Department of Orthopedics, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University and Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, 450008, Henan Province, China.
Department of Medical Oncology, The Affiliated People's Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450003, Henan Province, China.
Invest New Drugs. 2020 Oct;38(5):1559-1569. doi: 10.1007/s10637-020-00912-7. Epub 2020 Feb 25.
Background Previous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of apatinib and anlotinib for the treatment of sarcomas. However, more clinical data and evidence are needed to support clinical treatment selection and study design. Here, we evaluated the effectiveness and safety of these two drugs for the treatment of sarcomas. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the data of 110 patients with advanced osteosarcoma (n = 32) or soft tissue sarcoma (STS, n = 78) who received oral apatinib or anlotinib therapy during May 2016-February 2019 at two centers. Patients were divided into the apatinib and anlotinib groups. Results Among osteosarcoma patients, the objective response rates (ORRs) for the apatinib and anlotinib groups were 15.79% (3/19) and 7.69% (1/13), respectively. The disease control rates (DCRs) were 63.16% (12/19) and 30.77% (4/13), and the median progression-free survival (m-PFS) was 4.67 ± 3.01 and 2.67 ± 1.60 months, respectively. Among STS patients, ORRs for the apatinib and anlotinib groups were 12.24% (6/49) and 13.79% (4/29), respectively. The DCRs were 59.18% (29/49) and 55.17% (16/29), and m-PFS was 7.82 ± 6.90 and 6.03 ± 4.50 months, respectively. Regarding adverse events (AEs), apatinib was associated with a higher incidence of hair hypopigmentation and pneumothorax, while anlotinib was associated with a higher incidence of pharyngalgia or hoarseness. Conclusion Both apatinib and anlotinib were effective for the treatment of sarcomas. However, the effectiveness of the two drugs and associated AEs varied based on the histological type of sarcoma. These differences may be due to their different sensitivities to targets such as RET, warranting further study.
先前的研究已经证实阿帕替尼和安罗替尼在肉瘤治疗中的疗效。然而,还需要更多的临床数据和证据来支持临床治疗选择和研究设计。在这里,我们评估了这两种药物治疗肉瘤的有效性和安全性。
我们回顾性分析了 2016 年 5 月至 2019 年 2 月在两个中心接受口服阿帕替尼或安罗替尼治疗的 110 例晚期骨肉瘤(n=32)或软组织肉瘤(STS,n=78)患者的数据。患者分为阿帕替尼组和安罗替尼组。
在骨肉瘤患者中,阿帕替尼组和安罗替尼组的客观缓解率(ORR)分别为 15.79%(3/19)和 7.69%(1/13)。疾病控制率(DCR)分别为 63.16%(12/19)和 30.77%(4/13),中位无进展生存期(m-PFS)分别为 4.67±3.01 和 2.67±1.60 个月。在 STS 患者中,阿帕替尼组和安罗替尼组的 ORR 分别为 12.24%(6/49)和 13.79%(4/29)。DCR 分别为 59.18%(29/49)和 55.17%(16/29),m-PFS 分别为 7.82±6.90 和 6.03±4.50 个月。关于不良事件(AEs),阿帕替尼组发生毛发色素减退和气胸的发生率较高,而安罗替尼组发生咽痛或声音嘶哑的发生率较高。
阿帕替尼和安罗替尼均对肉瘤有效。然而,两种药物的有效性和相关 AEs 因肉瘤的组织学类型而异。这些差异可能是由于它们对 RET 等靶点的敏感性不同所致,需要进一步研究。