Abstract
Background
Soft tissue sarcomas (STSs) are a heterogeneous group of cancers with over 100 described subtypes. While these cancers are infrequent, the prognosis is quite poor, particularly for those with stage IV metastatic disease. Patients for whom curative resection is difficult or those with recurrent metastatic disease are treated with chemotherapy, although the options are very limited. Eribulin is an approved treatment of all STS subtypes in Japan. Efficacy and safety data for the treatment of rare STS subtypes other than liposarcoma and leiomyosarcoma (L-type sarcomas) are limited. This nationwide, multicenter, prospective, post-marketing observational study was conducted to assess the real-world effectiveness and safety of eribulin in Japanese patients with STS.
Methods
Patients with all types of STS and who consented to eribulin treatment were eligible to participate. The observation period was 1 year, starting at treatment initiation, and clinical outcomes were followed up for 2 years after initiating treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Additional outcomes included time-to-treatment failure (TTF), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. ORR and DCR were evaluated using imaging findings. Effectiveness results were analyzed both for all patients and by STS subtype.
Results
A total of 256 patients were enrolled; 252 and 254 were included in the effectiveness and safety analysis set, respectively. Most patients (83.1%) received an initial eribulin dose of 1.4 mg/m2 (standard dose). Respective median OS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 10.8 (8.5–13.1), 13.8 (10.1–22.3) and 6.5 (5.7–11.1) months for all, L-type, and non-L-type subtypes. The respective median TTF (95% CI) was 2.5 (2.1–2.8), 2.8 (2.3–3.7), and 2.2 (1.6–2.6) months. The ORR and DCR were 8.1 and 42.6%, respectively. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and serious ADRs were reported for 83.5 and 18.9% of patients, respectively. The main ADRs were associated with myelosuppression. No significant difference was observed in the incidence of ADRs for patients ≥65 versus <65 years old.
Conclusions
Eribulin demonstrated effectiveness and a manageable safety profile for patients with STS, although the effectiveness of eribulin was not demonstrated for some non-L-type subtypes.
Trial registration
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09527-y.
Keywords: Eribulin, Japan, Post-marketing study, Soft tissue sarcoma, Overall survival
Background
Soft tissue sarcomas (STSs) are an infrequent and heterogeneous group of cancers with over 100 described histological subtypes [1]. The most commonly occurring histological subtypes are leiomyosarcomas, liposarcomas, undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor, and synovial sarcoma [2]. A recent survey reported that there were approximately 4000 patients with STS in Japan [3] and that there are approximately 2000 deaths from STS annually [4]. The 5-year survival rate for STS is 65% [5]. In the metastatic setting, patients with STS have an extremely poor prognosis, with a survival time of about 1 year after treatment [6–8]; prognosis is especially poor for stage IV patients with metastasis.
The standard first-line treatment for localized STS is surgery, radiation, or a combination of both [9]. Curative resection of the primary tumor is the mainstay of treatment both in Japan and overseas. Chemotherapy is used to treat patients for whom curative resection is difficult or who have recurrent or metastatic disease. The standard chemotherapy regimen for STS is either single-agent doxorubicin or an anthracycline in addition to combination therapy centered on doxorubicin and ifosfamide [10]. The objective response rate (ORR) for these therapies ranges between 5 and 25%, and the median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) are 2–7 months and 10–14 months, respectively [11–13]. Pazopanib was approved in 2012 as a second-line treatment option for STS after initial chemotherapy both in Japan and overseas. The median PFS and median OS for patients treated with pazopanib were 4.6 and 12.5 months, respectively; the overall response was 6% [14]. Non-pazopanib treatment options include trabectedin monotherapy, gemcitabine-docetaxel combination therapy, dacarbazine monotherapy, and dacarbazine-gemcitabine combination therapy. These options are used in patients who have either failed or had difficulty continuing initial chemotherapy and, aside from trabectedin monotherapy, are only available outside Japan or are not covered by Japan’s universal health insurance system. However, in some cases, unapproved therapies (e.g., gemcitabine-docetaxel combination) can be prescribed by the treating physicians in accordance with Japanese guidelines [10]. The reported ORR for non-pazopanib therapies ranges from 5 to 15%, and median PFS and OS range from 2 to 6 months and 8 to 18 months, respectively [15–17]. In Japan, patients who have failed doxorubicin, ifosfamide, or pazopanib treatment, or who have difficulty continuing treatment because of adverse reactions (such as cardiotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, and hepatotoxicity) have no other treatment options, making chemotherapy options for malignant STS very limited. Given the above, there is a substantial unmet need for new therapies, particularly in Japan.
Eribulin mesylate, hereafter referred to as eribulin, is a fully synthetic macrocyclic ketone analog of the marine natural product halichondrin B that inhibits microtubule dynamics and has antitumor effects by mitotic blockade [18]. Japan is the only country that has approved eribulin treatment for all STS subtypes [19]. This approval was based on the phase 2 study of eribulin in patients with advanced/metastatic STS (NCT01458249), which was conducted in Japan, and the phase 3 study of eribulin in patients with advanced liposarcoma/leiomyosarcoma (NCT01327885) [20–22]. In the United States, eribulin is only approved for liposarcoma subtypes [21]. Efficacy and safety data for eribulin treatment of rare STS subtypes other than liposarcoma and leiomyosarcoma (L-type sarcomas) are limited. The objective of this post-marketing observational study was to assess the real-world effectiveness and safety of eribulin in Japanese patients with STS stratified by subtype (L-type and non-L-type) who were followed up for 2 years.
Methods
Patients
Japanese patients with all types of STS (L-type and non-L-type) who met the criteria for STS according to the 2013 World Health Organization classification [23] and who consented to eribulin treatment were eligible for inclusion in this study. Key exclusion criteria included severe myelosuppression, a history of hypersensitivity to eribulin, and pregnancy or having the potential to become pregnant.
Study design and treatment
The detailed methodology used in this study has already been published [24]. Briefly, this was a nationwide, multicenter, prospective, post-marketing observational study conducted in Japan between February 2016 and January 2019. Patients were enrolled in the study across 102 institutes where they were receiving eribulin treatment. Eribulin was administered intravenously at a dose of 1.4 mg/m2 (2–5 min) on days 1 and 8 of each 3-week treatment cycle. Dose adjustments were allowed at the discretion of the treating physician and in accordance with the eribulin prescribing information [25].
