Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11434/685
Title: First-line aldoxorubicin vs doxorubicin in metastatic or locally advanced unresectable soft-tissue sarcoma: a phase 2b randomized clinical trial.
Epworth Authors: Khamly, Kenneth
Other Authors: Chawla, S. P.
Papai, Z.
Mukhametshina, G.
Sankhala, K.
Vasylyev, L.
Fedenko, A.
Ganjoo, K.
Nagarkar, R.
Wieland, S.
Levitt, D. J.
Keywords: Soft-Tissue Sarcoma
Sarcoma Drug Therapy
Doxorubicin
Aldoxorubicin
Adverse Effects
Tumour Response
Efficacy
Progression-Free Survival
Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Version 1.1
Epworth Healthcare and Clinical Trials Research Centre, Richmond, Victoria, Australia.
Issue Date: Dec-2015
Publisher: American Medical Association
Citation: JAMA Oncol. 2015 Dec;1(9):1272-80.
Abstract: IMPORTANCE: Standard therapy for advanced soft-tissue sarcoma has not changed substantially in decades, and patient prognosis remains poor. Aldoxorubicin, a novel albumin-binding prodrug of doxorubicin, showed clinical activity against advanced soft-tissue sarcoma in phase 1 studies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficacy and safety of aldoxorubicin vs doxorubicin in patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: International, multicenter, phase 2b, open-label, randomized study at general community practices, private practices, or institutional practices. Between August 2012 and December 2013, 140 patients with previously untreated locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma were screened. INTERVENTIONS: Randomization (2:1) to aldoxorubicin 350 mg/m2 (dose equivalent to doxorubicin 260 mg/m2) or doxorubicin 75 mg/m2, administered once every 3 weeks for up to 6 cycles. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points were 6-month progression-free survival, overall survival, tumor response rate, and safety. All efficacy end points were evaluated by independent and local review. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients were randomized, and 123 received aldoxorubicin (n = 83) or doxorubicin (n = 40). Median (range) patient age was 54.0 (21-77 years); 42 (34%) had leiomyosarcoma. By independent review, median progression-free survival was significantly improved (5.6 [95% CI, 3.0-8.1] vs 2.7 [95% CI, 1.6-4.3] months; P = .02) with aldoxorubicin compared with doxorubicin, as was the rate of 6-month progression-free survival (46% and 23%; P = .02). Median overall survival was 15.8 (95% CI, 13.0 to not available) months with aldoxorubicin and 14.3 (95% CI, 8.6-20.6) months with doxorubicin (P = .21). Overall tumor response rate (by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1) by independent review was higher with aldoxorubicin than with doxorubicin (25% [20 patients, all partial response] vs 0%). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was more frequent with aldoxorubicin than with doxorubicin (24 [29%] vs 5 [12%]), but not grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia (12 [14%] vs 7 [18%]). No acute cardiotoxic effects were observed with either treatment, although left ventricular ejection fraction less than 50% occurred in 3 of 40 patients receiving doxorubicin. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Single-agent aldoxorubicin therapy showed superior efficacy over doxorubicin by prolonging progression-free survival and improving rates of 6-month progression-free survival and tumor response. Aldoxorubicin therapy exhibited manageable adverse effects, without unexpected events, and without evidence of acute cardiotoxicity. Further investigation of aldoxorubicin therapy in advanced soft-tissue sarcoma is warranted.
Description: Comment on this article: 'Aldoxorubicin in Sarcoma: Teaching an Old Drug New Tricks.' JAMA Oncol. 2015 Dec;1(9):1280-1.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11434/685
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.3101.
PubMed URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26378637
ISSN: 2374-2437
2374-2445
Journal Title: JAMA Oncology
Type: Journal Article
Affiliated Organisations: Sarcoma Oncology Center, Santa Monica, California, USA.
State Health Center, Oncology Department, Budapest, Hungary.
State Healthcare Institute Republican Clinical Oncological Center of the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Tatarstan, Kazan, Republic of Tatarstan, Russia.
Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Institute of Medical Radiology, Kharkiv, Ukraine.
Blokhin Cancer Research Center, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Curie Manavata Cancer Centre, Nashik, Maharashtra, India.
CytRx Corporation, Los Angeles, California.
Type of Clinical Study or Trial: Randomized Clinical Trial
Appears in Collections:Cancer Services

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in EKB are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.