4.7 Article

Randomized 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

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 18, 期 10, 页码 2081-2086

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2000.18.10.2081

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: 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. J Clin Oncol 18:2081-2086. (C) 2000 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据