Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2017 Oct;18(10):1397-1410.
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30622-8. Epub 2017 Sep 4.

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

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

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

Beatrice Seddon et al. Lancet Oncol. 2017 Oct.

Abstract

Background: For many years, first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma has been doxorubicin. This study compared gemcitabine and docetaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma.

Methods: The GeDDiS trial was a randomised controlled phase 3 trial done in 24 UK hospitals and one Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) hospital. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma of Trojani grade 2 or 3, disease progression before enrolment, and no previous chemotherapy for sarcoma or previous doxorubicin for any cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive six cycles of intravenous doxorubicin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks, or intravenous gemcitabine 675 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 8 every 3 weeks. Treatment was assigned using a minimisation algorithm incorporating a random element. Randomisation was stratified by age (≤18 years vs >18 years) and histological subtype. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients alive and progression free at 24 weeks in the intention-to-treat population. Adherence to treatment and toxicity were analysed in the safety population, consisting of all patients who received at least one dose of their randomised treatment. The trial was registered with the European Clinical Trials (EudraCT) database (no 2009-014907-29) and with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry (ISRCTN07742377), and is now closed to patient entry.

Findings: Between Dec 3, 2010, and Jan 20, 2014, 257 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (129 to doxorubicin and 128 to gemcitabine and docetaxel). Median follow-up was 22 months (IQR 15·7-29·3). The proportion of patients alive and progression free at 24 weeks did not differ between those who received doxorubicin versus those who received gemcitabine and docetaxel (46·3% [95% CI 37·5-54·6] vs 46·4% [37·5-54·8]); median progression-free survival (23·3 weeks [95% CI 19·6-30·4] vs 23·7 weeks [18·1-20·0]; hazard ratio [HR] for progression-free survival 1·28, 95% CI 0·99-1·65, p=0·06). The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (32 [25%] of 128 patients who received doxorubicin and 25 [20%] of 126 patients who received gemcitabine and docetaxel), febrile neutropenia (26 [20%] and 15 [12%]), fatigue (eight [6%] and 17 [14%]), oral mucositis (18 [14%] and two [2%]), and pain (ten [8%] and 13 [10%]). The three most common serious adverse events, representing 111 (39%) of all 285 serious adverse events recorded, were febrile neutropenia (27 [17%] of 155 serious adverse events in patients who received doxorubicin and 15 [12%] of 130 serious adverse events in patients who received gemcitabine and docetaxel, fever (18 [12%] and 19 [15%]), and neutropenia (22 [14%] and ten [8%]). 154 (60%) of 257 patients died in the intention-to-treat population: 74 (57%) of 129 patients in the doxorubicin group and 80 (63%) of 128 in the gemcitabine and docetaxel group. No deaths were related to the treatment, but two deaths were due to a combination of disease progression and treatment.

Interpretation: Doxorubicin should remain the standard first-line treatment for most patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma. These results provide evidence for clinicians to consider with their patients when selecting first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma.

Funding: Cancer Research UK, Sarcoma UK, and Clinical Trial Unit Kantonsspital St Gallen.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trial profile *Other reasons were: 43 multidisciplinary team decision not to approach patient, five deaths, three referred to or treated at other hospital, one patient did not fully understand trial, one trial closed before patient finished radiotherapy. †Clinical decision made not to treat (doxorubicin group), withdrawn consent (gemcitabine and docetaxel group), disease progression (gemcitabine and docetaxel group). ‡Histology review reclassified as ineligible histological subtypes (one gastrointestinal tumour in the doxorubicin group and one extra-skeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma in the gemcitabine and docetaxel group). §Two moved away, one being treated locally. ¶One moved away. ||See appendix p 6 for a breakdown of reasons for treatment discontinuation.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Progression-free survival HR=hazard ratio.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Overall survival HR=hazard ratio.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Quality-of-life outcomes at 12 weeks post-randomisation The plotted points represent the mean treatment effect between the groups (a positive number for the treatment effect indicates a better quality of life on gemcitabine and docetaxel than doxorubicin). For symptom scales and FA13 scores, lower scores are associated with better quality of life. Consequently, values are the opposite between table 4 and figure 4); horizontal lines are 99% CIs. FA13=fatigue questionnaire.

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Francis MDN, Charman J, Lawrence G, Grimer R. Bone and soft tissue sarcomas UK Incidence and Survival: 1996 to 2010. National Cancer Intelligence Network. 2013. http://www.ncin.org.uk/cancer_type_and_topic_specific_work/cancer_type_s... (accessed Aug 25, 2017).
    1. Judson I, Verweij J, Gelderblom H. 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;15:415–423. - PubMed
    1. Karavasilis V, Seddon BM, Ashley S, Al-Muderis O, Fisher C, Judson I. Significant clinical benefit of first-line palliative chemotherapy in advanced soft-tissue sarcoma: retrospective analysis and identification of prognostic factors in 488 patients. Cancer. 2008;112:1585–1591. - PubMed
    1. Ryan CW, Merimsky O, Agulnik M. PICASSO III: a phase III, placebo-controlled study of doxorubicin with or without palifosfamide in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:3898–3905. - PubMed
    1. Tap WD, Papai Z, van Tine BA. Doxorubicin plus evofosfamide versus doxorubicin alone in locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (TH CR-406/SARC021): an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:1089–1103. - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms