Gemcitabine Plus Anlotinib Is Effective and Safe Compared to Gemcitabine Plus Docetaxel in Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma
Objective The aim of this study is to compare gemcitabine (G) plus docetaxel (D) versus G plus anlotinib (A) for advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS). Methods We retrospectively investigated 122 patients with locally advanced or metastatic STS who were treated with either G+D or G+A between July 2016...
Saved in:
Published in | Frontiers in oncology Vol. 12; p. 922127 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Frontiers Media S.A
13.07.2022
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Objective
The aim of this study is to compare gemcitabine (G) plus docetaxel (D) versus G plus anlotinib (A) for advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS).
Methods
We retrospectively investigated 122 patients with locally advanced or metastatic STS who were treated with either G+D or G+A between July 2016 and October 2021 and compared the efficacy and toxicity of G+D and G+A. The primary endpoints were median progression-free survival (PFS) and the proportion of patients with grade ≥3 adverse events. We also analyzed differences in the clinical efficacy of G+D and G+A in leiomyosarcoma, and the differences in the clinical efficacy of G+D and G+A as first-line therapy.
Results
Overall, 122 patients were included (81 patients receiving G+D and 41 patients receiving G+A) with a median age of 55 years. The main histological types are leiomyosarcoma, undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, and liposarcoma. After a median follow-up of 25 months, PFS did not differ between patients treated with G+D and those treated with G+A (median PFS: 5.8 months and 6.8 months,
p
= 0.39), and overall survival (OS) was similar (median OS: 14.7 vs. 13.3 months,
p
= 0.75) with a similar objective response rate (18.5% vs. 14.6%,
p
= 0.17), whereas the proportion of patients with grade ≥3 adverse events treated with G+D was significantly higher than those treated with G+A (68% vs. 44%,
p
< 0.05). Subgroup analysis of leiomyosarcoma patients (47.5% of the patients) and first-line treatment patients (46.7% of the patients) shows that PFS was not significantly different between the two groups (LMS: median PFS: 6.5 months vs. 7.5 months,
p
= 0.08; first-line treatment: median PFS: 6.2 months vs. 7.1 months,
p
= 0.51).
Conclusion
Compared with gemcitabine plus docetaxel for advanced STS, gemcitabine plus anlotinib achieved a similar response rate on median PFS and OS, but lower toxicity. These results suggest that gemcitabine plus anlotinib may be an effective and safe strategy for advanced STS. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 Reviewed by: Mustafa Benekli, Gazi University, Turkey; Purvish M. Parikh, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College Hospital, India Edited by: Jian-ye Zhang, Guangzhou Medical University, China This article was submitted to Cancer Molecular Targets and Therapeutics, a section of the journal Frontiers in Oncology |
ISSN: | 2234-943X 2234-943X |
DOI: | 10.3389/fonc.2022.922127 |