Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDemetri, GD
dc.contributor.authorSchöffski, P
dc.contributor.authorGrignani, G
dc.contributor.authorBlay, J-Y
dc.contributor.authorMaki, RG
dc.contributor.authorVan Tine, BA
dc.contributor.authorAlcindor, T
dc.contributor.authorJones, RL
dc.contributor.authorD'Adamo, DR
dc.contributor.authorGuo, M
dc.contributor.authorChawla, S
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-05T15:02:58Z
dc.date.issued2017-10
dc.identifier.citationJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2017, 35 (30), pp. 3433 - 3439
dc.identifier.issn0732-183X
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.icr.ac.uk/handle/internal/1556
dc.identifier.eissn1527-7755
dc.identifier.doi10.1200/jco.2016.71.6605
dc.description.abstractPurpose A phase III study comparing eribulin with dacarbazine in patients with advanced liposarcoma (LPS) or leiomyosarcoma showed a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) for the eribulin arm, with a manageable toxicity profile. We now report the histology-specific subgroup analysis of the efficacy and safety of eribulin compared with dacarbazine in patients with LPS, an independently randomized stratified subgroup of this phase III trial. Methods Patients ≥ 18 years with advanced or metastatic dedifferentiated, myxoid/round cell, or pleomorphic LPS incurable by surgery or radiotherapy were included. Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2 and two or more prior systemic treatment regimens, including one with anthracycline, were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive eribulin mesylate (1.4 mg/m 2 intravenously on days 1 and 8) or dacarbazine (850, 1,000, or 1,200 mg/m 2 intravenously on day 1) every 21 days. OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and safety were analyzed. Results In the LPS subgroup, OS was significantly improved: 15.6 versus 8.4 months (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.75; P < .001) with eribulin versus dacarbazine, respectively. Longer OS with eribulin was observed in all LPS histologic subtypes and in all geographic regions evaluated. PFS was also improved with eribulin versus dacarbazine (2.9 v 1.7 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.78; P = .0015). Adverse events were similar between arms. Conclusion In patients with previously treated LPS, eribulin was associated with significantly superior OS and PFS compared with dacarbazine. Eribulin represents an important treatment option for patients with LPS, a sarcoma subtype for which limited effective systemic treatments are available. Further studies are justified to explore the role of eribulin in earlier lines of therapy as well as in combination with other agents.
dc.formatPrint-Electronic
dc.format.extent3433 - 3439
dc.languageeng
dc.language.isoeng
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectLiposarcoma
dc.subjectNeutropenia
dc.subjectAlopecia
dc.subjectFatigue
dc.subjectNausea
dc.subjectKetones
dc.subjectDacarbazine
dc.subjectFurans
dc.subjectAntineoplastic Agents, Alkylating
dc.subjectTreatment Outcome
dc.subjectProspective Studies
dc.subjectAdult
dc.subjectAged
dc.subjectAged, 80 and over
dc.subjectMiddle Aged
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectKaplan-Meier Estimate
dc.titleActivity of Eribulin in Patients With Advanced Liposarcoma Demonstrated in a Subgroup Analysis From a Randomized Phase III Study of Eribulin Versus Dacarbazine.
dc.typeJournal Article
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1200/jco.2016.71.6605
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2017-10
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
dc.relation.isPartOfJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology
pubs.issue30
pubs.notesNot known
pubs.organisational-group/ICR
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies/Sarcoma Clinical Trials (R Jones)
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies/Sarcoma Clinical Trials (R Jones)/Sarcoma Clinical Trials (R Jones) (hon.)
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/Royal Marsden Clinical Units
pubs.organisational-group/ICR
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies/Sarcoma Clinical Trials (R Jones)
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies/Sarcoma Clinical Trials (R Jones)/Sarcoma Clinical Trials (R Jones) (hon.)
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/Royal Marsden Clinical Units
pubs.publication-statusPublished
pubs.volume35
pubs.embargo.termsNot known
icr.researchteamSarcoma Clinical Trials (R Jones)en_US
dc.contributor.icrauthorJones, Robinen
dc.contributor.icrauthorMarsden,en


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record