Real-world comparison of doxorubicin-ifosfamide versus gemcitabine-docetaxel regimens in metastatic uterine leiomyosarcoma: a multicenter retrospective study

MakaleAçık Erişim
  • SDG 3 · Sağlık ve Kaliteli Yaşam

Özet

BackgroundUterine leiomyosarcoma is a rare and aggressive malignancy with limited responsiveness to standard therapies. We conducted a real-world, multicenter study to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of two commonly used first-line chemotherapy regimens-doxorubicin-ifosfamide and gemcitabine-docetaxel-in patients with metastatic uterine leiomyosarcoma.MethodsThis retrospective cohort included 271 patients with advanced or metastatic uterine leiomyosarcoma treated between 2010 and 2023 across 30 centers in Turkey. Patients received either doxorubicin-ifosfamide (n = 142) or gemcitabine-docetaxel (n = 129) as first-line therapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, objective response rate, disease control rate, and safety. Adverse events were graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0, while survival outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and further analyzed with Cox proportional hazards models.ResultsMedian overall survival was 19.7 months with doxorubicin-ifosfamide and 20.2 months with gemcitabine-docetaxel (P = .26). Median progression-free survival was 5.5 months with doxorubicin-ifosfamide and 7.0 months with gemcitabine-docetaxel (P = .62). The objective response rate was numerically higher with gemcitabine-docetaxel (35% vs. 26%), although not statistically significant (P = .11). Grade 3-4 neutropenia (16% vs. 12%) and febrile neutropenia (7% vs. 6%) were more frequent with doxorubicin-ifosfamide.ConclusionsIn this largest-to-date real-world cohort of metastatic uterine leiomyosarcoma, doxorubicin-ifosfamide and gemcitabine-docetaxel demonstrated comparable survival outcomes. Gemcitabine-docetaxel, however, was associated with a more favorable hematologic safety profile. These findings support the clinical utility of both regimens while underscoring the need for prospective, biomarker-driven studies to refine treatment selection and improve personalization in this rare malignancy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

