BACKGROUND: In what to the authors' knowledge is the first such study for a pediatric cancer, a large database was retrospectively analyzed to assess statistically the likelihood of response to a given salvage therapy in different clinical subsets of patients. METHODS: Treatment was comprised of high-dose cyclophosphamide (at a dose of 140 mg/kg), topotecan (at a dose of 8 mg/m(2)), and vincristine (at a dose of 0.067 mg/kg or 2 mg/m(2), whichever was lower; maximum dose, 2 mg) (HD-CTV). The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons of response rates among standard subsets of patients (n = 126) with refractory or recurrent neuroblastoma (NB). RESULTS: Among children, major (ie, complete/partial) responses occurred in 11 of 58 (19%) with primary refractory NB, 4 of 14 (29%) with secondary refractory NB, 13 of 25 (52%) with a new (first) disease recurrence, and none of 13 patients with progressive disease (PD) while receiving therapy. Other children had mixed responses (MRs); when combining major responses and MRs, anti-NB activity was noted in 26 of 58 (45%) children with primary refractory NB, 10 of 14 (71%) children with secondary refractory NB, 20 of 25 (80%) children with a new (first) disease recurrence, and 1 of 13 (8%) children with PD while receiving therapy. The response rate was significantly different across the 4 groups of children for both major responses (P = .003) and combined responses (P = .001). All 10 adolescents/adults treated for primary refractory NB had no response, which was a significantly inferior result compared with the response rate of 45% noted in children with primary refractory NB (P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: Response to HD-CTV as salvage therapy is significantly less likely in adolescents/adults and in children with NB that is persistent or progressing on treatment rather than newly recurrent off treatment. These findings are broadly applicable and should be considered when designing, and interpreting the results of, phase 2 studies.
BACKGROUND: In what to the authors' knowledge is the first such study for a pediatric cancer, a large database was retrospectively analyzed to assess statistically the likelihood of response to a given salvage therapy in different clinical subsets of patients. METHODS: Treatment was comprised of high-dose cyclophosphamide (at a dose of 140 mg/kg), topotecan (at a dose of 8 mg/m(2)), and vincristine (at a dose of 0.067 mg/kg or 2 mg/m(2), whichever was lower; maximum dose, 2 mg) (HD-CTV). The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons of response rates among standard subsets of patients (n = 126) with refractory or recurrent neuroblastoma (NB). RESULTS: Among children, major (ie, complete/partial) responses occurred in 11 of 58 (19%) with primary refractory NB, 4 of 14 (29%) with secondary refractory NB, 13 of 25 (52%) with a new (first) disease recurrence, and none of 13 patients with progressive disease (PD) while receiving therapy. Other children had mixed responses (MRs); when combining major responses and MRs, anti-NB activity was noted in 26 of 58 (45%) children with primary refractory NB, 10 of 14 (71%) children with secondary refractory NB, 20 of 25 (80%) children with a new (first) disease recurrence, and 1 of 13 (8%) children with PD while receiving therapy. The response rate was significantly different across the 4 groups of children for both major responses (P = .003) and combined responses (P = .001). All 10 adolescents/adults treated for primary refractory NB had no response, which was a significantly inferior result compared with the response rate of 45% noted in children with primary refractory NB (P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: Response to HD-CTV as salvage therapy is significantly less likely in adolescents/adults and in children with NB that is persistent or progressing on treatment rather than newly recurrent off treatment. These findings are broadly applicable and should be considered when designing, and interpreting the results of, phase 2 studies.
Authors: Julie R Park; Jeffrey R Scott; Clinton F Stewart; Wendy B London; Arlene Naranjo; Victor M Santana; Peter J Shaw; Susan L Cohn; Katherine K Matthay Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-10-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J Mora; O Cruz; C Lavarino; J Rios; M Vancells; A Parareda; H Salvador; M Suñol; R Carrasco; A Guillen; S Mañé; C de Torres Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2015-01-17 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Rajen Mody; Arlene Naranjo; Collin Van Ryn; Alice L Yu; Wendy B London; Barry L Shulkin; Marguerite T Parisi; Sabah-E-Noor Servaes; Mitchell B Diccianni; Paul M Sondel; Julia G Bender; John M Maris; Julie R Park; Rochelle Bagatell Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-05-23 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Alexei L Polishchuk; Steven G Dubois; Daphne Haas-Kogan; Randall Hawkins; Katherine K Matthay Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Brian H Kushner; Irene Y Cheung; Shakeel Modak; Kim Kramer; Govind Ragupathi; Nai-Kong V Cheung Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Chana L Glasser; Alice Lee; Don Eslin; Lianna Marks; Shakeel Modak; Julia L Glade Bender Journal: J Pediatr Hematol Oncol Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 1.289
Authors: Brian H Kushner; Shakeel Modak; Kim Kramer; Michael P LaQuaglia; Karima Yataghene; Ellen M Basu; Stephen S Roberts; Nai-Kong V Cheung Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ana P Berbegall; Eva Villamón; Irene Tadeo; Tommy Martinsson; Adela Cañete; Victoria Castel; Samuel Navarro; Rosa Noguera Journal: Neoplasia Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 5.715