1 / 24

Gemcitabine/Docetaxel association: R e trospective analysis of 133 soft tissue sarcomas

Gemcitabine/Docetaxel association: R e trospective analysis of 133 soft tissue sarcomas. J.-O. Bay, for the French Sarcoma Group. Background.  First line of chemotherapy  doxorubicine m e dian OR = 26%  ifosphamide m e dian OR = 26%

rachael
Download Presentation

Gemcitabine/Docetaxel association: R e trospective analysis of 133 soft tissue sarcomas

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Gemcitabine/Docetaxel association:Retrospective analysis of 133 soft tissue sarcomas J.-O. Bay, for the French Sarcoma Group

  2. Background First line of chemotherapy  doxorubicine median OR = 26%  ifosphamide median OR = 26%  MAID 47% OR with 10% CR (Elias, JCO 1989) • Second line of chemotherapy • cisplatine, topotecan, paclitaxel, mitoxantrone, vinorelbine etc … • 10 - 20% ORwith no standard Gemcitabine (Patel et al.) inhibitor of ribonucleotide reductase and intercalating agent Docetaxel stabilization of tubulin, phosphorylation of bcl-2 (apoptotic activity) Gemcitabine/docetaxel combination (Hensley et al.) synergistic effect with DNA synthesis arrest and induction of apoptosis

  3. Objectives of this retrospective study  Preliminary study for a phase II trial from the French Sarcoma Group evaluating gemcitabine/docetaxel in soft tissue sarcomas  Toxicity evaluation  Analysis of the best response  Survival

  4. Patient characteristics (1) 133 patients (75 women / 58 men) treated from 10/2001 to 12/2004  Median age at diagnosis: 51.7[18-82] 112 patients had already received doxorubicine and/or ifosphamide  Initial surgery: 115 patients  R0 = 63(55 %)  R1 = 30 (26 %)  R2 = 21 (19 %)

  5. Patient characteristics (2)  Histological subtypes • Leiomyosarcoma : 76(57.1 %) • Undifferentiated : 17(12.8 %) • Synovialosarcoma : 10(7.5 %) • Liposarcoma : 6(4.5 %) • Angiosarcoma : 5(3.8 %) • Rhabdomyosarcoma : 5(3.8 %) • Epithelioid sarcoma : 5(3.8 %) • Fibrosarcoma : 5(3.8 %) • Others : 4(3.0 %)  Grading (missing information for 10 patients) • Grade I : 10 • Grade II : 43 • Grade III : 70

  6. Patient characteristics (3)  Initial localization Bone15 (11 %) Limbs44 (34 %) Organs23 (14 %) Retroperitoneal19 (17 %) Uterine corpus 32 (24 %)

  7. Patient characteristics (4)  Neoadjuvant chemotherapy: 22 patients 115/133 with initial surgery (R0=63; R1=30; R2=22) 36 patients with metastatic surgery at the time of the initial surgery 92 patients with adjuvant chemotherapy before metastatic evolution 90 patients with a first line chemotherapy for metastatic or unresectable disease  Number of anterior lines of chemotherapy • None : 21 patients (17 %) • One : 60 patients (45 %) • Two : 35 patients (26 %) • Three : 9 patients (7 %) • Four : 2 patients (1.5 %) • Five : 5 patients (3.5 %)

  8. Patient characteristics (5)  Number of metastatic patients: 130  Metastatic localizations • Lung: 117 • Liver: 42 • Bone: 25 • Others: 23  Number of metastatic sites • One: 72 patients (55 %) • Two: 39(30 %) • Liver and lung : 23 • Lung and bone : 7 • More than three: 19 (15 %)

  9. Patient characteristics (6) 125 patients available Performance Status (PS) before Gemcitabine-Docetaxel OMS 36 % OMS 032 % Correlation between PS and the number of anterior chemotherapy lines OMS 214 % OMS 148 %

  10. Gemcitabine 900 mg/m2 over 1h Gemcitabine 900 mg/m2 over 1h Treatment Gemcitabine 900 mg/m2 over 1h and Docetaxel 100 mg/m2 over 1h Gemcitabine 900 mg/m2 over 1h and Docetaxel 100 mg/m2 over 1h J1 J8 J1 J8 21 or 28 days

  11. Results (1): Treatments received  Number of courses: mean = 4,0 courses and median = 3 courses [1-11] 1 11 8.3 % | ************ 2 30 22.6 % | ********************************* 3 27 20.3 % | ***************************** 4 20 15.0 % | ********************** 5 11 8.3 % | ************ 6 14 10.5 % | *************** 7 7 5.3 % | ******* 8 7 5.3 % | ******* 9 4 3.0 % | **** 10 1 0.8 % | * 11 1 0.8 % | * •  Dose of docetaxel per course and per m² for 528 courses: • Mean: 135.3 Standard error: 24,3 • Median: 141.2 Interquartile interval: [124 ; 179] • Dose of gemcitabine per m² for 519 courses: • Mean: 1455 Standard error: 445 • Median: 1655 Interquartile interval: [1189 ; 1791]

  12. Results (2): Toxicity • For 515 courses Nausea / vomiting Toxicity grade Thrombopenia Anemia Diarrhea Mucosis Alopecia Neutropenia OMS-0 69.90 % 79.61 % 53.79 % 89.60 % 95.76 % 94.99 % 75.10 % OMS-1 5.83 % 6.99 % 28.54 % 7.90 % 1.93 % 3.47 % 3.47 % OMS-2 4.66 % 5.05 % 14.76 % 1.54 % 1.16 % 0.77 % 12.16 % OMS-3 10.29 % 6.02 % 2.52 % 0.58 % 1.16 % 0.58 % 9.07 % OMS-4 9.32 % 2.33 % 0.39 % 0.39 % 0.19 % 0.19 %

