Leo Mascarenhas1, Yueh-Yun Chi2, Pooja Hingorani3, James R Anderson4, Elizabeth R Lyden5, David A Rodeberg6, Daniel J Indelicato7, Simon C Kao8, Roshni Dasgupta9, Sheri L Spunt10, William H Meyer11, Douglas S Hawkins12. 1. Children's Hospital Los Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA. 2. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 3. Phoenix Children's Hospital, Phoenix, AZ. 4. Merck Research Laboratories: Oncology, North Wales, PA. 5. University of Nebraska College of Medicine, Omaha, NE. 6. East Carolina University, Greenville, NC. 7. University of Florida, Jacksonville, FL. 8. University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA. 9. Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH. 10. Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA. 11. University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK. 12. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The primary aim of this clinical trial was to prioritize bevacizumab or temsirolimus for additional investigation in rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) when administered in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy to patients with RMS in first relapse with unfavorable prognosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive bevacizumab on day 1 or temsirolimus on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 21-day treatment cycle, together with vinorelbine on days 1 and 8, and cyclophosphamide on day 1 for a maximum of 12 cycles. Local tumor control with surgery and/or radiation therapy was permitted after 6 weeks of treatment. The primary end point was event-free survival (EFS). Radiographic response was assessed at 6 weeks. The study had a phase II selection that was design to detect a 15% difference between the two regimens (α = .2; 1-β = 0.8; two sided test). RESULTS:Eighty-seven of 100 planned patients were enrolled when the trial was closed after the second interim analysis after 46 events occurred in 68 patients with sufficient follow-up. The O'Brien Fleming boundary at this analysis corresponded to a two-sided P value of .058 with an observed two-sided P value of .003 favoring temsirolimus. The 6-month EFS for the bevacizumab arm was 54.6% (95% CI, 39.8% to 69.3%) and 69.1% (95% CI, 55.1% to 83%) for the temsirolimus arm. Objective response rates were 28% (95% CI, 13.7% to 41.3%) and 47% (95% CI, 31.5% to 63.2%) for the bevacizumab and temsirolimus arms, respectively (P = .12) and, 28% of patients on bevacizumab and 11% on temsirolimus had progressive disease at 6 weeks. CONCLUSION: Patients who received temsirolimus had a superior EFS compared with bevacizumab. Temsirolimus has been selected for additional investigation in newly diagnosed patients with intermediate-risk RMS.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The primary aim of this clinical trial was to prioritize bevacizumab or temsirolimus for additional investigation in rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) when administered in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy to patients with RMS in first relapse with unfavorable prognosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive bevacizumab on day 1 or temsirolimus on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 21-day treatment cycle, together with vinorelbine on days 1 and 8, and cyclophosphamide on day 1 for a maximum of 12 cycles. Local tumor control with surgery and/or radiation therapy was permitted after 6 weeks of treatment. The primary end point was event-free survival (EFS). Radiographic response was assessed at 6 weeks. The study had a phase II selection that was design to detect a 15% difference between the two regimens (α = .2; 1-β = 0.8; two sided test). RESULTS: Eighty-seven of 100 planned patients were enrolled when the trial was closed after the second interim analysis after 46 events occurred in 68 patients with sufficient follow-up. The O'Brien Fleming boundary at this analysis corresponded to a two-sided P value of .058 with an observed two-sided P value of .003 favoring temsirolimus. The 6-month EFS for the bevacizumab arm was 54.6% (95% CI, 39.8% to 69.3%) and 69.1% (95% CI, 55.1% to 83%) for the temsirolimus arm. Objective response rates were 28% (95% CI, 13.7% to 41.3%) and 47% (95% CI, 31.5% to 63.2%) for the bevacizumab and temsirolimus arms, respectively (P = .12) and, 28% of patients on bevacizumab and 11% on temsirolimus had progressive disease at 6 weeks. CONCLUSION:Patients who received temsirolimus had a superior EFS compared with bevacizumab. Temsirolimus has been selected for additional investigation in newly diagnosed patients with intermediate-risk RMS.
