Abby R Rosenberg1, James R Anderson2, Elizabeth Lyden2, David A Rodeberg3, Suzanne L Wolden4, Simon C Kao5, David M Parham6, Carola Arndt7, Douglas S Hawkins8. 1. Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, United States; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, United States; University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States. Electronic address: abby.rosenberg@seattlechildrens.org. 2. University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, United States. 3. East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, United States. 4. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States. 5. The University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, United States. 6. University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States. 7. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States. 8. Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, United States; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, United States; University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prognostic significance of response to induction therapy for rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) by anatomic imaging [computerised tomographic (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan] is controversial. We previously reported no relationship between early response and failure-free survival (FFS) on Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study (IRS)-IV. We repeated the same analysis using a more recent clinical trial as an independent cohort of patients with non-metastatic, initially unresected RMS. METHODS: A total of 338 patients enrolled in Children's Oncology Group (COG) study D9803 met the inclusion criteria for this analysis: (1) non-metastatic, initially unresected (Group III); (2) embryonal (ERMS) or alveolar (ARMS) histology; (3) documented protocol week 12 response to induction chemotherapy (excluding progressive disease) based on anatomic imaging (CT/MRI) and (4) documented protocol therapy beyond week 12. Response at week 12 was determined by the treating institution as complete response (CR), partial response (PR) or no response (NR). FFS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and comparisons between patient subsets were made using the log-rank test. RESULTS:Overall objective response rate (CR+PR) at week 12 of therapy was 85% and was similar between ERMS and ARMS. FFS was similar among all patients with CR, PR or NR (p=0.49). Restricting the analysis to either ERMS or ARMS, there was no difference in FFS by response within either histology subset (p=0.89 and p=0.08, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide additional evidence that anatomic imaging to assess early response to therapy among patients with RMS does not predict outcome and has questionable use in tailoring subsequent therapy.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The prognostic significance of response to induction therapy for rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) by anatomic imaging [computerised tomographic (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan] is controversial. We previously reported no relationship between early response and failure-free survival (FFS) on Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study (IRS)-IV. We repeated the same analysis using a more recent clinical trial as an independent cohort of patients with non-metastatic, initially unresected RMS. METHODS: A total of 338 patients enrolled in Children's Oncology Group (COG) study D9803 met the inclusion criteria for this analysis: (1) non-metastatic, initially unresected (Group III); (2) embryonal (ERMS) or alveolar (ARMS) histology; (3) documented protocol week 12 response to induction chemotherapy (excluding progressive disease) based on anatomic imaging (CT/MRI) and (4) documented protocol therapy beyond week 12. Response at week 12 was determined by the treating institution as complete response (CR), partial response (PR) or no response (NR). FFS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and comparisons between patient subsets were made using the log-rank test. RESULTS: Overall objective response rate (CR+PR) at week 12 of therapy was 85% and was similar between ERMS and ARMS. FFS was similar among all patients with CR, PR or NR (p=0.49). Restricting the analysis to either ERMS or ARMS, there was no difference in FFS by response within either histology subset (p=0.89 and p=0.08, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide additional evidence that anatomic imaging to assess early response to therapy among patients with RMS does not predict outcome and has questionable use in tailoring subsequent therapy.
Authors: Douglas S Hawkins; Scott M Schuetze; James E Butrynski; Joseph G Rajendran; Cheryl B Vernon; Ernest U Conrad; Janet F Eary Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Scott M Schuetze; Brian P Rubin; Cheryl Vernon; Douglas S Hawkins; James D Bruckner; Ernest U Conrad; Janet F Eary Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Megan Burke; James R Anderson; Simon C Kao; David Rodeberg; Stephen J Qualman; Suzanne L Wolden; William H Meyer; Philip P Breitfeld Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrea Gallamini; Martin Hutchings; Luigi Rigacci; Lena Specht; Francesco Merli; Mads Hansen; Caterina Patti; Annika Loft; Francesco Di Raimondo; Francesco D'Amore; Alberto Biggi; Umberto Vitolo; Caterina Stelitano; Rosario Sancetta; Livio Trentin; Stefano Luminari; Emilio Iannitto; Simonetta Viviani; Ivana Pierri; Alessandro Levis Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-07-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Matthew M Ladra; Henry C Mandeville; Andrzej Niemierko; Timothy P Padera; Alison M Friedmann; Shannon M MacDonald; David Ebb; Yen-Lin Chen; Nancy J Tarbell; Torunn I Yock Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-04-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Timothy B Lautz; Yueh-Yun Chi; Jing Tian; Abha A Gupta; Suzanne L Wolden; Jonathan C Routh; Dana L Casey; Roshni Dasgupta; Douglas S Hawkins; David A Rodeberg Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2020-02-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Suzanne L Wolden; Elizabeth R Lyden; Carola A Arndt; Douglas S Hawkins; James R Anderson; David A Rodeberg; Carol D Morris; Sarah S Donaldson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-09-05 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Douglas J Harrison; Yueh-Yun Chi; Jing Tian; Pooja Hingorani; Leo Mascarenhas; Geoffrey B McCowage; Brenda J Weigel; Rajkumar Venkatramani; Suzanne L Wolden; Torunn I Yock; David A Rodeberg; Andrea A Hayes-Jordan; Lisa A Teot; Sheri L Spunt; William H Meyer; Douglas S Hawkins; Barry L Shulkin; Marguerite T Parisi Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-12-19 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: S Gallego; D Bernabeu; M Garrido-Pontnou; G Guillen; N Hindi; A Juan-Ribelles; C Márquez; C Mata; J Orcajo; G Ramírez; M Ramos; C Romagosa; D Ruano; P Rubio; R Vergés; C Valverde Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Damon R Reed; Jonathan Metts; Mariyah Pressley; Brooke L Fridley; Masanori Hayashi; Michael S Isakoff; David M Loeb; Rikesh Makanji; Ryan D Roberts; Matteo Trucco; Lars M Wagner; Mark G Alexandrow; Robert A Gatenby; Joel S Brown Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Avanthi Tayi Shah; Tej D Azad; Marcus R Breese; Jacob J Chabon; Emily G Hamilton; Krystal Straessler; David M Kurtz; Stanley G Leung; Aviv Spillinger; Heng-Yi Liu; Inge H Behroozfard; Frederick M Wittber; Florette K Hazard; Soo-Jin Cho; Heike E Daldrup-Link; Kieuhoa T Vo; Arun Rangaswami; Allison Pribnow; Sheri L Spunt; Norman J Lacayo; Maximilian Diehn; Ash A Alizadeh; E Alejandro Sweet-Cordero Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2021-08-05 Impact factor: 6.009
Authors: Roelof van Ewijk; Reineke A Schoot; Monika Sparber-Sauer; Simone A J Ter Horst; Nina Jehanno; Lise Borgwardt; Bart de Keizer; Johannes H M Merks; Alberto de Luca; Kieran McHugh; Thekla von Kalle; Jürgen F Schäfer; Rick R van Rijn Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2021-06-17