9 research outputs found

    Predictors for doxorubicin-induced hematological toxicity and its association with outcome in advanced soft tissue sarcoma patients; a retrospective analysis of the EORTC-soft tissue and bone sarcoma group database

    Get PDF
    Introduction: As both anti-tumour effects and toxicity are thought to be dose-dependent, patients with the greatest toxicity may also have the best outcome. We assessed whether severity of doxorubicin-induced hematological toxicity is associated with outcome in advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) patients. In addition, risk factors for hematological toxicity were explored. Methods: Worst haematological toxicities (anaemia, leukopenia, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia) seen during treatment were scored according to CTCAE toxicity score. Differences in overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS) and response rate (RR) between patients with or without high haematological toxicity (grades 0–2 vs. 3–4) were assessed using conventional statistical tests. Associations between baseline characteristics and hematological toxicity were established using logistic multivariate regression. Results: In 557 patients eligible for this analysis, 47.2% of the patients received at least six cycles of treatment; 45% stopped treatment early due to progression, 3% because of toxicity. Relative dose intensity (RDI) was constant over the cycles. OS, PFS, and RR did not differ between patients with grade 3/4 toxicity during treatment versus those with grade 1/2. Risk factors for grade 3/4 haematological toxicity, in particular neutropenia, were age above 60 years, low BMI, and female gender. Conclusion: In this large series, risk factors for haematological toxicity in STS patients receiving doxorubicin monotherapy were revealed. The finding that there was no association between outcome and haematological toxicity during doxorubicin treatment may be useful to reassure advanced STS patients that failure to experience haematological toxicity during treatment does not equate to under-treatment

    Prognostic factors for soft tissue sarcoma patients with lung metastases only who are receiving first-line chemotherapy: An exploratory, retrospective analysis of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (EORTC-STBSG)

    Get PDF
    The prognosis of adult soft tissue sarcoma (STS) patients with metastases is generally poor. As little is known about the impact of the involvement of different metastatic sites and the extent of pulmonary lesions on the outcome for patients receiving first-line chemotherapy, we aimed to establish prognostic factors for STS patients with lung metastases only. A retrospective, exploratory analysis was performed on 2,913 metastatic STS patients who received first-line chemotherapy. Detailed information from 580 patients who had lung metastases only

    Meta-Analysis of the Test-Retest Repeatability of [18F]-Fluorodeoxyglucose Standardized Uptake Values: Implications for Assessment of Tumor Response

    Get PDF
    PURPOSE: Currently, guidelines for PET with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) interpretation for assessment of therapy response in oncology primarily involve visual evaluation of FDG-PET/CT scans. However, quantitative measurements of the metabolic activity in tumors may be even more useful in evaluating response to treatment. Guidelines based on such measurements, including the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Criteria and PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors, have been proposed. However, more rigorous analysis of response criteria based on FDG-PET measurements is needed to adopt regular use in practice. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Well-defined boundaries of repeatability and reproducibility of quantitative measurements to discriminate noise from true signal changes are a needed initial step. An extension of the meta-analysis from de Langen and colleagues (2012) of the test-retest repeatability of quantitative FDG-PET measurements, including mean, maximum, and peak standardized uptake values (SUVmax, SUVmean, and SUVpeak, respectively), was performed. Data from 11 studies in the literature were used to estimate the relationship between the variance in test-retest measurements with uptake level and various study-level, patient-level, and lesion-level characteristics. RESULTS: Test-retest repeatability of percentage fluctuations for all three types of SUV measurement (max, mean, and peak) improved with higher FDG uptake levels. Repeatability in all three SUV measurements varied for different lesion locations. Worse repeatability in SUVmean was also associated with higher tumor volumes. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of these results, recommendations regarding SUV measurements for assessing minimal detectable changes based on repeatability and reproducibility are proposed. These should be applied to differentiate between response categories for a future set of FDG-PET-based criteria that assess clinically significant changes in tumor response

    RECIST-learning from the past to build the future

    No full text
    Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours (RECIST) remain an integral part of the assessment of tumour burden in many clinical trials in oncology; these criteria are used to evaluate the activity and efficacy of new cancer therapeutics in solid tumours. We aim to define the purpose of RECIST, and reflect on the level of documentation needed to enable changes for these criteria to develop a new RECIST. Maintaining the applicability of RECIST as a standard evaluation approach is associated with many challenges, in particular with maintaining a balance between the specificity and generalizability, continued validation and innovation, and use of RECIST in early phase versus late-phase drug development, as well as its relevance in clinical trials versus clinical practice. Key questions relate to different modes of actions of new classes of treatments and new imaging modalities; thus, the RECIST Working Group remains committed to maintain RECIST as a standard for the oncology community

    Standard Anthracycline Based Versus Docetaxel-Capecitabine in Early High Clinical and/or Genomic Risk Breast Cancer in the EORTC 10041/BIG 3-04 MINDACT Phase III Trial.

    No full text
    MINDACT demonstrated that 46% of patients with early breast cancer at high clinical but low genomic risk on the basis of MammaPrint may safely avoid adjuvant chemotherapy. A second random assignment (R-C) compared docetaxel-capecitabine with an anthracycline-based regimen. R-C randomly assigned patients 1:1 between standard anthracycline-based regimens, with or without taxanes (control) and experimental docetaxel 75 mg/m <sup>2</sup> intravenously plus oral capecitabine 825 mg/m <sup>2</sup> two times per day for 14 days (DC) every 3 weeks for 6 cycles. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary end points included overall survival and safety. Of 2,832 patients, 1,301 (45%) were randomly assigned, and 97% complied with R-C assignment. In the control arm, 29.6% only received taxanes (0.5% of N0 patients). DFS events (n = 148) were much less than required (n = 422) as a result of a lower-than-expected accrual and event rate. At 5 years of median follow-up, DFS was not different between DC (n = 652) and control (n = 649; 90.7% [95% CI, 88% to 92.8%] v 88.8% [95% CI, 85.9% to 91.1%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.60 to 1.15]; P = .26). Overall survival (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.54 to 1.53]) and DFS in the clinical high and genomic high-risk subgroup (86.1% v 88.1%; HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.58 to 1.21]) were similar in both arms. DC led to more grade 1 neuropathy (27.1% v 11.2%) and more grade 2 hand/foot syndrome (28.5% v 3.3%) and diarrhea (13.7% v 5.8%). Serious cardiac events occurred in 9 patients (control, n = 4; DC, n = 5). Fifty-three patients developed second cancers (control, n = 32; DC, n = 21; leukemia: 2 v 1). Five treatment-related deaths occurred (control, 2 [0.3%]; DC, 3 [0.5%]). Although underpowered, this second randomization in MINDACT did not show any improvement in outcome or safety with the use of DC compared with anthracycline-based chemotherapy
    corecore