Authors: Fariba Navid; Victor M Santana; Michael Neel; M Beth McCarville; Barry L Shulkin; Jianrong Wu; Catherine A Billups; Shenghua Mao; Vinay M Daryani; Clinton F Stewart; Michelle Kunkel; Wendene Smith; Deborah Ward; Alberto S Pappo; Armita Bahrami; David M Loeb; Jennifer Reikes Willert; Bhaskar N Rao; Najat C Daw Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2017-07-03 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Lawrence V Rubinstein; Edward L Korn; Boris Freidlin; Sally Hunsberger; S Percy Ivy; Malcolm A Smith Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Julia C Chisholm; Johannes H M Merks; Michela Casanova; Gianni Bisogno; Daniel Orbach; Jean-Claude Gentet; Anne-Sophie Thomassin-Defachelles; Pascal Chastagner; Stephen Lowis; Milind Ronghe; Kieran McHugh; Rick R van Rijn; Magalie Hilton; Jeanette Bachir; Sabine Fürst-Recktenwald; Birgit Geoerger; Odile Oberlin Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2017-08-23 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Tobias M Dantonello; Christoph Int-Veen; Andreas Schuck; Guido Seitz; Ivo Leuschner; Michaela Nathrath; Paul-Gerhardt Schlegel; Udo Kontny; Wolfgang Behnisch; Iris Veit-Friedrich; Stefanie Kube; Erika Hallmen; Bernarda Kazanowska; Ruth Ladenstein; Michael Paulussen; Gustaf Ljungman; Stefan S Bielack; T Klingebiel; E Koscielniak Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2013-02-15 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Sridharan Gururangan; Jason Fangusaro; Tina Young Poussaint; Roger E McLendon; Arzu Onar-Thomas; Shengjie Wu; Roger J Packer; Anu Banerjee; Richard J Gilbertson; Frederic Fahey; Sridhar Vajapeyam; Regina Jakacki; Amar Gajjar; Stewart Goldman; Ian F Pollack; Henry S Friedman; James M Boyett; Maryam Fouladi; Larry E Kun Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2013-12-04 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Jason Fangusaro; Sridharan Gururangan; Tina Young Poussaint; Roger E McLendon; Arzu Onar-Thomas; Katherine E Warren; Shengjie Wu; Roger J Packer; Anu Banerjee; Richard J Gilbertson; Regina Jakacki; Amar Gajjar; Stewart Goldman; Ian F Pollack; Henry S Friedman; James M Boyett; Larry E Kun; Maryam Fouladi Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: W Crist; E A Gehan; A H Ragab; P S Dickman; S S Donaldson; C Fryer; D Hammond; D M Hays; J Herrmann; R Heyn Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1995-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Henry S Friedman; Michael D Prados; Patrick Y Wen; Tom Mikkelsen; David Schiff; Lauren E Abrey; W K Alfred Yung; Nina Paleologos; Martin K Nicholas; Randy Jensen; James Vredenburgh; Jane Huang; Maoxia Zheng; Timothy Cloughesy Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-08-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Josephine H Haduong; Christine M Heske; Wendy Allen-Rhoades; Wei Xue; Lisa A Teot; David A Rodeberg; Sarah S Donaldson; Aaron Weiss; Douglas S Hawkins; Rajkumar Venkatramani Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Si-Qin Liu; Fang-Hua Ye; Chen-Ying Fan; Min Peng; Jia-Jia Dong; Wen-Jun Deng; Hui Zhang; Yan Yu; Liang-Chun Yang Journal: Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi Date: 2022 Sept 15
Authors: Victor M Santana; Natasha Sahr; Ruth G Tatevossian; Sujuan Jia; Olivia Campagne; April Sykes; Clinton F Stewart; Wayne L Furman; Lisa M McGregor Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-01-22 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Joshua T Kowalczyk; Xiaolin Wan; Edjay R Hernandez; Ruibai Luo; Gaelyn C Lyons; Kelli M Wilson; Devorah C Gallardo; Kristine A Isanogle; Christina M Robinson; Arnulfo Mendoza; Christine M Heske; Jinqui-Qiu Chen; Xiaoling Luo; Alexander E Kelly; Simone Difilippantinio; Robert W Robey; Craig J Thomas; Dan L Sackett; Deborah K Morrison; Paul A Randazzo; Lisa M Miller Jenkins; Marielle E Yohe Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2020-11-06 Impact factor: 6.009
Authors: Christine M Heske; Yueh-Yun Chi; Rajkumar Venkatramani; Minjie Li; Michael A Arnold; Roshni Dasgupta; Susan M Hiniker; Douglas S Hawkins; Leo Mascarenhas Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-11-20 Impact factor: 6.921
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