Bas Vaarwerk1, Johanna H van der Lee2, Willemijn B Breunis1, Daniel Orbach3, Julia C Chisholm4, Nathalie Cozic5, Meriel Jenney6, Rick R van Rijn7, Kieran McHugh8, Soledad Gallego9, Heidi Glosli10, Christine Devalck11, Mark N Gaze12, Anna Kelsey13, Christophe Bergeron14, Michael C G Stevens15, Odile Oberlin16, Veronique Minard-Colin16, Johannes H M Merks1. 1. Department of Pediatric Oncology, Emma Children's Hospital/Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Pediatric Clinical Research Office, Emma Children's Hospital/Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Pediatric, Adolescent, and Young Adult Oncology, Curie Institute, Paris, France. 4. Children and Young People's Department, Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, United Kingdom. 5. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Gustave-Roussy, Villejuif, France. 6. Department of Pediatric Oncology, Children's Hospital for Wales, Cardiff, United Kingdom. 7. Pediatric Radiology, Emma Children's Hospital/Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 8. Department of Radiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, United Kingdom. 9. Pediatric Oncology, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain. 10. Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 11. Pediatric Hematology Oncology Department, Children's University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium. 12. Department of Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom. 13. Pathology Department, Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom. 14. Department of Pediatric Oncology, Léon Bérard Center, Lyon, France. 15. Department of Pediatric Oncology, Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, Bristol, United Kingdom. 16. Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Oncology, Gustave-Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early response to induction chemotherapy is used in current European guidelines to evaluate the efficacy of chemotherapy and subsequently to adapt treatment in pediatric patients with rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS). However, existing literature on the prognostic value of early radiologic response on survival is contradictory; here the prognostic value is analyzed with data from the International Society of Pediatric Oncology (SIOP) Malignant Mesenchymal Tumor 95 (MMT-95) study. METHODS: This study examined 432 Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study Grouping III (macroscopic residue) patients enrolled in the SIOP MMT-95 study with a response assessment after 3 courses of chemotherapy (a 2-dimensional assessment). Patients with progressive disease (PD) after 3 courses of chemotherapy were excluded (n = 7). Failure-free survival (FFS) and overall survival (OS), calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method, were compared for 3 groups (complete response [CR]/partial response [PR], objective response [OR], and no response [NR]). The prognostic impact of early response was assessed through the calculation of Cox proportional hazards. RESULTS: After 3 courses of chemotherapy, 85.2% of the patients had CR/PR, 8.6% had OR, and 6.3% had NR. For all patients, the 5-year FFS and OS rates were 60% (95% confidence interval [CI], 56%-65%) and 74% (95% CI, 70%-78%), respectively. However, a Cox proportional hazards regression analysis revealed no significant difference in FFS or OS between the response groups. The adjusted hazard ratios for an OR and NR were 1.09 (95% CI, 0.63-1.88) and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.39-1.67), respectively, for FFS and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.47-1.76) and 1.27 (95% CI, 0.61-2.64), respectively, for OS. CONCLUSIONS:No evidence was found for the idea that early radiologic response to chemotherapy is prognostic for survival for patients with RMS. Treatment adaptation based on early response (except for patients with PD) should, therefore, no longer be incorporated into future studies. Cancer 2018;124:1016-24.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Early response to induction chemotherapy is used in current European guidelines to evaluate the efficacy of chemotherapy and subsequently to adapt treatment in pediatric patients with rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS). However, existing literature on the prognostic value of early radiologic response on survival is contradictory; here the prognostic value is analyzed with data from the International Society of Pediatric Oncology (SIOP) Malignant Mesenchymal Tumor 95 (MMT-95) study. METHODS: This study examined 432 Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study Grouping III (macroscopic residue) patients enrolled in the SIOP MMT-95 study with a response assessment after 3 courses of chemotherapy (a 2-dimensional assessment). Patients with progressive disease (PD) after 3 courses of chemotherapy were excluded (n = 7). Failure-free survival (FFS) and overall survival (OS), calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method, were compared for 3 groups (complete response [CR]/partial response [PR], objective response [OR], and no response [NR]). The prognostic impact of early response was assessed through the calculation of Cox proportional hazards. RESULTS: After 3 courses of chemotherapy, 85.2% of the patients had CR/PR, 8.6% had OR, and 6.3% had NR. For all patients, the 5-year FFS and OS rates were 60% (95% confidence interval [CI], 56%-65%) and 74% (95% CI, 70%-78%), respectively. However, a Cox proportional hazards regression analysis revealed no significant difference in FFS or OS between the response groups. The adjusted hazard ratios for an OR and NR were 1.09 (95% CI, 0.63-1.88) and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.39-1.67), respectively, for FFS and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.47-1.76) and 1.27 (95% CI, 0.61-2.64), respectively, for OS. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found for the idea that early radiologic response to chemotherapy is prognostic for survival for patients with RMS. Treatment adaptation based on early response (except for patients with PD) should, therefore, no longer be incorporated into future studies. Cancer 2018;124:1016-24.
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: 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: Samson Ghilu; Christopher L Morton; Angelina V Vaseva; Siyuan Zheng; Raushan T Kurmasheva; Peter J Houghton Journal: Cancer Drug Resist Date: 2022-01-04
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: 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