The observation period was 1 year, which started at treatment initiation; clinical outcomes were followed up for up to 2 years after treatment initiation. In addition to collecting baseline data prior to treatment initiation, the treating physician completed questionnaires at 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years after initiation of eribulin treatment. Data collected included patient characteristics, clinicopathological data and treatment history at baseline, eribulin administration status, concomitant drugs, diagnostic imaging, adverse events (AEs), adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and clinical outcome.
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Post-Marketing Study Practice. Approval from Clinical Review and Approval Board at Eisai Co., Ltd., and the ethics committee or institutional review board at each study institute was obtained prior to study initiation. Because this was an observational study based on Good Post-Marketing Study Practice, formal informed consent was waived by Clinical Review and Approval Board at Eisai Co., Ltd.; however, all patients consented to eribulin treatment. This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03058406).
Effectiveness and safety
The primary endpoint was OS, defined as the time from initiation of eribulin treatment to death from any cause. Time-to-treatment failure (TTF), ORR, disease control rate (DCR), and safety were also evaluated. TTF was defined as the time from the first dose of eribulin until the date of treatment discontinuation from any cause; it was censored at the date of last follow-up for surviving patients remaining on treatment. Imaging findings were used to evaluate ORR and DCR. ORR was defined as complete response (CR) + partial response (PR) and DCR as CR + PR + stable disease (SD). ORR was determined by the responsible physicians at each institution using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours guideline (version 1.1). The timing of diagnostic imaging for these time-to-event outcomes was based on the treating physician’s discretion. AEs were assessed according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (Japanese version 4.0). AEs for which a causal relationship to eribulin could not be ruled out were regarded as ADRs. Effectiveness results were analyzed for all patients and by STS subtype.
Statistical analysis
Sample size calculations were performed considering that a sufficiently large sample would be necessary to detect Grade ≥ 3 infections associated with myelosuppression. The sample size was set to evaluate safety of eribulin treatment at the recommendation of Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency. In the Japanese phase 2 study of patients with STS [20], infections and infectious pleural effusion occurred in 2% of patients, and these events were less frequent among Grade ≥3 infections. Based on this, we calculated a 95% probability that at least one event, which was expected to occur in 2% of the population, could be detected in 150 patients. With an assumed withdrawal rate of 5%, the planned sample size was 160 patients. When the required number of patients had been enrolled, patient registration was stopped after consultation with the authorities.
The safety analysis set comprised all patients who received at least one dose of eribulin and had at least one safety assessment. The effectiveness analysis set comprised all patients with a diagnosis of STS. Safety and effectiveness data were evaluated using descriptive statistics; OS and TTF were assessed using the Kaplan–Meier method. Differences in safety measures among subgroups were evaluated using a chi-square test. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).
Results
Patients and treatment
Patient disposition is shown in Fig. 1. In total, 256 patients were enrolled in the study and 254 were included in the safety analysis set. One patient was excluded because the presence or absence of AEs was unclear. In addition, one patient was excluded because there was a case duplication due to patient transfer. The effectiveness analysis set included 252 patients; two patients were excluded because they did not have a diagnosis of STS.
Fig. 1.
Patient disposition. AE adverse event
Baseline patient characteristics, both for the total population and stratified by age (<65 and ≥65 years), are shown in Table 1. The median age was 62 years (range: 17–87 years), and the proportion of patients aged ≥65 years was 42.5%. The median time from the first onset of STS to the start of eribulin treatment was 2.42 years (range: 0.2–29.2 years), and the percentage of patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 or 1 at the start of eribulin treatment was 83.9%. The most frequent locations of the main target lesions were the retroperitoneum and abdominal cavity (40.6%), viscera (28.0%), and thoracic cavity (22.0%). The median number of chemotherapy regimens administered prior to initiating eribulin treatment was 2.0 (range: 0–11), and the most common previously administered chemotherapy regimens were doxorubicin monotherapy (36.6%), pazopanib (32.3%), and gemcitabine + docetaxel (26.8%). The proportion of patients who received eribulin as first-line treatment was approximately 5.4% higher in patients aged ≥65 years than in patients aged <65 years. Among patients aged ≥65 years, none received eribulin as fifth-line treatment or above.
Table 1.