  13. 100% 90% Grade-4 80% Grade-3 70% 60% Grade-2 50% Grade-1 anemia alopecia diarrhea mucosis neutropenia thrombopenia nausea / vomiting Grade-0 Results (3): Toxicity Toxicity over 515 courses of gemcitabine-docetaxel

  14. Results (4): Best response Best response observed Stable 33 patients (29 %) Progression 60 patients (52.6 %) Partial response 18 patients (15.8 %) 114 patients evaluable for response Complete response 3 patients (2.6 %)

  15. Results (5): Univariate response analysis OR (CR + PR) rates Global 18.4 % 21/114 en OR IC-95% [11.3 ; 25.5] Leiomyosarcoma 24.2 % 16/66 en OR Other histological subtypes 10.4 % 5/48 en OR Uterine localization 18.5 % 5/27 en OR Other localization 18.4 % 16/87 en OR Status OMS-0 30.6 % 11/36 en OR Status OMS-1, 2 et 3 12.5 % 9/72 en OR Variables Best response - Age NS (p = 0.83) - Sex NS (p = 0.51 - Initial localization NS (p = 0.78) - Mesastasis localizations (liver-bone-lung) NS (0.07/0.70/0.74) - Number of metastatic localizations NS (p = 0.18) - Histological subtypes limite (p = 0.06) - Grade NS (p = 0.74) - Number of previous chemotherapy courses NS (p = 0.25) - OMS Status (0 versus 1, 2 et 3) p = 0.023 - Mean dose of gemcitabine received NS (p = 0.40) - Mean dose of docetaxel received NS (p = 0.32) - Number of previous lines of chemotherapy received p < 10-5 Objective response versus stable and progression leiomyosarcoma OMS-0: 11/36; OMS-1, 2 ou 3: 9/72 CR or PR: mean of 6 courses [5.2-7] non responders: mean of 3.5 course [3.2-4]

  16. Results (6): Multivariate analysis of the response OMS-0 versus OMS-1, 2 and 3 Only performance status at the time of gemcitabine/docetaxel treatment was significant, with RR = 3 [1.13-7.7] (p = 0.027) leiomyosarcomas versus other histological subtypes Tendency for leiomyosarcoma, with RR = 2.25 [0.74-6.87] (p = 0.09)

  17. months Results (7): Overall survival  Available for 130/133 patients.  23 patients were still under gemcitabine-docetaxel treatment.  Median survival of 12.1 months [1-28]  Rate at 6 months: 76%, 12 months: 51%, 18 months: 30%, 2 years: 15 %. Median of follow-up : 16.2 months [6-45]

  18. Results (8): Overall survival Survival at 6 month at 12 months at 18 months at 20 months Global 76 % 51 % 30 % 15 % Leiomyosarcoma 87 % 56 % 42 % 21 % Other histology 60 % 45 % Uterine localization 74 % 50 % 37 % Other localization 76 % 52 % 28 % 19 % OMS-0 100 %84 % 76 % 51 % OMS-1, 2 et 3 65 %39 % 13 % • Covariates Overall • survival • - Age NS • - Sex NS • - Initial localization NS • - Metastasis localization NS • - Number of metastatic sites NS • - Histological subtypes p = 0.01 • - Grade NS • - Nb previous chemo. courses NS • - OMS status p < 10-4 • - Dose of gemcitabine received NS • - Dose of docetaxel received p = 0.008 • Nb of previous lines of chemotherapy p < 10-3 • -Response p = 0.016

  19. Results (9): Multivariate analysis of survival  OMS-0 versus OMS-1, 2 and 3 Performance status at gemcitabine/docetaxel treatment was significant, with RR = 3.13 [1.51-6.49] (p = 0.0022)  Quality of the response Patients in progression versus others: RR = 4.02 [2.16-7.51] (p = 0.000012)  Histology Leiomyosarcomas: slightly better overall survival,with RR = 1.52 [0.86-2.69] (p = 0.15)

  20. months months Results (10): Overall survival (p = 0.96) (p = 0.01) Overall survival according to initial localization 1 : cutaneous 2 : soft tissue 3 : retroperitoneal 4 : bone 5 : organ Overall survival according to histology 1 : leiomyosarcoma 2 : other Leiomyosarcoma (range [1-28]): better prognosis than others [1-16] : (p = 0.01) with median of survival of 13.4 months and 9.1 months respectively

  21. months months Results (11): Overall survival 100 % 84 % 76 % 51 % 65 % 1 13 % 39 % 2 Overall survival according to PS 1 = OMS-0 2 = OMS-1, 2 and 3 Overall survival according to response 1 = complete response 2 = partial response 3 = stable 4 = progression Best response = prognosis factor (p = 0.00087)

  22. Gemcitabine/docetaxel : leiomyosarcoma

  23. Conclusions  Better reponse with leiomyosarcoma but without a clear statistical difference in comparison with other histologies  The initial localization did not influence response or survival  Performance status was an important prognosis factor  Lower response rate for leimyosarcomas than that described in literature

  24. Acknowledgements • Jérôme Fayette, Jean-Yves Blay, Centre Léon Bérard et CHU E. Herriot • Serge Leyvraz, CHUV, Lausanne • Sophie Piperno-Neumann, Institut Curie • Christine Chevreau, Institut Claudius Regaud, Toulouse • Axel Lecesne, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif • Nicolas Isambert, Centre Georges-François Leclerc, Dijon • Etienne Brain, Centre René Huguenin, Saint-Cloud • Nicolas Penel, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille • Frédéric Peyrade, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice • Pierre Kerbrat, Centre Eugène Marquis, Rennes • Cécile Guillemet, Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen

More Related