A phase II of gemcitabine combined with pazopanib followed by pazopanib maintenance, as second-line treatment in patients with advanced leiomyosarcomas: A unicancer French Sarcoma Group study (LMS03 study)

Options in second-line therapy after doxorubicin-based chemotherapy for metastatic/advanced leiomyosarcoma include gemcitabine (G), trabectedin and pazopanib (P) monotherapy. Currently, no combination therapy is better than monotherapy. LMS03 is an open-label multicentre single-group phase II study...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of cancer (1990) 2020-01, Vol.125, p.31-37
Hauptverfasser: Pautier, P., Penel, N., Ray-Coquard, I., Italiano, A., Bompas, E., Delcambre, C., Bay, J.-O., Bertucci, F., Delaye, J., Chevreau, C., Cupissol, D., Bozec, L., Eymard, J.-C., Saada, E., Isambert, N., Guillemet, C., Rios, M., Piperno-Neumann, S., Chenuc, G., Duffaud, F.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 37
container_issue
container_start_page 31
container_title European journal of cancer (1990)
container_volume 125
creator Pautier, P.
Penel, N.
Ray-Coquard, I.
Italiano, A.
Bompas, E.
Delcambre, C.
Bay, J.-O.
Bertucci, F.
Delaye, J.
Chevreau, C.
Cupissol, D.
Bozec, L.
Eymard, J.-C.
Saada, E.
Isambert, N.
Guillemet, C.
Rios, M.
Piperno-Neumann, S.
Chenuc, G.
Duffaud, F.
description Options in second-line therapy after doxorubicin-based chemotherapy for metastatic/advanced leiomyosarcoma include gemcitabine (G), trabectedin and pazopanib (P) monotherapy. Currently, no combination therapy is better than monotherapy. LMS03 is an open-label multicentre single-group phase II study designed to assess the efficacy and tolerance of G + P in the second-line setting. Patients (pts), ECOG ≤2, with metastatic leiomyosarcomas (LMS) after first-line doxorubicin chemotherapy failure were eligible. Pts were treated with G 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of each 21 days (maximum eight cycles), in combination with oral daily P (800 mg), until disease progression/toxicity. 9-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate was the primary endpoint. Inacceptable and promising 9-month PFS rates were defined, in the intent-to-treat population, as 32% and 44%. 106 pts were included with a mean age of 59.8 years and an ECOG 0 in 63.5%; the primary tumour site was uterus in 61%. Pts were treated with P + G for a median of 3.8 mo, and P for a median of 4.2 mo. The 9-month PFS rate was 32.1% (95% CI 23.1–41.1). After a median follow-up of 14.2 months, the PFS was 6.5 months (95% CI 5.6–8.2), and the overall survival was 22.4 months (95% CI 16.9–26.5). The best response was 23.8%. The most frequent reported grade 3–4 adverse events were haematological. LMS03 failed to show that second-line therapy, with gemcitabine combined with pazopanib, followed by pazopanib alone, was beneficial for advanced LMS patients. Eudract N°2011-001308-36 and NCT01442662. •Gemcitabine combined with pazopanib in second-line leiomyosarcoma after doxorubicine failure is feasible without limiting toxicity.•The 12-week disease control rate was 83.6%, and the best response during the treatment was 23.8%.•The LMS03 study failed to meet its primary objective but is nearly positive when considering per-protocol results with a median PFS 7.1 months.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.10.028
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_hal_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_02429038v1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0959804919308007</els_id><sourcerecordid>2348317875</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c418t-32d9ce873d6b1b0fb3122327df372f5868780d17fc91d99ad5add06f9c41f79a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kk-P1CAAxRujccfVL-DBkHjZTezIn_4B42WycXcnGeNh9UwoUIdJCxXobMbv6HcS0nVjPHiiPH7vQeEVxWsE1wii5v1hrQ9SrDFELAlriOmTYoVoy0pIa_y0WEFWs5LCip0VL0I4QAhbWsHnxRlBlNSYNKvi1wZMexE02G6B68F3PUoTRWesBtKNeVTg3sQ9mMRPNwlrOtC7YXD3Se9Of6mjMDZqK6zU74AIIGjprCqHnBS9FnHUNgJjkyWa9BmWWKGO2aLAoI0bTy4In_YV4QPYgNkamRc9uPbayj24WxbBjXfzBEKc1Qlc7D7fQbJMLl8Wz3oxBP3qYTwvvl1_-np1W-6-3GyvNrtSVojGkmDFpKYtUU2HOth3BGFMcKt60uK-pg1tKVSo7SVDijGhaqEUbHqW7H3LBDkvLpfcvRj45M0o_Ik7YfjtZsezBnGFGST0iBJ7sbCTdz9mHSIfTZB6GITVbg48b0wa2pA6oW__QQ9u9jb9SaIqSlBL20zhhZLeheB1_3gCBHkuBj_wXAyei5G1VIxkevMQPXejVo-WP01IwMcF0OnejkZ7HmR6p_Q0xmsZuXLmf_m_ASIRy1c</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2348317875</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A phase II of gemcitabine combined with pazopanib followed by pazopanib maintenance, as second-line treatment in patients with advanced leiomyosarcomas: A unicancer French Sarcoma Group study (LMS03 study)</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Pautier, P. ; Penel, N. ; Ray-Coquard, I. ; Italiano, A. ; Bompas, E. ; Delcambre, C. ; Bay, J.