Baseline patient characteristics
| <65 years (n = 146) |
≥65 years (n = 108) |
ALL (N = 254) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex, female | 78 (53.4) | 56 (51.9) | 134 (52.8) |
| Age, years | |||
| Mean ± standard deviation | 50.6 ± 11.1 | 71.2 ± 5.2 | 59.3 ± 13.6 |
| Median (range) | 53 (17–64) | 70 (65–87) | 62 (17–87) |
| ECOG PS | |||
| 0 | 56 (38.4) | 43 (39.8) | 99 (39.0) |
| 1 | 68 (46.6) | 46 (42.6) | 114 (44.9) |
| 2 | 15 (10.3) | 13 (12.0) | 28 (11.0) |
| 3 | 6 (4.1) | 6 (5.6) | 12 (4.7) |
| 4 | 1 (0.7) | 0 | 1 (0.4) |
| Time from diagnosis to initiation of eribulin treatment (years) (n = 238) | |||
| Mean ± standard deviation | 3.57 ± 3.59 | 4.74 ± 5.54 | 4.07 ± 4.57 |
| Median (range) | 2.28 (0.2–29.2) | 2.50 (0.3–28.8) | 2.42 (0.2–29.2) |
| Target lesion (duplicate count) | |||
| Head and neck | 6 (4.1) | 10 (9.3) | 16 (6.3) |
| Trunk | 24 (16.4) | 7 (6.5) | 31 (12.2) |
| Thoracic cavity | 32 (21.9) | 24 (22.2) | 56 (22.0) |
| Retroperitoneum and abdominal cavity | 52 (35.6) | 51 (47.2) | 103 (40.6) |
| Upper extremities | 5 (3.4) | 2 (1.9) | 7 (2.8) |
| Lower extremities | 22 (15.1) | 10 (9.3) | 32 (12.6) |
| Viscera | 43 (29.5) | 28 (25.9) | 71 (28.0) |
| Genitourinary | 3 (2.1) | 3 (2.8) | 6 (2.4) |
| Digestive | 9 (6.2) | 9 (8.3) | 18 (7.1) |
| Gynecologic | 17 (11.6) | 9 (8.3) | 26 (10.2) |
| Breast | 4 (2.7) | 0 | 4 (1.6) |
| Others | 12 (8.2) | 10 (9.3) | 22 (8.7) |
| Others | 13 (8.9) | 11 (10.2) | 24 (9.4) |
| Soft tissue sarcoma subtype | |||
| Leiomyosarcoma | 43 (29.5) | 30 (27.8) | 73 (28.7) |
| Liposarcoma | 39 (26.7) | 30 (27.8) | 69 (27.2) |
| Dedifferentiated | 19 (13.0) | 21 (19.4) | 40 (15.7) |
| Myxoid | 10 (6.8) | 2 (1.9) | 12 (4.7) |
| Well-differentiated | 5 (3.4) | 2 (1.9) | 7 (2.8) |
| Pleomorphic | 2 (1.4) | 1 (0.9) | 3 (1.2) |
| Unknown | 3 (2.1) | 4 (3.7) | 7 (2.8) |
| Undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma | 11 (7.5) | 8 (7.4) | 19 (7.5) |
| Angiosarcoma | 5 (3.4) | 9 (8.3) | 14 (5.5) |
| Synovial sarcoma | 11 (7.5) | 2 (1.9) | 13 (5.1) |
| Rhabdomyosarcoma | 7 (4.8) | 5 (4.6) | 12 (4.7) |
| Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor | 4 (2.7) | 2 (1.9) | 6 (2.4) |
| Myxofibrosarcoma | 0 | 5 (4.6) | 5 (2.0) |
| Others | 26 (17.8) | 17 (15.7) | 43 (16.9) |
| Median number of previous chemotherapies (range) (n = 251) | 2 (0–11) | 2 (0–4) | 2 (0–11) |
| Number of previous chemotherapies | |||
| 0 | 7 (4.8) | 11 (10.2) | 18 (7.1) |
| 1 | 46 (31.5) | 35 (32.4) | 81 (31.9) |
| 2 | 44 (30.1) | 29 (26.9) | 73 (28.7) |
| 3 | 24 (16.4) | 21 (19.4) | 45 (17.7) |
| 4 | 12 (8.2) | 10 (9.3) | 22 (8.7) |
| ≥ 5 | 12 (8.2) | 0 | 12 (4.7) |
| Unknown | 1 (0.7) | 2 (1.9) | 3 (1.2) |
| Major previous regimens | |||
| Doxorubicin monotherapy | 54 (37.0) | 39 (36.1) | 93 (36.6) |
| Pazopanib | 45 (30.8) | 37 (34.3) | 82 (32.3) |
| Gemcitabine + docetaxel | 43 (29.5) | 25 (23.1) | 68 (26.8) |
| Doxorubicin + ifosfamide | 43 (29.5) | 15 (13.9) | 58 (22.8) |
| Trabectedin | 28 (19.2) | 20 (18.5) | 48 (18.9) |
ECOG PS Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status
Eribulin treatment status is shown in Table 2. The proportion of patients who received an initial dose of 1.4 mg/m2 (standard dose) of eribulin was 83.1%, and the median number of cycles administered was 3.0 (range: 1–20). When comparing initial doses, the proportion of patients aged ≥65 years who received an initial eribulin dose of 1.4 mg/m2 was approximately 17.3% lower than that of patients aged <65 years; the proportion of patients who received a lower initial dose of 1.1 mg/m2 was approximately 16.3% higher. The number of cycles administered was similar in patients aged <65 years and those aged ≥65 years.
Table 2.
Eribulin treatment status
| <65 years (n = 146) |
≥65 years (n = 108) |
ALL (N = 254) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial dose (mg/m2) | |||
| 1.4 | 132 (90.4) | 79 (73.1) | 211 (83.1) |
| 1.1 | 10 (6.8) | 25 (23.1) | 35 (13.8) |
| 0.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Others | 4 (2.7) | 4 (3.7) | 8 (3.1) |
| Number of cycles | |||
| Mean ± standard deviation | 4.8 ± 4.2 | 5.0 ± 4.2 | 4.8 ± 4.2 |
| Median (range) | 3.0 (1–20) | 3.0 (1–18) | 3.0 (1–20) |
| Dose intensity (mg/m2/week) | |||
| Mean ± standard deviation | 0.71 ± 0.19 | 0.65 ± 0.21 | 0.68 ± 0.20 |
| Median (range) | 0.71 (0.3–1.0) | 0.65 (0.2–0.9) | 0.70 (0.2–1.0) |
| Relative dose intensity | |||
| Mean ± standard deviation | 0.76 ± 0.20 | 0.69 ± 0.22 | 0.73 ± 0.21 |
| Median (range) | 0.76 (0.3–1.0) | 0.69 (0.2–1.0) | 0.75 (0.2–1.0) |
Effectiveness
OS (primary endpoint) and TTF (secondary endpoint) are shown in Table 3. The median OS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 10.8 (8.5–13.1) months for all STS subtypes, 12.7 (8.5–20.6) months for leiomyosarcoma, and 20.8 (8.9–not reached) months for liposarcoma. The median (95% CI) OS was 13.8 (10.1–22.3) months for L-type STS subtypes and 6.5 (5.7–11.1) months for non-L-type subtypes. The median (95% CI) TTF for all STS subtypes was 2.5 (2.1–2.8) months. The median (95% CI) TTF was 2.8 (2.3–3.7) months for L-type subtypes and 2.2 (1.6–2.6) months for non-L-subtypes (including undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, angiosarcoma, synovial sarcoma, and others). Both OS and TTF were significantly longer in patients with L-type STS than in patients with non-L-type subtypes (OS: hazard ratio [HR] 2.01, 95% CI 1.47–2.76; TTF: HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.23–2.08, log-rank test).
Table 3.
