Bolus versus Continuous Intravenous Delivery of Doxorubicin in Soft-Tissue Sarcomas:Post HocAnalysis of a Prospective Randomized Trial (SARC021/TH CR-406)

Abstract

AbstractPurpose:Continuous intravenous infusion (CIV) of doxorubicin (DOX) versus bolus (BOL) may minimize dose-dependent DOX cardiomyopathy, but it is unclear whether this advantage is evident as employed in typical soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) treatment. The impact of administration mode on adverse events (AE) and efficacy were compared using data from a randomized trial of DOX-based therapy (SARC021/TH CR-406).Experimental Design:In this post hoc analysis, CIV versus BOL was at discretion of the treating physician. Likelihood of AEs, and objective responses were assessed by adjusted logistic regression. Progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared using Kaplan–Meier, log-rank test, and adjusted Cox regression.Results:DOX was administered by BOL to 556 and by CIV to 84 patients. Proportions experiencing hematologic, non-hematologic, or cardiac AEs did not differ by administration mode. Hematologic AEs were associated with age, performance status, and cumulative DOX. Non-hematologic AEs were associated with age, performance status, and cumulative evofosfamide. Cardiac AEs were only associated with cumulative DOX; there was no interaction between DOX dose and delivery mode. PFS and OS were similar (median PFS 6.14 months BOL vs. 6.11 months CIV, P = 0.47; median OS 18.4 months BOL vs. 21.4 months CIV, P = 0.62). PFS, OS, and objective responses were not associated with delivery mode.Conclusions:CIV was not associated with superior outcomes over BOL within DOX dosing limits of SARC021. Cardiac AEs were associated with increasing cumulative DOX dose. While not randomized with respect to DOX delivery mode, the results indicate that continued investigation of AE mitigation strategies is warranted.