Phase II Study of Sequential Gemcitabine Followed by Docetaxel for Recurrent Ewing Sarcoma, Osteosarcoma, or Unresectable or Locally Recurrent Chondrosarcoma: Results of Sarcoma Alliance for Research Through Collaboration Study 003

Background.Gemcitabine and docetaxel have a broad spectrum of clinical activity in patients with carcinoma. The Sarcoma Alliance for Research Through Collaboration conducted a phase II trial of gemcitabine in combination with docetaxel in children and adults with recurrent Ewing sarcoma (EWS), osteosarcoma (OS), or unresectable or recurrent chondrosarcoma. The primary objective was to determine the objective response rate using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).Methods.Gemcitabine (675 mg/m2 i.v. over 90 minutes on days 1 and 8) was administered in combination with docetaxel (75 mg/m2 i.v. over 1 hour on day 8) every 21 days. All patients received filgrastim or pegfilgrastim. A Bayesian formulation was used to determine the probability of achieving the target response rate for each subtype—0.35 for EWS and OS or 0.20 for chondrosarcoma. If the probability of achieving the target response rate was <0.05, the combination was considered inactive. Toxicity was graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 3.0.Results.Fifty‐three eligible patients were enrolled in the three subtype groups—OS (n = 14), EWS (n = 14), and chondrosarcoma (n = 25). Toxicities included neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, dyspnea, bronchospasm, edema, neuropathy, and liver function abnormalities. Dose modification for toxicity was required for eight patients during cycle 1 and 16 patients in subsequent cycles. Seven patients withdrew from therapy as a result of toxicity. No complete responses were observed. Partial responses were observed in OS (n = 1), EWS (n = 2), and chondrosarcoma (n = 2) patients.Conclusion.Gemcitabine in combination with docetaxel was associated with a probability of reaching the target 35% response rate of <5% in OS patients and 5.6% in EWS patients; the probability of reaching a 20% response rate in chondrosarcoma patients was 14%.摘要背景. 吉西他滨与多西他赛对癌症患者有广谱的临床疗效。 肉瘤研究联盟协作组在复发的尤文肉瘤 （EWS）、 骨肉瘤 （OS）、 不可切除或复发的软骨肉瘤成人和儿童患者中开展了吉西他滨联合多西他赛的 II 期试验。 主要目的为通过实体瘤疗效评估标准 （RECIST） 确定客观缓解率。方法. 吉西他滨 （675 mg/m2， 静脉滴注 90 分钟以上， 第 1 和 8 天） 联合多西他赛 （75 mg/m2， 静脉滴注 1 小时以上， 第 8 天） 每 21 天给药 1 次。 全部患者均同时接受非格司亭或乙二醇化非格司亭。 利用贝叶斯公式来确定各个亚型达到目标缓解率的概率——EWS 和 OS 为 0.35， 软骨肉瘤为 0.20。 如果达到目标缓解率的概率 < 0.05， 则认为联合方案无效。 毒性反应根据不良事件通用术语标准 （CTCAE） 3.0 版来分级。结果. 53 例合格患者入组 3 个亚型组 ： OS （n=14）、 EWS （n=14）、 软骨肉瘤 （n=25）。 毒性反应包括中性粒细胞减少、 血小板减少、 乏力、 呼吸困难、 支气管痉挛、 水肿、 神经病变以及肝功能异常。 第 1 个周期有 8 例患者、 其后周期有 16 例患者因毒性反应而需要剂量调整。 7 例患者因毒性反应而撤出治疗。 未观察到完全缓解。 OS （n=1）、 EWS （n=2） 和软骨肉瘤 （n=2） 组均有患者达到部分缓解。结论. 吉西他滨联合多西他赛在 < 5% 的 OS 患者、 5.6% 的 EWS 患者中达到目标缓解率的概率为 35%； 14% 软骨肉瘤患者中达到目标缓解率的概率为 20%。讨论. 贝叶斯公式能够评估各个亚型在分别进行缓解率评估后预测达到目标缓解率的概率。 通过多角度来看这些数据， 在考量达到目标缓解率的概率以及入组率之后即能发现本研究设计方案阻碍了研究的继续开展。 因为这一设计方案并未设定判断治疗为 “有效” 的规则， 所以并不适合与标准的分 2 阶段进行的 II 期试验设计直接比较。 关闭 EWS 和软骨肉瘤亚组的决定， 某种程度上是基于入组缓慢， 另外达到目标缓解率的概率较低也支持这一决定。 入组率而不是统计设计， 对试验周期有显著影响。The Oncologist 2012;17:321‐e329Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139909/1/onco0321-sup-0002.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139909/2/onco0321-sup-0001.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139909/3/onco0321.pd

Servant or Service? The Problem and a Conceptual Solution

The present article addresses issues within U.S. collegiate sport as it pertains to the physical preparation and health and well-being of intercollegiate athletes. Specifically, the sport coach is often perceived as “all knowing” about every facet of their sport when, in fact, they typically are not formally educated or well-trained in current methods of enhancing sport performance. Often strength and conditioning coaches, who may also be poorly trained, are tied directly (financially and administratively) to the sport coach—a situation which has led to a subservient role heavily influenced by the wishes of the sport coach. This has unfortunately resulted in the multidimensional well-being of the athlete clearly not being a primary objective in many programs

On The Basics of Training for Muscle Size and Strength

We read the article of Buckner et al. (1), hoping to find new insights on resistance training. Unfortunately, the article is a restatement of information contained in previously published reviews from this group. Here are our major concerns