-O. ; Bertucci, F. ; Delaye, J. ; Chevreau, C. ; Cupissol, D. ; Bozec, L. ; Eymard, J.-C. ; Saada, E. ; Isambert, N. ; Guillemet, C. ; Rios, M. ; Piperno-Neumann, S. ; Chenuc, G. ; Duffaud, F.</creator><creatorcontrib>Pautier, P. ; Penel, N. ; Ray-Coquard, I. ; Italiano, A. ; Bompas, E. ; Delcambre, C. ; Bay, J.-O. ; Bertucci, F. ; Delaye, J. ; Chevreau, C. ; Cupissol, D. ; Bozec, L. ; Eymard, J.-C. ; Saada, E. ; Isambert, N. ; Guillemet, C. ; Rios, M. ; Piperno-Neumann, S. ; Chenuc, G. ; Duffaud, F.</creatorcontrib><description>Options in second-line therapy after doxorubicin-based chemotherapy for metastatic/advanced leiomyosarcoma include gemcitabine (G), trabectedin and pazopanib (P) monotherapy. Currently, no combination therapy is better than monotherapy. LMS03 is an open-label multicentre single-group phase II study designed to assess the efficacy and tolerance of G + P in the second-line setting. Patients (pts), ECOG ≤2, with metastatic leiomyosarcomas (LMS) after first-line doxorubicin chemotherapy failure were eligible. Pts were treated with G 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of each 21 days (maximum eight cycles), in combination with oral daily P (800 mg), until disease progression/toxicity. 9-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate was the primary endpoint. Inacceptable and promising 9-month PFS rates were defined, in the intent-to-treat population, as 32% and 44%. 106 pts were included with a mean age of 59.8 years and an ECOG 0 in 63.5%; the primary tumour site was uterus in 61%. Pts were treated with P + G for a median of 3.8 mo, and P for a median of 4.2 mo. The 9-month PFS rate was 32.1% (95% CI 23.1–41.1). After a median follow-up of 14.2 months, the PFS was 6.5 months (95% CI 5.6–8.2), and the overall survival was 22.4 months (95% CI 16.9–26.5). The best response was 23.8%. The most frequent reported grade 3–4 adverse events were haematological. LMS03 failed to show that second-line therapy, with gemcitabine combined with pazopanib, followed by pazopanib alone, was beneficial for advanced LMS patients. Eudract N°2011-001308-36 and NCT01442662. •Gemcitabine combined with pazopanib in second-line leiomyosarcoma after doxorubicine failure is feasible without limiting toxicity.•The 12-week disease control rate was 83.6%, and the best response during the treatment was 23.8%.•The LMS03 study failed to meet its primary objective but is nearly positive when considering per-protocol results with a median PFS 7.1 months.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0959-8049</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-0852</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.10.028</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31835236</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Chemotherapy ; Doxorubicin ; Gemcitabine ; Hematology ; Human health and pathology ; Inhibitor drugs ; Leiomyosarcoma ; Life Sciences ; Maintenance therapy ; Metastases ; Metastasis ; Metastatic disease ; Pazopanib ; Sarcoma ; Survival ; Targeted cancer therapy ; Toxic diseases ; Toxicity ; Tumors ; Uterus</subject><ispartof>European journal of cancer (1990), 2020-01, Vol.125, p.31-37</ispartof><rights>2019 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Jan 2020</rights><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c418t-32d9ce873d6b1b0fb3122327df372f5868780d17fc91d99ad5add06f9c41f79a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c418t-32d9ce873d6b1b0fb3122327df372f5868780d17fc91d99ad5add06f9c41f79a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0157-0959</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959804919308007$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31835236$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.science/hal-02429038$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pautier, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Penel, N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ray-Coquard, I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Italiano, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bompas, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Delcambre, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bay, J.