RDL Kalıcı Bağlantı (PID)
https://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/gumushane/10705Resmi atıflarda kullanılan kalıcı adres
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12672-025-03886-1Yayıncı resmi DOI adresi
Tam Kayıt
AlanDeğerDil
dc.contributor.authorTunbekici, Salih
dc.contributor.authorSahin, Gokhan
dc.contributor.authorYuksel, Haydar Cagatay
dc.contributor.authorAcar, Caner
dc.contributor.authorAkin, Imge
dc.contributor.authorAslanhan, Hasan
dc.contributor.authorIsci, Mert
dc.contributor.authorKabaoglu, Ceren
dc.contributor.authorBal, Hamit
dc.contributor.authorSakin, Abdullah
dc.contributor.authorCoskun, Alper
dc.contributor.authorSeyyar, Mustafa
dc.contributor.authorDilek, Mehmet Siddik
dc.contributor.authorKara, Mahmut
dc.contributor.authorSolmaz, Ali
dc.contributor.authorDemir, Teyfik
dc.contributor.authorZin, Evrican
dc.contributor.authorTerzi, Aytac
dc.contributor.authorKus, Fatih
dc.contributor.authorKus, Ilgin Koc
dc.contributor.authorArik, Zafer
dc.contributor.authorAytac, Ali
dc.contributor.authorDemirkiran, Ozge
dc.contributor.authorDemir, Bilgin
dc.contributor.authorYesil, Havva
dc.contributor.authorBiter, Sedat
dc.contributor.authorKoseci, Tolga
dc.contributor.authorBayram, Ertugrul
dc.contributor.authorUnsal, Ahmet
dc.contributor.authorOzveren, Ahmet
dc.contributor.authorSevinc, Alper
dc.contributor.authorOzaskin, Duygu
dc.contributor.authorBaykara, Meltem
dc.contributor.authorUnlu, Ahmet
dc.contributor.authorKus, Arif
dc.contributor.authorKaracin, Cengiz
dc.contributor.authorYalciner, Merih
dc.contributor.authorUyar, Galip Can
dc.contributor.authorSutcuoglu, Osman
dc.contributor.authorKaplan, Esmanur
dc.contributor.authorSakalar, Teoman
dc.contributor.authorSahin, Elif
dc.contributor.authorEmin, Gamze
dc.contributor.authorYildirim, Atilla
dc.contributor.authorMordag, Ceren
dc.contributor.authorUgurlu, Irem
dc.contributor.authorHacibekiroglu, Ilhan
dc.contributor.authorTunbekici, Ibrahim
dc.contributor.authorGursoy, Pinar
dc.contributor.authorSanli, Ulus Ali
dc.contributor.authorGoker, Erdem
dc.date.accessioned2026-10-22T09:23:15.137422837Z
dc.date.available2026-10-22T09:23:15.137422837Z
dc.date.issued2025-11
dc.description.abstractBackgroundUterine leiomyosarcoma is a rare and aggressive malignancy with limited responsiveness to standard therapies. We conducted a real-world, multicenter study to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of two commonly used first-line chemotherapy regimens-doxorubicin-ifosfamide and gemcitabine-docetaxel-in patients with metastatic uterine leiomyosarcoma.MethodsThis retrospective cohort included 271 patients with advanced or metastatic uterine leiomyosarcoma treated between 2010 and 2023 across 30 centers in Turkey. Patients received either doxorubicin-ifosfamide (n = 142) or gemcitabine-docetaxel (n = 129) as first-line therapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, objective response rate, disease control rate, and safety. Adverse events were graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0, while survival outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and further analyzed with Cox proportional hazards models.ResultsMedian overall survival was 19.7 months with doxorubicin-ifosfamide and 20.2 months with gemcitabine-docetaxel (P = .26). Median progression-free survival was 5.5 months with doxorubicin-ifosfamide and 7.0 months with gemcitabine-docetaxel (P = .62). The objective response rate was numerically higher with gemcitabine-docetaxel (35% vs. 26%), although not statistically significant (P = .11). Grade 3-4 neutropenia (16% vs. 12%) and febrile neutropenia (7% vs. 6%) were more frequent with doxorubicin-ifosfamide.ConclusionsIn this largest-to-date real-world cohort of metastatic uterine leiomyosarcoma, doxorubicin-ifosfamide and gemcitabine-docetaxel demonstrated comparable survival outcomes. Gemcitabine-docetaxel, however, was associated with a more favorable hematologic safety profile. These findings support the clinical utility of both regimens while underscoring the need for prospective, biomarker-driven studies to refine treatment selection and improve personalization in this rare malignancy.
dc.identifier.articlenumber2114
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s12672-025-03886-1
dc.identifier.eissn2730-6011
dc.identifier.issue1
dc.identifier.urihttps://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/gumushane/10705
dc.identifier.volume16
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001617744500001
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSPRINGER
dc.relation.ispartofDISCOVER ONCOLOGY
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectUterine leiomyosarcoma
dc.subjectFirst-line chemotherapy
dc.subjectDoxorubicin-ifosfamide
dc.subjectGemcitabine-docetaxel
dc.subjectReal-world study
dc.subjectMetastatic soft tissue sarcoma
dc.subject.classificationOncology
dc.subject.classificationEndocrinology & Metabolism
dc.subject.otherSOFT-TISSUE SARCOMAS
dc.subject.otherPHASE-II
dc.subject.other1ST-LINE TREATMENT
dc.subject.otherPLUS DOCETAXEL
dc.subject.otherTRABECTEDIN
dc.subject.otherCOMBINATION
dc.subject.otherTHERAPY
dc.titleReal-world comparison of doxorubicin-ifosfamide versus gemcitabine-docetaxel regimens in metastatic uterine leiomyosarcoma: a multicenter retrospective study
dc.typeArticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
rdl.citation.openalex2
rdl.citation.wos0
rdl.oa.statusgold
rdl.oa.urlhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12672-025-03886-1.pdf
rdl.sdgSDG03
rdl.source.indexWOS
rdl.wos.indexScience Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED)