| 1. |
- Koch, Raphael, et al.
(author)
-
Zoledronic Acid Add-on Therapy for Standard-Risk Ewing Sarcoma Patients in the Ewing 2008R1 Trial
- 2023
-
In: Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. - 1078-0432. ; 29:24, s. 5057-5068
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- PURPOSE: The phase III, open-label, prospective, multicenter, randomized Ewing 2008R1 trial (EudraCT2008-003658-13) was conducted in 12 countries to evaluate the effect of zoledronic acid (ZOL) maintenance therapy compared with no add-on regarding event-free survival (EFS, primary endpoint) and overall survival (OS) in standard-risk Ewing sarcoma (EWS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had localized EWS with either good histologic response to induction chemotherapy and/or small tumors (<200 mL). Patients received six cycles of VIDE induction and eight cycles of VAI (male) or eight cycles of VAC (female) consolidation. ZOL treatment started parallel to the sixth consolidation cycle. Randomization was stratified by tumor site (pelvis/other). The two-sided adaptive inverse-normal four-stage design (planned sample size 448 patients, significance level 5%, power 80%) was changed after the first interim analysis using the Müller-Schäfer method. RESULTS: Between April 2010 and November 2018, 284 patients were randomized (142 ZOL/142 no add-on). With a median follow-up of 3.9 years, EFS was not significantly different between ZOL and no add-on group in the adaptive design (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.43-1.28, P = 0.27, intention-to-treat). Three-year EFS rates were 84.0% (95% CI, 77.7%-90.8%) for ZOL vs. 81.7% (95% CI, 75.2%-88.8%) for no add-on. Results were similar in the per-protocol collective. OS was not different between groups. The 3-year OS was 92.8% (95% CI, 88.4%-97.5%) for ZOL and 94.6% (95% CI, 90.9%-98.6%) for no add-on. Noticeable more renal, neurologic, and gastrointestinal toxicities were observed for ZOL (P < 0.05). Severe renal toxicities occurred more often in the ZOL arm (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with standard-risk localized EWS, there is no additional benefit from maintenance treatment with ZOL.
|
|
| 2. |
- Whelan, Jeremy, et al.
(author)
-
High-dose chemotherapy and blood autologous stem-cell rescue compared with standard chemotherapy in localized high-risk ewing sarcoma : Results of Euro-E.W.I.N.G.99 and Ewing-2008
- 2018
-
In: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - 0732-183X. ; 36:31, s. 3110-3119
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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 eventfree 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 comparedwith 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.
|
|