-O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bertucci, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Delaye, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chevreau, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cupissol, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bozec, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eymard, J.-C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saada, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Isambert, N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guillemet, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rios, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Piperno-Neumann, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chenuc, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duffaud, F.</creatorcontrib><title>A phase II of gemcitabine combined with pazopanib followed by pazopanib maintenance, as second-line treatment in patients with advanced leiomyosarcomas: A unicancer French Sarcoma Group study (LMS03 study)</title><title>European journal of cancer (1990)</title><addtitle>Eur J Cancer</addtitle><description>Options in second-line therapy after doxorubicin-based chemotherapy for metastatic/advanced leiomyosarcoma include gemcitabine (G), trabectedin and pazopanib (P) monotherapy. Currently, no combination therapy is better than monotherapy. LMS03 is an open-label multicentre single-group phase II study designed to assess the efficacy and tolerance of G + P in the second-line setting. Patients (pts), ECOG ≤2, with metastatic leiomyosarcomas (LMS) after first-line doxorubicin chemotherapy failure were eligible. Pts were treated with G 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of each 21 days (maximum eight cycles), in combination with oral daily P (800 mg), until disease progression/toxicity. 9-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate was the primary endpoint. Inacceptable and promising 9-month PFS rates were defined, in the intent-to-treat population, as 32% and 44%. 106 pts were included with a mean age of 59.8 years and an ECOG 0 in 63.5%; the primary tumour site was uterus in 61%. Pts were treated with P + G for a median of 3.8 mo, and P for a median of 4.2 mo. The 9-month PFS rate was 32.1% (95% CI 23.1–41.1). After a median follow-up of 14.2 months, the PFS was 6.5 months (95% CI 5.6–8.2), and the overall survival was 22.4 months (95% CI 16.9–26.5). The best response was 23.8%. The most frequent reported grade 3–4 adverse events were haematological. LMS03 failed to show that second-line therapy, with gemcitabine combined with pazopanib, followed by pazopanib alone, was beneficial for advanced LMS patients. Eudract N°2011-001308-36 and NCT01442662. •Gemcitabine combined with pazopanib in second-line leiomyosarcoma after doxorubicine failure is feasible without limiting toxicity.•The 12-week disease control rate was 83.6%, and the best response during the treatment was 23.8%.•The LMS03 study failed to meet its primary objective but is nearly positive when considering per-protocol results with a median PFS 7.1 months.</description><subject>Chemotherapy</subject><subject>Doxorubicin</subject><subject>Gemcitabine</subject><subject>Hematology</subject><subject>Human health and pathology</subject><subject>Inhibitor drugs</subject><subject>Leiomyosarcoma</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Maintenance therapy</subject><subject>Metastases</subject><subject>Metastasis</subject><subject>Metastatic disease</subject><subject>Pazopanib</subject><subject>Sarcoma</subject><subject>Survival</subject><subject>Targeted cancer therapy</subject><subject>Toxic diseases</subject><subject>Toxicity</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><subject>Uterus</subject><issn>0959-8049</issn><issn>1879-0852</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kk-P1CAAxRujccfVL-DBkHjZTezIn_4B42WycXcnGeNh9UwoUIdJCxXobMbv6HcS0nVjPHiiPH7vQeEVxWsE1wii5v1hrQ9SrDFELAlriOmTYoVoy0pIa_y0WEFWs5LCip0VL0I4QAhbWsHnxRlBlNSYNKvi1wZMexE02G6B68F3PUoTRWesBtKNeVTg3sQ9mMRPNwlrOtC7YXD3Se9Of6mjMDZqK6zU74AIIGjprCqHnBS9FnHUNgJjkyWa9BmWWKGO2aLAoI0bTy4In_YV4QPYgNkamRc9uPbayj24WxbBjXfzBEKc1Qlc7D7fQbJMLl8Wz3oxBP3qYTwvvl1_-np1W-6-3GyvNrtSVojGkmDFpKYtUU2HOth3BGFMcKt60uK-pg1tKVSo7SVDijGhaqEUbHqW7H3LBDkvLpfcvRj45M0o_Ik7YfjtZsezBnGFGST0iBJ7sbCTdz9mHSIfTZB6GITVbg48b0wa2pA6oW__QQ9u9jb9SaIqSlBL20zhhZLeheB1_3gCBHkuBj_wXAyei5G1VIxkevMQPXejVo-WP01IwMcF0OnejkZ7HmR6p_Q0xmsZuXLmf_m_ASIRy1c</recordid><startdate>202001</startdate><enddate>202001</enddate><creator>Pautier, P.