Open Access

Objective: Epithelioid sarcoma (ES) presents unique clinical features in comparison to other sarcoma subtypes. Data regarding the benefits of chemotherapy are very limited. Combination regimens using gemcitabine and docetaxel (Gem/Doce) have proven to be effective, especially in uterine and nonuterine leiomyosarcoma. Yet, there is no available data on the efficacy of Gem/Doce in ES. Methods: A retrospective analysis of the three participating institutions was performed. Twenty-eight patients with an ES diagnosis presented at one of the participating institutions between 1989 and 2012. Of this group, 17 patients received chemotherapy. Results: Patients' median overall survival (OS) after the beginning of palliative chemotherapy was 21 months, and the 1-year OS was 87%. Twelve patients received Gem/Doce with a clinical benefit rate of 83%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8 months for all patients receiving Gem/Doce. The best response was complete remission in 1 patient and partial remission in 6 patients. All 6 patients receiving Gem/Doce as a first-line treatment showed measurable responses with a median PFS of 9 months. Conclusions: In this retrospective study, Gem/Doce was an effective chemotherapeutic regimen for ES. Prospective studies are needed to better assess the effects of this combination drug therapy.

Purpose Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are increasingly important in evaluating medical care. The increased integration of technology within the healthcare systems allows for collection of PROs electronically. The objectives of this study were to Ashley et al. J Med Internet Res (2013) implement an electronic assessment of PROs in inpatient cancer care and test its feasibility for patients and Dawson et al. BMJ (2010) determine the equivalence of the paper and electronic assessment. Methods We analyzed two arms from a study that was originally designed to be an interventional, three-arm, and multicenter inpatient trial. A self-administered questionnaire based on validated PRO-measures was applied and completed at admission, 1 week after, and at discharge. For this analysis — focusing on feasibility of the electronic assessment — the following groups will be considered: Group A (intervention arm) received a tablet version, while group B (control arm) completed the questionnaire on paper. A feasibility questionnaire, that was adapted from Ashley et al. J Med Internet Res (2013), was administered to group A. Results We analyzed 103 patients that were recruited in oncology wards. ePRO was feasible to most patients, with 84% preferring the electronic over paper-based assessment. The feasibility questionnaire contained questions that were answered on a scale ranging from “1” (illustrating non achievement) to “5” (illustrating achieving goal). The majority (mean 4.24, SD .99) reported no difficulties handling the electronic tool and found it relatively easy finding time for filling out the questionnaire (mean 4.15, SD 1.05). There were no significant differences between the paper and the electronic assessment regarding the PROs. Conclusion Results indicate that electronic PRO assessment in inpatient cancer care is feasible.