Overall survival and time-to-treatment failure after treatment with eribulin
| Soft tissue sarcoma subtypea | n | OS median, months (95% CI) |
TTF median, months (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| All | 252 | 10.8 (8.5–13.1) | 2.5 (2.1–2.8) |
| L-type | 142 | 13.8 (10.1–22.3) | 2.8 (2.3–3.7) |
| Non-L-type | 110 | 6.5 (5.7–11.1) | 2.2 (1.6–2.6) |
| Leiomyosarcoma | 73 | 12.7 (8.5–20.6) | 2.8 (2.1–3.7) |
| Liposarcoma | 69 | 20.8 (8.9–not reached) | 3.2 (1.7–5.5) |
| Dedifferentiated | 40 | 16.6 (8.8–not reached) | 3.1 (1.7–5.7) |
| Myxoid | 12 | 27.6 (4.1–27.6) | 5.0 (1.0–12.0) |
| Well-differentiated | 7 | not reached (5.8–not reached) | 9.9 (0.5–not reached) |
| Pleomorphic | 3 | 7.3 (6.9–8.5) | 1.4 (1.4–2.0) |
| Unknown | 7 | 5.8 (1.8–not reached) | 1.5 (0.5–5.8) |
| Undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma | 19 | 8.1 (4.0–16.3) | 2.3 (1.4–4.0) |
| Angiosarcoma | 14 | 12.7 (3.4–16.9) | 2.4 (0.7–5.5) |
| Synovial sarcoma | 13 | 11.7 (4.5–16.0) | 3.7 (2.3–4.6) |
| Rhabdomyosarcoma | 12 | 4.5 (0.8–9.7) | 1.2 (0.5–2.8) |
| Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor | 6 | 3.3 (2.0–5.1) | 1.5 (0.5–2.3) |
| Myxofibrosarcoma | 5 | 11.1 (2.3–19.8) | 8.1 (0.7–8.4) |
CI confidence interval, OS overall survival, TTF time-to-treatment failure
aLimited to subtypes with 5 or more patients
The ORR and DCR for eribulin treatment were 8.1 and 42.6%, respectively (Table 4). One patient achieved a best overall response of CR, 18 achieved PR, 81 had SD (47 had SD ≥11 weeks), 129 had progressive disease, and six were not evaluable. Details of the TTF, ORR, and DCR for the STS subtypes that were reported in fewer than five patients are shown in Additional file 1.
Table 4.
Response rate, objective response rate, and disease control rate
| Response rate, n | ORR (CR + PR) | DCR | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soft tissue sarcoma subtypea | n | CR | PR | SD | SD (≥11 W) |
PD | NE | (%) | (%) |
| All | 235 | 1 | 18 | 81 | 47 | 129 | 6 | 8.1 | 42.6 |
| L-type | 135 | 1 | 7 | 60 | 37 | 64 | 3 | 5.9 | 50.4 |
| Non-L-type | 100 | 0 | 11 | 21 | 10 | 65 | 3 | 11.0 | 32.0 |
| Leiomyosarcoma | 71 | 1 | 4 | 30 | 14 | 36 | 0 | 7.0 | 49.3 |
| Liposarcoma | 64 | 0 | 3 | 30 | 23 | 28 | 3 | 4.7 | 51.6 |
| Dedifferentiated | 37 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 15 | 17 | 1 | 0.0 | 51.4 |
| Myxoid | 12 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 25.0 | 58.3 |
| Well-differentiated | 6 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 66.7 |
| Pleomorphic | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Unknown | 6 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 50.0 |
| Undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma | 18 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 14 | 0 | 11.1 | 22.2 |
| Angiosarcoma | 13 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 15.4 | 30.8 |
| Synovial sarcoma | 13 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 23.1 | 46.2 |
| Rhabdomyosarcoma | 11 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 1 | 18.2 | 18.2 |
| Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Myxofibrosarcoma | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 20.0 | 40.0 |
CR complete response rate, DCR disease control rate, NE not evaluable, ORR objective response rate, PD progressive disease, PR partial response, SD stable disease, W weeks
aLimited to subtypes with 5 or more patients
Safety
In total, 83.5% (212/254) and 18.9% (48/254) of patients experienced ADRs and serious ADRs, respectively. ADRs that occurred in ≥3% of patients are listed in Table 5. Neutropenia (60.6%), leukopenia (59.1%), and lymphopenia (15.7%) were the most commonly occurring all grade ADRs. In total, 70.5% (179/254) of patients experienced Grade ≥3 ADRs; neutropenia, leukopenia, and lymphopenia, which occurred in 53.9, 47.6, and 15.0% of patients, respectively, were the most common. Frequent serious ADRs were neutropenia, leukopenia, febrile neutropenia, and anemia in 8.7, 7.9, 2.4, and 1.6% of patients, respectively. No deaths due to ADRs were reported. ADRs leading to discontinuation occurred in 13.4% of patients and included leukopenia and neutropenia (4.3% for each), peripheral neuropathy (1.2%), and febrile neutropenia, lymphopenia, malaise, C-reactive protein increased, and hemoglobin decreased (0.8% for each).
Table 5.
