Search

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.

With improvements in cancer treatment and supportive care, a growing population of survivors of childhood cancer at risk for significant and potentially life-threatening late effects has been identified. To provide a current snapshot of the models of care from countries with varying levels of resources and health care systems, stakeholders in childhood cancer survivorship clinical care and research were identified from 18 countries across five continents. Stakeholders responded to a survey and provided a brief narrative regarding the current state of survivorship care. Findings indicate that among pediatric-age survivors of childhood cancer (allowing for differences in age cutoffs across countries), resources are generally available, and a large proportion of survivors are seen by a physician familiar with late effects in most countries. After survivors transition to adulthood, only a minority are seen by a physician familiar with late effects. Despite the need to improve communication between pediatric oncology and primary care, only a few countries have existing national efforts to educate primary care physicians, although many more reported that educational programs are in development. These data highlight common challenges and potential solutions for the lifelong care of survivors of childhood cancer. Combining risk-based and patient-oriented solutions for this population is likely to benefit both providers and patients.