Search

Abstract Background Although there have been multiple randomised trials in newly diagnosed Ewing sarcoma family of tumours (ESFT) and these have been conducted over many years and involved many international cooperative groups, the outcomes for all stages of disease have plateaued. Internationally, the standard treatment of ESFT is not defined, and there is a need to add new agents other than conventional chemotherapy to improve outcomes. This trial will compare two different induction/consolidation chemotherapy regimens: (1) vincristine, ifosfamide, doxorubicin and etoposide (VIDE) induction and vincristine, actinomycin D, ifosfamide or cyclophosphamide, or busulfan and mephalan (VAI/VAC/BuMel) consolidation and (2) vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide and etoposide (VDC/IE) induction and ifosfamide and etoposide, vincristine and cyclophosphamide, vincristine, actinomycin D and ifosfamide, or busulfan and mephalan (IE/VC/VAI/BuMel) consolidation (randomisation 1, or R1). A second randomisation (R2) will determine whether the addition of zoledronic acid to consolidation chemotherapy, as assigned at R1, is associated with improved clinical outcome. Methods EURO EWING 2012 is an international, multicentre, phase III, open-label randomised controlled trial. There are two randomisations: R1 and R2. Patients are randomly assigned at two different time points: at entry to the trial (R1) and following local control therapy (R2). The primary outcome measure is event-free survival. The secondary outcome measures include overall survival, adverse events and toxicity, histological response of the primary tumour, response of the primary tumour, regional lymph nodes or metastases (or both), and achievement of local control at the end of treatment. Discussion This study will establish which is the “standard regimen” of chemotherapy, taking into account both clinical outcomes and toxicity. This will form the chemotherapy backbone for future interventional studies where we may want to add new targeted agents. It will also determine the role of zoledronic acid in conjunction with the separate EE2008 trial. Any trial in ESFT needs to take into account the rarity of the tumour and consider that international cooperation is needed to provide answers in a timely manner. Trial registration Registered with EudraCT number 2012-002107-17 on 26 February 2012. Registered with ISRCTN number 92192408 on 4 November 2013.

Abstract Background The initial management of patients with sarcoma is a critical issue. We used the nationwide French National Cancer Institute-funded prospective sarcoma database NETSARC to report the management and oncologic outcomes in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) patients with sarcoma at the national level. Patients and methods NETSARC database gathers regularly monitored and updated data from patients with sarcoma. NETSARC was queried for patients (15–30 years) with sarcoma diagnosed from 2010 to 2017 for whom tumor resection had been performed. We reported management, locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) in AYA treated in French reference sarcoma centers (RSC) and outside RSC (non-RSC) and conducted multivariable survival analyses adjusted for classical prognostic factors. Results Among 3,227 patients aged 15–30 years with sarcoma diagnosed between 2010 and 2017, the study included 2,227 patients with surgery data available, among whom 1,290 AYAs had been operated in RSC, and 937 AYAs in non-RSC. Significant differences in compliance to guidelines were observed including pre-treatment biopsy (RSC: 85.9%; non-RSC 48.1%), pre-treatment imaging (RSC: 86.8%; non-RSC: 56.5%) and R0 margins (RSC 57.6%; non-RSC: 20.2%) (p

Background: Desmoid type fibromatosis (DTF) are rare intermediate malignancies with unpredictable outcome. Series containing children and young adults (YA) are lacking. Methods: The aim of this retrospective study was to describe the French population of patients

Abstract Background Major therapeutic advances including immunotherapy and targeted therapies have been changing the face of oncology and resulted in improved prognosis as well as in new toxic complications. The aim of this study is to appraise the trends in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and outcomes of critically ill patients with solid malignancies. We performed a retrospective single-centre study over a 12-year period (2007–2018) including adult patients with solid malignancies requiring unplanned ICU admission. Admission patterns were classified as: (i) specific if directly related to the underlying cancer; (ii) non-specific; (iii) drug-related or procedural adverse events. Results 1525 patients were analysed. Lung and gastro-intestinal tract accounted for the two main tumour sites. The proportion of patients with metastatic diseases increased from 48.6% in 2007–2008 to 60.2% in 2017–2018 (p = 0.004). Critical conditions were increasingly related to drug- or procedure-related adverse events, from 8.8% of ICU admissions in 2007–2008 to 16% in 2017–2018 (p = 0.01). The crude severity of critical illness at ICU admission did not change over time. The ICU survival rate was 77.4%, without any significant changes over the study period. Among the 1279 patients with complete follow-up, the 1-year survival rate was 33.2%. Independent determinants of ICU mortality were metastatic disease, cancer in progression under treatment, admission for specific complications and the extent of organ failures (invasive and non-invasive ventilation, inotropes/vasopressors, renal replacement therapy and SOFA score). One-year mortality in ICU-survivors was independently associated with lung cancer, metastatic disease, cancer in progression under treatment, admission for specific complications and decision to forgo life-sustaining therapies. Conclusion Advances in the management and the prognosis of solid malignancies substantially modified the ICU admission patterns of cancer patients. Despite underlying advanced and often metastatic malignancies, encouraging short-term and long-term outcomes should help changing the dismal perception of critically ill cancer patients.

BackgroundEwing sarcoma (EwS) is a rare, aggressive solid tumor of childhood, adolescence and young adulthood associated with pathognomonic EWSR1-ETS fusion oncoproteins altering transcriptional regulation. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 6 common germline susceptibility loci but have not investigated low-frequency inherited variants with minor allele frequencies below 5% due to limited genotyped cases of this rare tumor.MethodsWe investigated the contribution of rare and low-frequency variation to EwS susceptibility in the largest EwS genome-wide association study to date (733 EwS cases and 1,346 unaffected controls of European ancestry).ResultsWe identified two low-frequency variants, rs112837127 and rs2296730, on chromosome 20 that were associated with EwS risk (OR = 0.186 and 2.038, respectively; P-value < 5×10-8) and located near previously reported common susceptibility loci. After adjusting for the most associated common variant at the locus, only rs112837127 remained a statistically significant independent signal (OR = 0.200, P-value = 5.84×10-8).ConclusionsThese findings suggest rare variation residing on common haplotypes are important contributors to EwS risk.ImpactMotivate future targeted sequencing studies for a comprehensive evaluation of low-frequency and rare variation around common EwS susceptibility loci.

Ewing sarcoma (EWS) is a rare pediatric bone cancer typically involving the EWSR1-FLI1 fusion. Here the authors perform a genome-wide association study and report three new EWS risk loci that reside near GGAA repeat sequences, and identify candidate genes (RREB1 and KIZ) from eQTL analysis.

Primary malignant bone tumours, osteosarcomas, and Ewing sarcomas are rare diseases which occur mainly in adolescents and young adults. With the current therapies, some patients remain very difficult to treat, such as tumour with poor histological response to preoperative CT (or large initial tumour volume for Ewing sarcomas not operated), patients with multiple metastases at or those who relapsed. In order to develop new therapies against these rare tumours, we need to unveil the key driving factors and molecular abnormalities behind the malignant characteristics and to broaden our understanding of the phenomena sustaining the metastatic phenotype and treatment resistance in these tumours. In this paper, starting with the biology of these tumours, we will discuss potential therapeutic targets aimed at increasing local tumour control, limiting metastatic spread, and finally improving patient survival.

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.