title: Ifosfamide-based combination chemotherapy in advanced soft-tissue sarcoma: a practice guideline.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  In adult patients with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma, do combination chemotherapy regimens containing ifosfamide have an advantage in terms of response rate, time to progression, or survival, as compared with similar regimens without ifosfamide when used as first-line therapy? What are the adverse effects and effects on quality of life of ifosfamide-containing combination chemotherapy as compared with similar regimens without ifosfamide?
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The prognosis for patients with inoperable or meta-static soft-tissue sarcoma (sts) remains grim. Although the surgical resection of pulmonary metastases may be curative in 15%-30% of patients with isolated slow-growing metastases, most patients receive chemotherapy for palliative purposes. Ifosfamide has documented activity in patients who have received prior treatment with, or who have progressed on, doxorubicin. A number of studies have suggested a schedule and a dose-response relationship for ifosfamide in metastatic sts. Ifosfamide has also been assessed in combination with other drugs such as doxorubicin and dacarbazine (dtic); results of such studies have led some authors to suggest that polychemotherapy using "appropriate doses" of ifosfamide and doxorubicin may represent the "most effective systemic treatment" in this population. Given the limited effective therapeutic options available for patients with metastatic sts, the Sarcoma Disease Site Group (dsg) felt that a need existed to more specifically evaluate the potential benefits of ifosfamide-containing combination chemotherapy in that setting. The Sarcoma dsg developed an evidence-based series report through systematic review, evidence synthesis, and input from practitioners across Ontario.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Outcomes of interest included survival, response rate, adverse events, and quality of life.
  
  
  METHODS
  A systematic review and meta-analysis served as the evidentiary base for this clinical practice guideline. The report was reviewed and approved by the Sarcoma dsg, which comprises medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgeons, methodologists, and patient representatives. The results of an external review by Ontario practitioners, obtained through a mailed survey, were incorporated into this report. Final approval of the evidence-based series report was obtained from the Report Approval Panel of Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-Based Care (pebc).
  
  
  RESULTS
  The current practice guideline reflects a combination of the draft recommendations (based on the evidence identified in a systematic review and meta-analysis) and the external feedback from Ontario practitioners and the pebc's Report Approval Panel.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In patients with metastatic sts, the addition of ifosfamide to standard first-line doxorubicin-containing regimens is not recommended over single-agent doxorubicin. However, in patients with symptomatic, locally advanced, or inoperable sts, in whom tumour response might potentially result in reduced symptomatology or render a tumour resectable, use of ifosfamide in combination with doxorubicin is reasonable. QUALIFYING STATEMENT: In combination with a doxorubicin-containing regimen, the dose of ifosfamide should not exceed 7.5 g/m(2), given as either a split bolus or a continuous infusion.
authors: Division of Medical Oncology, Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario.
authors: S
authors: S
authors: Verma
authors: J
authors: J
authors: Younus
authors: D
authors: D
authors: Stys-Norman
authors: A E
authors: AE
authors: Haynes
authors: M
authors: M
authors: Blackstein
references: J Clin Oncol. 1993 Jul;11(7):1269-75
references: 8315424
references: Cancer Invest. 1993;11(2):135-9
references: 8462014
references: Eur J Cancer. 1997 Sep;33(10):1551-8
references: 9389914
references: Anticancer Res. 2000 May-Jun;20(3B):2077-80
references: 10928155
references: Cancer. 2000 Jul 1;89(1):177-80
references: 10897015
references: Am J Clin Oncol. 1994 Dec;17(6):480-4
references: 7977164
references: J Clin Oncol. 1995 Feb;13(2):502-12
references: 7844612
references: J Clin Oncol. 1995 Jul;13(7):1537-45
references: 7602342
references: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1993;31 Suppl 2:S180-4
references: 8453694
references: Oncology. 1996 Jan-Feb;53(1):58-63
references: 8570133
references: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1992;30(2):100-4
references: 1600589
references: Ann Oncol. 1992 Jun;3(6):487-8
references: 1498067
references: Ann Oncol. 1993 Sep;4(8):669-72
references: 8240997
references: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1993;31 Suppl 2:S204-9
references: 8453699
references: J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989 Jun 7;81(11):863-6
references: 2498525
references: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1993;31 Suppl 2:S222-7
references: 8453703
references: Cancer. 1996 Feb 15;77(4):675-82
references: 8616759
references: J Clin Oncol. 1993 Jul;11(7):1276-85
references: 8315425
references: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1993;31 Suppl 2:S213-6
references: 8453701
references: J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989 Oct 4;81(19):1496-9
references: 2778839
references: Semin Oncol. 1990 Apr;17(2 Suppl 4):41-9
references: 2110385
references: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1988;21(1):49-52
references: 3124971
references: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1983;11(2):69-72
references: 6414732
references: J Clin Oncol. 1989 Jan;7(1):126-31
references: 2491883
references: Am J Clin Oncol. 1993 Aug;16(4):332-7
references: 8328412
references: Eur J Cancer. 2002 Dec;38(18):2397-406
references: 12460784
references: J Surg Oncol. 1995 Jun;59(2):110-5
references: 7776651
references: J Clin Oncol. 1995 Jul;13(7):1600-8
references: 7541449
references: Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol. 1988 Sep;24(9):1439-43
references: 3181268
references: Cancer Invest. 1998;16(5):297-302
references: 9627675
references: J Clin Oncol. 1989 Nov;7(11):1655-9
references: 2681554