</creator><creator>Penel, N.</creator><creator>Ray-Coquard, I.</creator><creator>Italiano, A.</creator><creator>Bompas, E.</creator><creator>Delcambre, C.</creator><creator>Bay, J.-O.</creator><creator>Bertucci, F.</creator><creator>Delaye, J.</creator><creator>Chevreau, C.</creator><creator>Cupissol, D.</creator><creator>Bozec, L.</creator><creator>Eymard, J.-C.</creator><creator>Saada, E.</creator><creator>Isambert, N.</creator><creator>Guillemet, C.</creator><creator>Rios, M.</creator><creator>Piperno-Neumann, S.</creator><creator>Chenuc, G.</creator><creator>Duffaud, F.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>1XC</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0157-0959</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202001</creationdate><title>A phase II of gemcitabine combined with pazopanib followed by pazopanib maintenance, as second-line treatment in patients with advanced leiomyosarcomas: A unicancer French Sarcoma Group study (LMS03 study)</title><author>Pautier, P. ; Penel, N. ; Ray-Coquard, I. ; Italiano, A. ; Bompas, E. ; Delcambre, C. ; Bay, J.-O. ; Bertucci, F. ; Delaye, J. ; Chevreau, C. ; Cupissol, D. ; Bozec, L. ; Eymard, J.-C. ; Saada, E. ; Isambert, N. ; Guillemet, C. ; Rios, M. ; Piperno-Neumann, S. ; Chenuc, G. ; Duffaud, F.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c418t-32d9ce873d6b1b0fb3122327df372f5868780d17fc91d99ad5add06f9c41f79a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Chemotherapy</topic><topic>Doxorubicin</topic><topic>Gemcitabine</topic><topic>Hematology</topic><topic>Human health and pathology</topic><topic>Inhibitor drugs</topic><topic>Leiomyosarcoma</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Maintenance therapy</topic><topic>Metastases</topic><topic>Metastasis</topic><topic>Metastatic disease</topic><topic>Pazopanib</topic><topic>Sarcoma</topic><topic>Survival</topic><topic>Targeted cancer therapy</topic><topic>Toxic diseases</topic><topic>Toxicity</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><topic>Uterus</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pautier, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Penel, N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ray-Coquard, I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Italiano, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bompas, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Delcambre, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bay, J.-O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bertucci, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Delaye, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chevreau, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cupissol, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bozec, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eymard, J.-C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saada, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Isambert, N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guillemet, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rios, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Piperno-Neumann, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chenuc, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duffaud, F.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><jtitle>European journal of cancer (1990)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pautier, P.</au><au>Penel, N.</au><au>Ray-Coquard, I.</au><au>Italiano, A.</au><au>Bompas, E.</au><au>Delcambre, C.</au><au>Bay, J.-O.</au><au>Bertucci, F.</au><au>Delaye, J.</au><au>Chevreau, C.</au><au>Cupissol, D.</au><au>Bozec, L.</au><au>Eymard, J.-C.</au><au>Saada, E.</au><au>Isambert, N.</au><au>Guillemet, C.</au><au>Rios, M.</au><au>Piperno-Neumann, S.</au><au>Chenuc, G.</au><au>Duffaud, F.