Search

Background: The authors report the prospective evaluation of reduced dose alkylator chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy for European Pediatric Soft Tissue Sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG) standard risk nonalveolar rhabdomyosarcoma (NA-RMS)., Patients and Methods: Localized node negative Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study (IRS) II/III NA-RMS at favorable sites (subgroup C), <25 years old, received five cycles of ifosfamide, vincristine, and dactinomycin (IVA) chemotherapy (30 g/m 2 ifosfamide) and four cycles of vincristine and dactinomycin (if receiving radiotherapy), or nine cycles of IVA (54 g/m 2 ifosfamide) ± radiotherapy. Delayed primary tumor excision was considered for IRS III tumors. The primary end points were event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS)., Results: From October 2005 to December 2016, 359 evaluable patients were recruited: orbit, 164 (45.7%); head and neck nonparameningeal, 77 (21.4%); and genitourinary non-bladder/prostate, 118 (32.9%). EFS and OS were 77.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72.5-81.6) and 93.5% (95% CI, 90.1-95.8), respectively. Lower dose alkylator chemotherapy and radiotherapy achieved 5-year OS of 93.7% but the difference with higher dose alkylator chemotherapy +/- radiotherapy was not significant (p = 0.8003). Adjuvant radiotherapy improved EFS with 5-year estimates of 84.7% versus 65.2% for nonirradiated (p < .0001), but not OS (p = .9298). Omitting radiotherapy for orbital tumors reduced OS (5-year was 87.1% vs. 97.3% for irradiated, p = .0257). Following R0 resection (n = 60), radiotherapy did not significantly improve EFS or OS., Conclusions: Radiotherapy for local tumor control allows for reduction of cumulative dose of alkylators in EpSSG standard risk subgroup C RMS patients. The omission of radiotherapy did not affect OS in all patients except those with orbital RMS and was associated with inferior EFS., (© 2024 The Author(s). Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Background: The objective of this study was to investigate the role of clinical factors together with FOXO1 fusion status in patients with nonmetastatic rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) to develop a predictive model for event-free survival and provide a rationale for risk stratification in future trials., Methods: The authors used data from patients enrolled in the European Pediatric Soft Tissue Sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG) RMS 2005 study (EpSSG RMS 2005; EudraCT number 2005-000217-35). The following baseline variables were considered for the multivariable model: age at diagnosis, sex, histology, primary tumor site, Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Studies group, tumor size, nodal status, and FOXO1 fusion status. Main effects and significant second-order interactions of candidate predictors were included in a multiple Cox proportional hazards regression model. A nomogram was generated for predicting 5-year event-free survival (EFS) probabilities., Results: The EFS and overall survival rates at 5 years were 70.9% (95% confidence interval, 68.6%-73.1%) and 81.0% (95% confidence interval, 78.9%-82.8%), respectively. The multivariable model retained five prognostic factors, including age at diagnosis interacting with tumor size, tumor primary site, Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Studies clinical group, and FOXO1 fusion status. Based on each patient's total score in the nomogram, patients were stratified into four groups. The 5-year EFS rates were 94.1%, 78.4%, 65.2%, and 52.1% in the low-risk, intermediate-risk, high-risk, and very-high-risk groups, respectively, and the corresponding 5-year overall survival rates were 97.2%, 91.5%, 74.3%, and 60.8%, respectively., Conclusions: The results presented here provide the rationale to modify the EpSSG stratification, with the most significant change represented by the replacement of histology with fusion status. This classification was adopted in the new international trial launched by the EpSSG., (© 2024 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Background: Alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma (aRMS) with lymph node involvement (N1 classification) accounts for up to 10% of all cases of RMS. The prognosis is poor, and is comparable to that of distant metastatic disease. In the European Paediatric Soft Tissue Sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG) RMS2005 protocol, patients with a histologic diagnosis of aRMS/N1 received intensified chemotherapy with systematic locoregional treatment., Methods: Patients with aRMS/N1 were enrolled prospectively after primary surgery/biopsy and fusion status was assessed in tumor samples. All patients received 9 cycles of induction chemotherapy and 6 months of maintenance therapy. Local treatment included radiotherapy to the primary site and lymph nodes with or without secondary surgical resection., Results: A total of 103 patients were enrolled. The clinical characteristics of the patients were predominantly unfavorable: 90% had macroscopic residual disease after initial surgery/biopsy, 63% had locally invasive tumors, 77% had a tumor measuring >5 cm, and 81% had disease at unfavorable sites. Fusion genes involving forkhead box protein O1 (FOXO1) were detected in 56 of 84 patients. Events occurred in 52 patients: 43 developed disease recurrence, 7 had disease that was refractory to treatment, and 2 patients developed second neoplasms. On univariate analysis, unfavorable disease site, tumor invasiveness, Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study group III, and fusion-positive status correlated with worse prognosis. The 5-year event-free survival rate of patients with fusion-positive tumors was 43% compared with 74% in patients with fusion-negative tumors (P = .01). On multivariate analysis, fusion positivity and tumor invasiveness proved to be unfavorable prognostic markers., Conclusions: Fusion status and tumor invasiveness appear to have a strong impact on prognosis in patients with aRMS/N1. Fusion status will be used to stratify these patients in the next EpSSG RMS study, and treatment will be intensified in patients with fusion-positive tumors. Cancer 2018. © 2018 American Cancer Society., (© 2018 American Cancer Society.)

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. © 2017 American Cancer Society., (© 2017 American Cancer Society.)