English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

Retrospective review of the activity and safety of apatinib and anlotinib in patients with advanced osteosarcoma and soft tissue sarcoma