Adverse drug reactions occurring in ≥3% of patients
| <65 years (n = 146) |
≥65 years (n = 108) |
ALL (N = 254) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All grade | Grade ≥3 | All grade | Grade ≥3 | All grade | Grade ≥3 | |
| Any | 120 (82.2) | 103 (70.5) | 92 (85.2) | 76 (70.4) | 212 (83.5) | 179 (70.5) |
| Hematological toxicity | ||||||
| Neutropenia | 82 (56.2) | 73 (50.0) | 72 (66.7) | 64 (59.3) | 154 (60.6) | 137 (53.9) |
| Leukopenia | 84 (57.5) | 67 (45.9) | 66 (61.1) | 54 (50.0) | 150 (59.1) | 121 (47.6) |
| Lymphopenia | 26 (17.8) | 24 (16.4) | 14 (13.0) | 14 (13.0) | 40 (15.7) | 38 (15.0) |
| Anemia | 14 (9.6) | 10 (6.8) | 16 (14.8) | 10 (9.3) | 30 (11.8) | 20 (7.9) |
| Thrombocytopenia | 7 (4.8) | 4 (2.7) | 2 (1.9) | 1 (0.9) | 9 (3.5) | 5 (2.0) |
| Febrile neutropenia | 3 (2.1) | 3 (2.1) | 6 (5.6) | 6 (5.6) | 9 (3.5) | 9 (3.5) |
| Non-hematological toxicity | ||||||
| Peripheral neuropathy | 18 (12.3) | 2 (1.4) | 12 (11.1) | 3 (2.8) | 30 (11.8) | 5 (2.0) |
| Stomatitis | 5 (3.4) | 0 | 4 (3.7) | 1 (1.0) | 9 (3.5) | 1 (0.4) |
| Alopeciaa | 7 (4.8) | – | 4 (3.7) | – | 11 (4.3) | – |
| Malaise | 8 (5.5) | 1 (0.7) | 5 (4.6) | 0 | 13 (5.1) | 1 (0.4) |
| Pyrexia | 7 (4.8) | 0 | 2 (1.9) | 0 | 9 (3.5) | 0 |
| Laboratory test abnormalities | ||||||
| ALT-increased | 23 (15.8) | 3 (2.1) | 10 (9.3) | 0 | 33 (13.0) | 3 (1.2) |
| AST-increased | 20 (13.7) | 2 (1.4) | 12 (11.1) | 0 | 32 (12.6) | 2 (0.8) |
| γ-GTP increased | 11 (7.5) | 8 (5.5) | 2 (1.9) | 1 (0.9) | 13 (5.1) | 9 (3.5) |
| CRP increased | 8 (5.5) | 2 (1.4) | 9 (8.3) | 5 (4.6) | 17 (6.7) | 7 (2.8) |
| Hemoglobin decreased | 10 (6.8) | 4 (2.7) | 2 (1.9) | 2 (1.9) | 12 (4.7) | 6 (2.4) |
Data are presented as n (%). ALT alanine aminotransferase, AST aspartate aminotransferase, CRP C-reactive protein, GTP glutamyl transferase
a Grading for alopecia is not available as indicated by ‘-‘
When comparing patients <65 years with those ≥65 years, all grade ADRs occurred in 82.2 and 85.2% of patients in each group, respectively. The respective incidences of Grade ≥ 3 ADRs were 70.5 and 70.4%. There was no numerical difference in either all grade ADRs or Grade ≥3 ADRs between the two groups. ADRs that occurred at more than a 2-fold higher rate in patients aged ≥65 years than those aged <65 years were febrile neutropenia for all grade ADRs, and febrile neutropenia, peripheral neuropathy, and C-reactive protein increased for ADRs of Grade ≥3.
The incidence rate of Grade ≥3 ADRs among patients who were aged ≥75 years (n = 26) was 80.8%. Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference between the incidence of Grade ≥3 ADRs in patients ≥75 years of age versus those <65 years of age (70.5%, 103/146 patients) or ≥65 to <75 years of age (67.1%, 55/82 patients) (P = 0.4106, chi-square test).
Discussion
To date, this is the largest study to report OS results for patients with STS, including rare subtypes, who were treated with eribulin in a real-world clinical setting. The interim results of the present study were previously published [24]. As noted, treatment options for rare subtypes of STS are limited. The available efficacy data for STSs are focused on L-type sarcomas, and in the United States and Europe, eribulin is only approved for the treatment of malignant liposarcoma [26, 27]. The OS data for both L-type and non-L-type STS obtained from the present study are unprecedented, providing valuable information for physicians treating patients with STS.
In preclinical studies, eribulin demonstrated potent cytotoxicity in a panel of 24 cell lines [28] and six human STS cell lines (two leiomyosarcoma lines, and one each of liposarcoma, Ewing’s sarcoma, synovial sarcoma, and fibrosarcoma lines) [29], as well as antitumor activity in xenograft models using human STS cell lines (one each of leiomyosarcoma, liposarcoma, Ewing’s sarcoma, and fibrosarcoma) [29]. Additionally, eribulin demonstrated in vitro activity in a primary culture of undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma tumor cells; treatment resulted in upregulation of epithelial mesenchymal transition-related genes and genes involved in chemoresistance and downregulation of epithelial markers [30]. The expression of cell cycle arrest-related and pro-apoptotic-related proteins was also observed with in vitro treatment. The safety and efficacy of eribulin for treating liposarcoma has been reported in a phase 3 study [22] and for treating other subtypes in two phase 2 studies, including one conducted in Japan [20, 31]. Together, preclinical and clinical data indicate that eribulin may be effective for many STS subtypes.
The present study reported a median OS of 10.8 months, which is somewhat lower than the 13.2 months reported in a phase 2 study [20] and the 13.5 months reported in the phase 3 study [22]. A possible explanation of the lower OS reported in the present study may be that our study had a higher percentage of patients with non-L-type STS than the previously reported phase 2 and phase 3 studies, as OS is higher for patients with L-type versus non-L-type STS [20, 32]. Along this line, the present study reported that the OS was the longest for patients with liposarcoma (20.8 months) and the shortest for those with rhabdomyosarcoma or malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (4.5 and 3.3 months, respectively). TTF was the longest for patients with myxofibrosarcoma (8.1 months) and the shortest for patients with rhabdomyosarcoma or malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (1.2 and 1.5 months, respectively).
Currently, cytotoxic chemotherapy is the mainstay of treatment for metastatic STS [33]. The GeDDiS trial conducted a head-to-head comparison of doxorubicin versus gemcitabine/docetaxel and found nearly identical OS, PFS, and ORR, even in patients with leiomyosarcoma, uterine leiomyosarcoma, or undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma [34]. There is evidence that specific STS subtypes behave differently, indicating that histology-directed therapy may benefit specific subtypes.
