Cargando…

Eribulin versus dacarbazine in patients with leiomyosarcoma: subgroup analysis from a phase 3, open-label, randomised study

BACKGROUND: This subgroup analysis of a phase 3 study compares outcomes for eribulin versus dacarbazine in patients with leiomyosarcoma. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years old with advanced liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma, ECOG PS ≤2, and ≥2 prior treatment regimens were randomly assigned (1:1) to eribulin m...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Blay, Jean-Yves, Schöffski, Patrick, Bauer, Sebastian, Krarup-Hansen, Anders, Benson, Charlotte, D’Adamo, David R., Jia, Yan, Maki, Robert G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6738064/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31065111
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-019-0462-1
_version_ 1783450775517659136
author Blay, Jean-Yves
Schöffski, Patrick
Bauer, Sebastian
Krarup-Hansen, Anders
Benson, Charlotte
D’Adamo, David R.
Jia, Yan
Maki, Robert G.
author_facet Blay, Jean-Yves
Schöffski, Patrick
Bauer, Sebastian
Krarup-Hansen, Anders
Benson, Charlotte
D’Adamo, David R.
Jia, Yan
Maki, Robert G.
author_sort Blay, Jean-Yves
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This subgroup analysis of a phase 3 study compares outcomes for eribulin versus dacarbazine in patients with leiomyosarcoma. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years old with advanced liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma, ECOG PS ≤2, and ≥2 prior treatment regimens were randomly assigned (1:1) to eribulin mesylate (1.4 mg/m² intravenously on day 1 and day 8) or dacarbazine (either 850, 1000, or 1200 mg/m² intravenously) every 21 days until disease progression. The primary end point was OS; additional end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: 309 Patients with leiomyosarcoma were included (eribulin, n = 157; dacarbazine, n = 152). Median age was 57 years; 42% of patients had uterine disease and 57% had nonuterine disease. Median OS was 12.7 versus 13.0 months for eribulin versus dacarbazine, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.93 [95% CI 0.71–1.20]; P = 0.57). Median PFS (2.2 vs 2.6 months, HR = 1.07 [95% CI 0.84–1.38]; P = 0.58) and ORR (5% vs 7%) were similar between eribulin- and dacarbazine-treated patients. Grade ≥3 TEAEs occurred in 69% of patients receiving eribulin and 59% of patients receiving dacarbazine. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy of eribulin in patients with leiomyosarcoma was comparable to that of dacarbazine. Both agents had manageable safety profiles.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6738064
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67380642019-09-12 Eribulin versus dacarbazine in patients with leiomyosarcoma: subgroup analysis from a phase 3, open-label, randomised study Blay, Jean-Yves Schöffski, Patrick Bauer, Sebastian Krarup-Hansen, Anders Benson, Charlotte D’Adamo, David R. Jia, Yan Maki, Robert G. Br J Cancer Article BACKGROUND: This subgroup analysis of a phase 3 study compares outcomes for eribulin versus dacarbazine in patients with leiomyosarcoma. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years old with advanced liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma, ECOG PS ≤2, and ≥2 prior treatment regimens were randomly assigned (1:1) to eribulin mesylate (1.4 mg/m² intravenously on day 1 and day 8) or dacarbazine (either 850, 1000, or 1200 mg/m² intravenously) every 21 days until disease progression. The primary end point was OS; additional end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: 309 Patients with leiomyosarcoma were included (eribulin, n = 157; dacarbazine, n = 152). Median age was 57 years; 42% of patients had uterine disease and 57% had nonuterine disease. Median OS was 12.7 versus 13.0 months for eribulin versus dacarbazine, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.93 [95% CI 0.71–1.20]; P = 0.57). Median PFS (2.2 vs 2.6 months, HR = 1.07 [95% CI 0.84–1.38]; P = 0.58) and ORR (5% vs 7%) were similar between eribulin- and dacarbazine-treated patients. Grade ≥3 TEAEs occurred in 69% of patients receiving eribulin and 59% of patients receiving dacarbazine. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy of eribulin in patients with leiomyosarcoma was comparable to that of dacarbazine. Both agents had manageable safety profiles. Nature Publishing Group UK 2019-05-08 2019-05-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6738064/ /pubmed/31065111 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-019-0462-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Blay, Jean-Yves
Schöffski, Patrick
Bauer, Sebastian
Krarup-Hansen, Anders
Benson, Charlotte
D’Adamo, David R.
Jia, Yan
Maki, Robert G.
Eribulin versus dacarbazine in patients with leiomyosarcoma: subgroup analysis from a phase 3, open-label, randomised study
title Eribulin versus dacarbazine in patients with leiomyosarcoma: subgroup analysis from a phase 3, open-label, randomised study
title_full Eribulin versus dacarbazine in patients with leiomyosarcoma: subgroup analysis from a phase 3, open-label, randomised study
title_fullStr Eribulin versus dacarbazine in patients with leiomyosarcoma: subgroup analysis from a phase 3, open-label, randomised study
title_full_unstemmed Eribulin versus dacarbazine in patients with leiomyosarcoma: subgroup analysis from a phase 3, open-label, randomised study
title_short Eribulin versus dacarbazine in patients with leiomyosarcoma: subgroup analysis from a phase 3, open-label, randomised study
title_sort eribulin versus dacarbazine in patients with leiomyosarcoma: subgroup analysis from a phase 3, open-label, randomised study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6738064/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31065111
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-019-0462-1
work_keys_str_mv AT blayjeanyves eribulinversusdacarbazineinpatientswithleiomyosarcomasubgroupanalysisfromaphase3openlabelrandomisedstudy
AT schoffskipatrick eribulinversusdacarbazineinpatientswithleiomyosarcomasubgroupanalysisfromaphase3openlabelrandomisedstudy
AT bauersebastian eribulinversusdacarbazineinpatientswithleiomyosarcomasubgroupanalysisfromaphase3openlabelrandomisedstudy
AT kraruphansenanders eribulinversusdacarbazineinpatientswithleiomyosarcomasubgroupanalysisfromaphase3openlabelrandomisedstudy
AT bensoncharlotte eribulinversusdacarbazineinpatientswithleiomyosarcomasubgroupanalysisfromaphase3openlabelrandomisedstudy
AT dadamodavidr eribulinversusdacarbazineinpatientswithleiomyosarcomasubgroupanalysisfromaphase3openlabelrandomisedstudy
AT jiayan eribulinversusdacarbazineinpatientswithleiomyosarcomasubgroupanalysisfromaphase3openlabelrandomisedstudy
AT makirobertg eribulinversusdacarbazineinpatientswithleiomyosarcomasubgroupanalysisfromaphase3openlabelrandomisedstudy