4.7 Article

APhase Ib/II Study of Gemcitabine and Docetaxel in Combination With Pazopanib for the Neoadjuvant Treatment of Soft Tissue Sarcomas

Journal

ONCOLOGIST
Volume 20, Issue 11, Pages 1245-1246

Publisher

ALPHAMED PRESS
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0245

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Oncology Research Program from GlaxoSmithKline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. For extremity soft tissue sarcomas (STS), surgical resection remains the standard of care, and the addition of chemotherapy is controversial. This was a phase Ib/II trial of neoadjuvant therapy for patients with STS. Methods. Patients with high grade, extremity STS of >8 cm and amenable to definitive resection were treated with up to four 21-day cycles of 900 mg/m(2) gemcitabine on days 1 and 8, 75 mg/m(2) docetaxel on day 8, and 400 mg of pazopanib daily (GDP), followed by surgery and, if indicated, radiation therapy. Primary and secondary endpoints (phase Ib portion) were the safety and rate of pathologic response. Results. The trial was discontinued because of slow accrual after inclusion of five patients (leiomyosarcoma: two; undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma: three). Two patients completed four treatment cycles: one underwent surgery and one had insufficient response and received additional therapies. Three patients discontinued treatment because of toxicity. Grade 3 adverse events included hypertension, fatigue, aspartate aminotransferase (AST) or alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevation, hoarseness, and myelotoxicity. There were no complete or partial responses. One patient had >= 90% pathologic response. Among four patients who underwent resection, three remain free of disease, and one patient eventually relapsed. Conclusion. GDP combination used in the neoadjuvant setting resulted in significant toxicity; despite pathologic responses, no objective responses occurred.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available