Synovial sarcomas are quite sensitive to chemotherapy, particularly with alkylating agents [33], while angiosarcomas are particularly sensitive to taxanes, such as paclitaxel [9, 35]. An analysis of eleven trials of first-line anthracycline-based chemotherapy in angiosarcoma and the non-randomized European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) trial reported a median OS (n = 108) of 9.9 months (95% CI 8.3–12.3), which was not significantly different from the median OS of other STS subtypes [36]. In a retrospective study of patients with metastatic angiosarcomas, the median OS of doxorubicin-containing chemotherapy was 11.0 months (n = 70) [37]. For weekly paclitaxel, the reported median OS was 8 months (n = 30) [35] and 10.3 months (n = 75) [38] in two trials of metastatic angiosarcoma, and 13.1 months (n = 47) in another retrospective study [37]. For pazopanib, the median OS in a second-line study was 3.0 months (n = 9) [39]. Directly comparing the results of these and the present study is difficult; however, the median OS here was comparable with the median OS of anthracycline-based chemotherapy or doxorubicin-containing chemotherapy and weekly paclitaxel.
In a retrospective study of undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, the median OS with trabectedin was 8.4 months (n = 10) [40]. Nakamura et al. reported [41] that the median OS of eribulin in undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (n = 13) was “not reached”. Although the median OS of undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma in this study (8.1 months) was not as high as that reported by Nakamura et al. [41], it was similar to that of trabectedin [40]. For synovial sarcoma, the median OS was reported to be 15.9 months (n = 120) based on the results of seven trials of first-line chemotherapy with either doxorubicin or epirubicin [42]. In a retrospective study of trabectedin, the median OS was 19.3 months (n = 18) [40]. In second-line studies, the median OS was “not reached” (n = 3) for pazopanib and 3.0 months (n = 6) for gemcitabine/docetaxel combination [39].
Schöffski et al. [31] reported that the 6-month survival rates with eribulin were 71.1% (95% CI 43.7–86.8%) for synovial sarcoma (n = 19), 74.6% (95% CI 55.5–86.4%) for liposarcoma (n = 32), and 86.8% (95% CI 71.2–94.3%) for leiomyosarcoma (n = 38), indicating slightly better effectiveness for liposarcoma and leiomyosarcoma. The median OS in this study (11.7 months) was better than the gemcitabine/docetaxel combination but shorter than the OS with chemotherapy with either doxorubicin or epirubicin, trabectedin, or pazopanib. However, eribulin treatment seemed effective and may serve as an alternative treatment for these patients.
For myxofibrosarcoma, the median OS of trabectedin was 10.6 months (n = 3) in a retrospective study [40]. In another retrospective study of second-line gemcitabine-containing chemotherapy after doxorubicin treatment [43], the median OS was 11.4 months (n = 7). Although both studies included a small number of patients, the median OS was similar to the present study (11.1 months). Regarding malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors, the median OS of gemcitabine/docetaxel combination in a second-line study was 13.0 months (n = 4) [39], and that of trabectedin in a retrospective observational study was 11.9 months (n = 4) [40]. The median OS of these drugs was longer than the median OS achieved in this study (3.3 months). The median OS for liposarcoma in this study was 20.8 months (n = 69), which was very favorable. As all patients treated with eribulin for malignant STSs were included in the analysis, all subtypes of liposarcoma (well-differentiated liposarcoma, myxoid liposarcoma, pleomorphic liposarcoma, and dedifferentiated liposarcoma) were included in the OS analysis. In patients with well-differentiated liposarcoma (n = 7), the median OS was not reached. Of those with liposarcoma, 10% were well-differentiated. It should be noted that the longer OS in patients with liposarcoma in this study may have been influenced by the results of patients with well-differentiated liposarcoma, which present less distant metastases.
We report a manageable safety profile for eribulin in the real-world setting. The present study revealed no differences in either the incidences of all Grade ADRs or Grade ≥3 ADRs between patients <65 and ≥65 years of age. The similar incidence of ADRs in patients ≥65 years and <65 years may be related to the fact that the proportion of patients who received a reduced initial dose of eribulin was higher in patients aged ≥65 years than those aged <65 years. The safety profile observed in the present study is in line with the known safety profile of eribulin, as the main ADRs were associated with myelosuppression [20, 22, 31]. Although not directly comparable to our study because we report ADRs while Schöffski et al. and Kawai et al. reported AEs, both trials reported a high incidence of Grade ≥3 or higher myelosuppression-related events (neutropenia, leukopenia, lymphopenia, and anemia) [20, 22]. The overall safety profiles between these two studies do not appear to be significantly different.
The proportion of patients who received a lower initial dose of eribulin (1.1 mg/m2) was highest among those aged ≥75 years (34.7%). This increased usage of a lower initial dose may explain why the incidence of Grade ≥3 ADRs in this patient population was similar to that of younger patients (<65 vs <75 years, and ≥65 vs <75 years). Together, our safety and dosage findings could indicate that a low initial dose of eribulin may allow for controlling ADRs. In the present study, the most common ADR except for myelosuppression was peripheral neuropathy (11.8%). The incidence in our study is not considered high compared with previous Japanese real-world studies of eribulin (Watanabe et al., 16.8% [44]). Regardless, we note that the incidence of peripheral neuropathy in patients treated with eribulin is lower than that reported for taxane drugs [45].
The present study had several limitations. First, this was an observational study and may have been prone to bias and/or confounding. Additionally, the timing of imaging evaluation was not defined in detail. Therefore, there were limitations in ascertaining progressive disease in the shortest time possible. Second, given that STS is a rare disease, it was not possible to collect a sufficient number of cases for some STS subtypes. Finally, the evaluation of OS in the present study was defined by a maximum follow-up of 2 years. However, longer follow-up may be necessary for some STS subtypes.
Conclusion
Although this was an observational study with a small study population and the results should be interpreted with caution, eribulin showed effectiveness and a manageable safety profile for patients with STS, but not for some non-L-type subtypes in terms of effectiveness. As Japan is the only country where eribulin is approved for all subtypes of STS, it is in a unique position to provide real-world safety and effectiveness data of eribulin to treat STS, particularly for rare subtypes for which eribulin is not approved for treatment outside of Japan. Eribulin effectiveness data are crucial for Japanese patients with STS as the current treatment options are limited. The OS data presented here are valuable for both patients and treating physicians when deciding on appropriate treatment options for STS, including rare subtypes.
Supplementary Information
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Sarah Bubeck, PhD, of Edanz (www.edanz.com) for providing medical writing services during the development of this manuscript, which was funded by Eisai Co., Ltd., in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines (http://www.ismpp.org/gpp3).
