BACKGROUND: Data on temozolomide (TEM) and irinotecan (IRI) activity in recurrent Ewing sarcoma (EWS), especially in adult patients, are limited. METHODS: Patients receiving TEM 100 mg/m2/day oral, and IRI 40 mg/m2/day intravenous, days 1-5, every 21 days, were included in this multi-institutional retrospective study. Disease control rate (DCR) [overall response rate (ORR) [complete response (CR) + partial response (PR)] + stable disease (SD)], 6-months progression-free survival (6-mos PFS) and 1-year overall survival (OS) were assessed. RESULTS: The median age of the 51 patients was 21 years (range 3-65 years): 34 patients (66%) were adults (≥18 years of age), 24 (48%) had ECOG 1 and 35 (69%) were presented with multiple site recurrence. TEMIRI was used at first relapse/progression in 13 (25%) patients, while the remainder received TEMIRI for second or greater relapse/progression. Fourteen (27%) patients had received prior myeloablative therapy with busulfan and melphalan. We observed five (10%) CR, 12 (24%) PR and 19 (37%) SD, with a DCR of 71%. 6-mos PFS was 49% (95% CI 35-63) and it was significantly influenced by ECOG (6-mos PFS 64% [95% CI 45-83] for ECOG 0, 34% [95% CI 14-54] for ECOG ≥1; p = .006) and LDH (6-mos PFS 62% [95% CI 44-79] for normal LDH, 22% [95% CI 3-42] for high LDH; p = .02), with no difference according to line of treatment, age and metastatic pattern. One-year OS was 55% (95% CI 39-70), with RECIST response (p = .001) and ECOG (p = .0002) independently associated with outcome. Grade 3 and 4 toxicity included neutropenia in 12% of patients, thrombocytopenia in 4%, diarrhea in 4%. CONCLUSIONS: This series confirms the activity of TEMIRI in both adults and pediatric patients. This schedule offers a 71% DCR, independently of the line of chemotherapy. Predictive factors of response are ECOG and LDH.
BACKGROUND: Data on temozolomide (TEM) and irinotecan (IRI) activity in recurrent Ewing sarcoma (EWS), especially in adult patients, are limited. METHODS:Patients receiving TEM 100 mg/m2/day oral, and IRI 40 mg/m2/day intravenous, days 1-5, every 21 days, were included in this multi-institutional retrospective study. Disease control rate (DCR) [overall response rate (ORR) [complete response (CR) + partial response (PR)] + stable disease (SD)], 6-months progression-free survival (6-mos PFS) and 1-year overall survival (OS) were assessed. RESULTS: The median age of the 51 patients was 21 years (range 3-65 years): 34 patients (66%) were adults (≥18 years of age), 24 (48%) had ECOG 1 and 35 (69%) were presented with multiple site recurrence. TEMIRI was used at first relapse/progression in 13 (25%) patients, while the remainder received TEMIRI for second or greater relapse/progression. Fourteen (27%) patients had received prior myeloablative therapy with busulfan and melphalan. We observed five (10%) CR, 12 (24%) PR and 19 (37%) SD, with a DCR of 71%. 6-mos PFS was 49% (95% CI 35-63) and it was significantly influenced by ECOG (6-mos PFS 64% [95% CI 45-83] for ECOG 0, 34% [95% CI 14-54] for ECOG ≥1; p = .006) and LDH (6-mos PFS 62% [95% CI 44-79] for normal LDH, 22% [95% CI 3-42] for high LDH; p = .02), with no difference according to line of treatment, age and metastatic pattern. One-year OS was 55% (95% CI 39-70), with RECIST response (p = .001) and ECOG (p = .0002) independently associated with outcome. Grade 3 and 4 toxicity included neutropenia in 12% of patients, thrombocytopenia in 4%, diarrhea in 4%. CONCLUSIONS: This series confirms the activity of TEMIRI in both adults and pediatric patients. This schedule offers a 71% DCR, independently of the line of chemotherapy. Predictive factors of response are ECOG and LDH.
Authors: Choh Yeung; Anna E Gibson; Sameer H Issaq; Nobu Oshima; Joshua T Baumgart; Leah D Edessa; Ganesha Rai; Daniel J Urban; Michelle S Johnson; Gloria A Benavides; Giuseppe L Squadrito; Marielle E Yohe; Haiyan Lei; Sandy Eldridge; John Hamre; Tyrone Dowdy; Victor Ruiz-Rodado; Adrian Lita; Arnulfo Mendoza; Jack F Shern; Mioara Larion; Lee J Helman; Gordon M Stott; Murali C Krishna; Matthew D Hall; Victor Darley-Usmar; Leonard M Neckers; Christine M Heske Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2019-08-20 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Samson Ghilu; Qilin Li; Shaun D Fontaine; Daniel V Santi; Raushan T Kurmasheva; Siyuan Zheng; Peter J Houghton Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2020-01-11 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Darcy Welch; Elliot Kahen; Brooke Fridley; Andrew S Brohl; Christopher L Cubitt; Damon R Reed Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kelly Bailey; Carrye Cost; Stephen Lessnick; Steven DuBois; Pooja Hingorani; Ian Davis; Julia Glade-Bender; Patrick Grohar; Peter Houghton; Michael Isakoff; Elizabeth Stewart; Nadia Laack; Jason Yustein; Damon Reed; Katherine Janeway; Richard Gorlick Journal: F1000Res Date: 2019-04-15
Authors: Krysten A Jones; Kaitlin Kentala; Michael W Beck; Weiwei An; Alexander R Lippert; Jared C Lewis; Bryan C Dickinson Journal: ACS Cent Sci Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 14.553
Authors: Arthur Felix; Pablo Berlanga; Maud Toulmonde; Judith Landman-Parker; Sarah Dumont; Gilles Vassal; Marie-Cécile Le Deley; Nathalie Gaspar Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-01-15 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Rebecca M Hill; Sabine L A Plasschaert; Beate Timmermann; Christelle Dufour; Kristian Aquilina; Shivaram Avula; Laura Donovan; Maarten Lequin; Torsten Pietsch; Ulrich Thomale; Stephan Tippelt; Pieter Wesseling; Stefan Rutkowski; Steven C Clifford; Stefan M Pfister; Simon Bailey; Gudrun Fleischhack Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-12-28 Impact factor: 6.575