anemia (21%), neutropenia (5%), thrombocytopenia (5%), and febrile neutropenia (3%).
Conclusion: These data demonstrate the activity of gemcitabine using a standardized dose and rate with docetaxel comparable to other published data and favorable toxicity in a real-life patient population despite altered gemcitabine dosing and a heavily pretreated patient population.
期刊介绍:
Asia–Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology is a multidisciplinary journal of oncology that aims to be a forum for facilitating collaboration and exchanging information on what is happening in different countries of the Asia–Pacific region in relation to cancer treatment and care. The Journal is ideally positioned to receive publications that deal with diversity in cancer behavior, management and outcome related to ethnic, cultural, economic and other differences between populations. In addition to original articles, the Journal publishes reviews, editorials, letters to the Editor and short communications. Case reports are generally not considered for publication, only exceptional papers in which Editors find extraordinary oncological value may be considered for review. The Journal encourages clinical studies, particularly prospectively designed clinical trials.