Abbreviations
- ADR
Adverse drug reaction
- AE
Adverse event
- CI
Confidence interval
- CR
Complete response
- DCR
Disease control rate
- ECOG PS
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status
- ORR
Objective response rate
- OS
Overall survival
- PFS
Progression-free survival
- PR
Partial response
- SD
Stable disease
- STS
Soft tissue sarcoma
- TTF
Time-to-treatment failure
Authors’ contributions
AK conceived of and designed the study, acquired and interpreted data, and drafted the manuscript. HN, ST, TN, HK, and EK acquired data and performed critical revision of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Funding
This study was funded by Eisai Co., Ltd. The funding body had a role in the design of the study and collection, as well as analysis.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets supporting the conclusions of the article are not available due to contractual restrictions with the institutions that collected the data.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Post-Marketing Study Practice. Approval from Clinical Review and Approval Board at Eisai Co., Ltd., and the ethics committee or institutional review board at each study institute was obtained prior to study initiation. Because this was an observational study based on Good Post-Marketing Study Practice, formal informed consent was waived by Clinical Review and Approval Board at Eisai Co., Ltd.; however, all patients consented to eribulin treatment.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
ST has received grants from Eisai Co., Ltd., Novartis Pharma K.K., and Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; and honoraria from Eisai Co., Ltd., Novartis Pharma K.K., and Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. EK has received honoraria from Eisai Co., Ltd., Novartis Pharma K.K., and Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Anderson WJ, Doyle LA. Updates from the 2020 World Health Organization classification of soft tissue and bone tumours. Histopathology. 2021;78(5):644–657. doi: 10.1111/his.14265. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Sarcoma Committee of Chinese Anti-Cancer Association, Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology Chinese expert consensus on diagnosis and treatment of soft tissue sarcomas (Version 2015) Chin J Oncol. 2016;38:310–320. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-3766.2016.04.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare in Japan, patient survey, 2014. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/database/db-hss/ps.html. Accessed 20 July 2021.
- 4.Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare in Japan, Vital Statistics, 2019 https://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/saikin/hw/jinkou/kakutei19/. Accessed 20 July 2021.
- 5.National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program. Cancer stat facts: soft tissue including heart cancer. 2021. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/soft.html. Accessed 22 Mar 2022.
- 6.Internal residents in National Cancer Center Japan . Cancer treatment manual for resident staff. 8. Igaku-Shoin; 2019. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Blay JY, van Glabbeke M, Verweij J, van Oosterom AT, Le Cesne A, Oosterhuis JW, et al. Advanced soft-tissue sarcoma: a disease that is potentially curable for a subset of patients treated with chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 2003;39(1):64–69. doi: 10.1016/S0959-8049(02)00480-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Kasper B, Ho AD, Egerer G. Is there an indication for high-dose chemotherapy in the treatment of bone and soft-tissue sarcoma? Oncology. 2005;68(2–3):115–121. doi: 10.1159/000085704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.von Mehren M, Randall RL, Benjamin RS, Boles S, Bui MM, Ganjoo KM, et al. Soft tissue sarcoma version 2.2018, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2018;16(5):536–563. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Committee of Diagnosis and Treatment of Soft Tissue Tumors of Japanese Orthopedic Association . Clinical practice guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of soft tissue tumors. 3. Tokyo: Nankodo; 2020. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Lorigan P, Verweij J, Papai Z, Rodenhuis S, Le Cesne A, Leahy MG, et al. Phase III trial of two investigational schedules of ifosfamide compared with standard-dose doxorubicin in advanced or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma: a European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer soft tissue and bone sarcoma group study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(21):3144–3150. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.7717. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.van Oosterom AT, Mouridsen HT, Nielsen OS, Dombernowsky P, Krzemieniecki K, Judson I, et al. Results of randomised studies of the EORTC soft tissue and bone sarcoma group (STBSG) with two different ifosfamide regimens in first-and second-line chemotherapy in advanced soft tissue sarcoma patients. Eur J Cancer. 2002;38(18):2397–2406. doi: 10.1016/S0959-8049(02)00491-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Judson I, Verweij J, Gelderblom H, Hartmann JT, Schöffski P, Blay JY, et al. Doxorubicin alone versus intensified doxorubicin plus ifosfamide for first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma: a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(4):415–423. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70063-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.van der Graaf WT, Blay JY, Chawla SP, Kim DW, Bui-Nguyen B, Casali PG, et al. Pazopanib for metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (PALETTE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2012;379(9829):1879–1886. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60651-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Demetri GD, Chawla SP, von Mehren M, Ritch P, Baker LH, Blay JY, et al. Efficacy and safety of trabectedin in patients with advanced or metastatic liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma after failure of prior anthracyclines and ifosfamide: results of a randomized phase II study of two different schedules. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(25):4188–4196. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.0088. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Maki RG, Wathen JK, Patel SR, Priebat DA, Okuno SH, Samuels B, et al. Randomized phase II study of gemcitabine and docetaxel compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcomas: results of sarcoma alliance for research through collaboration study 002. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(19):2755–2763. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.10.4117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.García-Del-Muro X, López-Pousa A, Maurel J, Martín J, Martínez-Trufero J, Casado A, et al. Randomized phase II study comparing gemcitabine plus dacarbazine versus dacarbazine alone in patients with previously treated soft tissue sarcoma: a Spanish Group for Research on sarcomas study. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(18):2528–2533. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.33.6107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Dybdal-Hargreaves NF, Risinger AL, Mooberry SL. Eribulin mesylate: mechanism of action of a unique microtubule-targeting agent. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21(11):2445–2452. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-3252. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Eisai’s anticancer agent Halaven® newly approved in Japan for treatment of soft tissue sarcoma. 2016. https://www.eisai.com/news/news201610.html. Accessed 20 July 2021.
