PURPOSE: The Soft Tissue Sarcoma Committee of the Children's Oncology Group has conducted five upfront window trials in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma to identify promising new treatment agents. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This pooled analysis identified a total of 420 patients (115 from Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study III [IRS-III] and 305 from the five window trials). We assessed window therapy response rate, failure-free survival (FFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Response rates (complete + partial response) assessed at week 6 of window therapy ranged from 41% to 55% and did not predict FFS (P = .073) or OS (P = .31). FFS was influenced by trial (P = .048); patients enrolled onto IRS-III and the ifosfamide/etoposide and ifosfamide/doxorubicin trials fared best. When grouped and compared with topoisomerase I poison trials, ifosfamide/topoisomerase II inhibitor trials had superior FFS (P = .013). However, there was no difference in survival. CONCLUSION: Upfront phase II window trials can efficiently provide robust estimates of activity for new agents and combinations in newly diagnosed patients with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma. Our data indicate that, for some phase II window trials, the risk of treatment failure may be increased but that the trend towards lower survival for some of the window trials compared with IRS-III is not statistically significant. Window nonresponders did not suffer worse FFS or OS than patients who responded to window therapy. Finally, these results provide a rationale for incorporating ifosfamide, etoposide, doxorubicin, and topoisomerase I poisons in future trials of high-risk metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma.
PURPOSE: The Soft Tissue Sarcoma Committee of the Children's Oncology Group has conducted five upfront window trials in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma to identify promising new treatment agents. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This pooled analysis identified a total of 420 patients (115 from Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study III [IRS-III] and 305 from the five window trials). We assessed window therapy response rate, failure-free survival (FFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Response rates (complete + partial response) assessed at week 6 of window therapy ranged from 41% to 55% and did not predict FFS (P = .073) or OS (P = .31). FFS was influenced by trial (P = .048); patients enrolled onto IRS-III and the ifosfamide/etoposide and ifosfamide/doxorubicin trials fared best. When grouped and compared with topoisomerase I poison trials, ifosfamide/topoisomerase II inhibitor trials had superior FFS (P = .013). However, there was no difference in survival. CONCLUSION: Upfront phase II window trials can efficiently provide robust estimates of activity for new agents and combinations in newly diagnosed patients with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma. Our data indicate that, for some phase II window trials, the risk of treatment failure may be increased but that the trend towards lower survival for some of the window trials compared with IRS-III is not statistically significant. Window nonresponders did not suffer worse FFS or OS than patients who responded to window therapy. Finally, these results provide a rationale for incorporating ifosfamide, etoposide, doxorubicin, and topoisomerase I poisons in future trials of high-risk metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma.
Authors: Douglas S Hawkins; Yueh-Yun Chi; James R Anderson; Jing Tian; Carola A S Arndt; Lisa Bomgaars; Sarah S Donaldson; Andrea Hayes-Jordan; Leo Mascarenhas; Mary Beth McCarville; Jeannine S McCune; Geoff McCowage; Lynn Million; Carol D Morris; David M Parham; David A Rodeberg; Erin R Rudzinski; Margarett Shnorhavorian; Sheri L Spunt; Stephen X Skapek; Lisa A Teot; Suzanne Wolden; Torunn I Yock; William H Meyer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Leo Mascarenhas; Elizabeth R Lyden; Philip P Breitfeld; David O Walterhouse; Sarah S Donaldson; Charles N Paidas; David M Parham; James R Anderson; William H Meyer; Douglas S Hawkins Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-09-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Suman Malempati; Brenda J Weigel; Yueh-Yun Chi; Jing Tian; James R Anderson; David M Parham; Lisa A Teot; David A Rodeberg; Torunn I Yock; Barry L Shulkin; Sheri L Spunt; William H Meyer; Douglas S Hawkins Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Patrick J Stiff; Manza-A Agovi; Karen H Antman; Didier Blaise; Bruce M Camitta; Mitchell S Cairo; Richard W Childs; John R Edwards; Robert Peter Gale; Gregory A Hale; Hillard M Lazarus; Mukta Arora Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2009-12-02 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Leo Mascarenhas; Judy L Felgenhauer; Mason C Bond; Doojduen Villaluna; Joseph Dominic Femino; Nadia N Laack; Sarangarajan Ranganathan; James Meyer; Richard B Womer; Richard Gorlick; Mark D Krailo; Neyssa Marina Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: C Meazza; M Casanova; E Zaffignani; R Luksch; M Podda; F Favini; S Catania; V Biassoni; C Morosi; A Ferrari Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2008-08-05 Impact factor: 3.064