| Literature DB >> 30188789 |
Jeremy Whelan1, Marie-Cecile Le Deley1, Uta Dirksen1, Gwénaël Le Teuff1, Bernadette Brennan1, Nathalie Gaspar1, Douglas S Hawkins1, Susanne Amler1, Sebastian Bauer1, Stefan Bielack1, Jean-Yves Blay1, Stefan Burdach1, Marie-Pierre Castex1, Dagmar Dilloo1, Angelika Eggert1, Hans Gelderblom1, Jean-Claude Gentet1, Wolfgang Hartmann1, Wolf-Achim Hassenpflug1, Lars Hjorth1, Marta Jimenez1, Thomas Klingebiel1, Udo Kontny1, Jarmila Kruseova1, Ruth Ladenstein1, Valerie Laurence1, Cyril Lervat1, Perrine Marec-Berard1, Sandrine Marreaud1, Jean Michon1, Bruce Morland1, Michael Paulussen1, Andreas Ranft1, Peter Reichardt1, Hendrik van den Berg1, Keith Wheatley1, Ian Judson1, Ian Lewis1, Alan Craft1, Heribert Juergens1, Odile Oberlin1.
Abstract
Purpose For over 30 years, the place of consolidation high-dose chemotherapy in Ewing sarcoma (ES) has been controversial. A randomized study was conducted to determine whether consolidation high-dose chemotherapy improved survival in patients with localized ES at high risk for relapse. Methods Randomization between busulfan and melphalan (BuMel) or standard chemotherapy (vincristine, dactinomycin, and ifosfamide [VAI], seven courses) was offered to patients if they were younger than 50 years of age with poor histologic response (≥ 10% viable cells) after receiving vincristine, ifosfamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (six courses); or had a tumor volume at diagnosis ≥ 200 mL if unresected, or initially resected, or resected after radiotherapy. A 15% improvement in 3-year event-free survival (EFS) was sought (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60). Results Between 2000 and 2015, 240 patients classified as high risk (median age, 17.1 years) were randomly assigned to VAI (n = 118) or BuMel (n = 122). Seventy-eight percent entered the trial because of poor histologic response after chemotherapy alone. Median follow-up was 7.8 years. In an intent-to-treat analysis, the risk of event was significantly decreased by BuMel compared with VAI: HR, 0.64 (95% CI, 0.43 to 0.95; P = .026); 3- and 8-year EFS were, respectively, 69.0% (95% CI, 60.2% to 76.6%) versus 56.7% (95% CI, 47.6% to 65.4%) and 60.7% (95% CI, 51.1% to 69.6%) versus 47.1% (95% CI, 37.7% to 56.8%). Overall survival (OS) also favored BuMel: HR, 0.63 (95% CI, 0.41 to 0.95; P = .028); 3- and 8-year OS were, respectively, 78.0% (95% CI, 69.6% to 84.5%) versus 72.2% (95% CI, 63.3% to 79.6%) and 64.5% (95% CI, 54.4% to 73.5%) versus 55.6% (95% CI, 45.8% to 65.1%). Results were consistent in the sensitivity analysis. Two patients died as a result of BuMel-related toxicity, one after standard chemotherapy. Significantly more BuMel patients experienced severe acute toxicities from this course of chemotherapy compared with multiple VAI courses. Conclusion BuMel improved EFS and OS when given after vincristine, ifosfamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide induction in localized ES with predefined high-risk factors. For this group of patients, BuMel may be an important addition to the standard of care.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30188789 PMCID: PMC6209090 DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2018.78.2516
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Oncol ISSN: 0732-183X Impact factor: 44.544