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A phase II of gemcitabine combined with pazopanib followed by pazopanib maintenance, as second-line treatment in patients with advanced leiomyosarcomas: A unicancer French Sarcoma Group study (LMS03 study)</atitle><jtitle>European journal of cancer (1990)</jtitle><addtitle>Eur J Cancer</addtitle><date>2020-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>125</volume><spage>31</spage><epage>37</epage><pages>31-37</pages><issn>0959-8049</issn><eissn>1879-0852</eissn><abstract>Options in second-line therapy after doxorubicin-based chemotherapy for metastatic/advanced leiomyosarcoma include gemcitabine (G), trabectedin and pazopanib (P) monotherapy. Currently, no combination therapy is better than monotherapy. LMS03 is an open-label multicentre single-group phase II study designed to assess the efficacy and tolerance of G + P in the second-line setting. Patients (pts), ECOG ≤2, with metastatic leiomyosarcomas (LMS) after first-line doxorubicin chemotherapy failure were eligible. Pts were treated with G 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of each 21 days (maximum eight cycles), in combination with oral daily P (800 mg), until disease progression/toxicity. 9-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate was the primary endpoint. Inacceptable and promising 9-month PFS rates were defined, in the intent-to-treat population, as 32% and 44%. 106 pts were included with a mean age of 59.8 years and an ECOG 0 in 63.5%; the primary tumour site was uterus in 61%. Pts were treated with P + G for a median of 3.8 mo, and P for a median of 4.2 mo. The 9-month PFS rate was 32.1% (95% CI 23.1–41.1). After a median follow-up of 14.2 months, the PFS was 6.5 months (95% CI 5.6–8.2), and the overall survival was 22.4 months (95% CI 16.9–26.5). The best response was 23.8%. The most frequent reported grade 3–4 adverse events were haematological. LMS03 failed to show that second-line therapy, with gemcitabine combined with pazopanib, followed by pazopanib alone, was beneficial for advanced LMS patients. Eudract N°2011-001308-36 and NCT01442662. •Gemcitabine combined with pazopanib in second-line leiomyosarcoma after doxorubicine failure is feasible without limiting toxicity.•The 12-week disease control rate was 83.6%, and the best response during the treatment was 23.8%.•The LMS03 study failed to meet its primary objective but is nearly positive when considering per-protocol results with a median PFS 7.1 months.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>31835236</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ejca.2019.10.028</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0157-0959</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0959-8049
ispartof European journal of cancer (1990), 2020-01, Vol.125, p.31-37
issn 0959-8049
1879-0852
language eng
recordid cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_02429038v1
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Chemotherapy
Doxorubicin
Gemcitabine
Hematology
Human health and pathology
Inhibitor drugs
Leiomyosarcoma
Life Sciences
Maintenance therapy
Metastases
Metastasis
Metastatic disease
Pazopanib
Sarcoma
Survival
Targeted cancer therapy
Toxic diseases
Toxicity
Tumors
Uterus
title A phase II of gemcitabine combined with pazopanib followed by pazopanib maintenance, as second-line treatment in patients with advanced leiomyosarcomas: A unicancer French Sarcoma Group study (LMS03 study)
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T04%3A27%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_hal_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20phase%20II%20of%20gemcitabine%20combined%20with%20pazopanib%20followed%20by%20pazopanib%20maintenance,%20as%20second-line%20treatment%20in%20patients%20with%20advanced%20leiomyosarcomas:%20A%20unicancer%20French%20Sarcoma%20Group%20study%20(LMS03%20study)&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20cancer%20(1990)&rft.au=Pautier,%20P.&rft.date=2020-01&rft.volume=125&rft.spage=31&rft.epage=37&rft.pages=31-37&rft.issn=0959-8049&rft.eissn=1879-0852&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ejca.2019.10.028&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_hal_p%3E2348317875%3C/proquest_hal_p%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2348317875&rft_id=info:pmid/31835236&rft_els_id=S0959804919308007&rfr_iscdi=true