- 20.Kawai A, Araki N, Naito Y, Ozaki T, Sugiura H, Yazawa Y, et al. Phase 2 study of eribulin in patients with previously treated advanced or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2017;47(2):137–144. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyw175. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Osgood CL, Chuk MK, Teoret MR, Huang L, He K, Her L, et al. FDA approval summary: eribulin for patients with unresectable of metastatic liposarcoma who have received a prior anthracycline-containing regimen. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(21):6384–6389. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-2422. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Schöffski P, Chawla S, Maki RG, Italiano A, Gelderblom H, Choy E, et al. Eribulin versus dacarbazine in previously treated patients with advanced liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma: a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10028):1629–1637. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01283-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Jo VY, Fletcher CD. WHO classification of soft tissue tumours: an update based on the 2013 (4th) edition. Pathology. 2014;46(2):95–104. doi: 10.1097/PAT.0000000000000050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Kobayashi E, Naito Y, Asano N, Maejima A, Endo M, Takahashi S, et al. Interim results of a real-world observational study of eribulin in soft tissue sarcoma including rare subtypes. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2019;49(10):938–946. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyz096. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Eisai Inc . Halaven [package insert] 7 2020. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Eisai Inc . Halaven [prescribing information] 2016. [Google Scholar]
- 27.European Medicines Agency. Halaven. 2016. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/halaven. Accessed 20 July 2021.
- 28.Kolb EA, Gorlick R, Reynolds CP, Kang MH, Carol H, Lock R, et al. Initial testing (stage 1) of eribulin, a novel tubulin binding agent, by the pediatric preclinical testing program. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2013;60(8):1325–1332. doi: 10.1002/pbc.24517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Kawano S, Asano M, Adachi Y, Matsui J. Antimitotic and non-mitotic effects of eribulin mesilate in soft tissue sarcoma. Anticancer Res. 2016;36(4):1553–1561. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.De Vita A, Recine F, Mercatali L, Miserocchi G, Spadazzi C, Liverani C, et al. Primary culture of undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma: molecular characterization and response to anticancer agents. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18(12):2662. doi: 10.3390/ijms18122662. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Schöffski P, Ray-Coquard IL, Cioffi A, Bui NB, Bauer S, Hartmann JT, et al. Activity of eribulin mesylate in patients with soft-tissue sarcoma: a phase 2 study in four independent histological subtypes. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(11):1045–1052. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70230-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Nakano K, Hayakawa K, Funauchi Y, Tanizawa T, Ae K, Matsumoto S, et al. Differences in the efficacy and safety of eribulin in patients with soft tissue sarcoma by histological subtype and treatment line. Mol Clin Oncol. 2021;14(1):13. doi: 10.3892/mco.2020.2175. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Bui NQ, Wang DS, Hiniker SM. Contemporary management of metastatic soft tissue sarcoma. Curr Probl Cancer. 2019;43(4):289–299. doi: 10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2019.06.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Seddon B, Strauss SJ, Whelan J, Leahy M, Woll PJ, Cowie F, et al. Gemcitabine and docetaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line treatment in previously untreated advanced unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcomas (GeDDiS): a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(10):1397–1410. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30622-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Penel N, Bui BN, Bay JO, Cupissol D, Ray-Coquard I, Piperno-Neumann S, et al. Phase II trial of weekly paclitaxel for unresectable angiosarcoma: the ANGIOTAX study. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(32):5269–5274. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.17.3146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Young RJ, Natukunda A, Litière S, Woll PJ, Wardelmann E, van der Graaf WT. First-line anthracycline-based chemotherapy for angiosarcoma and other soft tissue sarcoma subtypes: pooled analysis of eleven European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer soft tissue and bone sarcoma group trials. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50(18):3178–3186. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.10.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Penel N, Italiano A, Ray-Coquard I, Chaigneau L, Delcambre C, Robin YM, et al. Metastatic angiosarcomas: doxorubicin-based regimens, weekly paclitaxel and metastasectomy significantly improve the outcome. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(2):517–523. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdr138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Italiano A, Cioffi A, Penel N, Levra MG, Delcambre C, Kalbacher E, et al. Comparison of doxorubicin and weekly paclitaxel efficacy in metastatic angiosarcomas. Cancer. 2012;118(13):3330–3336. doi: 10.1002/cncr.26599. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Kim JH, Park HS, Heo SJ, Kim SK, Han JW, Shin KH, et al. Differences in the efficacies of pazopanib and gemcitabine/docetaxel as second-line treatments for metastatic soft tissue sarcoma. Oncology. 2019;96(2):59–69. doi: 10.1159/000492597. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Kobayashi H, Iwata S, Wakamatsu T, Hayakawa K, Yonemoto T, Wasa J, et al. Efficacy and safety of trabectedin for patients with unresectable and relapsed soft-tissue sarcoma in Japan: a Japanese musculoskeletal oncology group study. Cancer. 2020;126(6):1253–1263. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32661. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Nakamura T, Tsukushi S, Asanuma K, Katagiri H, Ikuta K, Nagano A, et al. The clinical outcome of eribulin treatment in Japanese patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma: a Tokai musculoskeletal oncology consortium study. Clin Exp Metastasis. 2019;36(4):343–350. doi: 10.1007/s10585-019-09980-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Van Glabbeke M, van Oosterom AT, Oosterhuis JW, Mouridsen H, Crowther D, Somers R, et al. Prognostic factors for the outcome of chemotherapy in advanced soft tissue sarcoma: an analysis of 2,185 patients treated with anthracycline-containing first-line regimens — a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer soft tissue and bone sarcoma group study. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(1):150–157. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1999.17.1.150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Elkrief A, Kazandjian S, Alcindor T. Gemcitabine-containing chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic myxofibrosarcoma refractory to doxorubicin: a case series. Curr Oncol. 2021;28(1):813–817. doi: 10.3390/curroncol28010078. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Watanabe J, Ito Y, Ohsumi S, Mizutani M, Tashiro H, Sakurai K, et al. Safety and effectiveness of eribulin in Japanese patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a post-marketing observational study. Investig New Drugs. 2017;35(6):791–799. doi: 10.1007/s10637-017-0486-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Song SJ, Min J, Suh SY, Jung SH, Hahn HJ, Im SA, et al. Incidence of taxane-induced peripheral neuropathy receiving treatment and prescription patterns in patients with breast cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2017;25(7):2241–2248. doi: 10.1007/s00520-017-3631-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The datasets supporting the conclusions of the article are not available due to contractual restrictions with the institutions that collected the data.