Search

Purpose: AcSé-ESMART is a European multicentre, proof-of-concept multiarm phase I/II platform trial in paediatric patients with relapsed/refractory cancer. Arm G assessed the activity and safety of nivolumab in combination with metronomic cyclophosphamide +/- irradiation., Experimental Design: Following a Phase II Simon two-stage design, nivolumab was administered intravenously at 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks of a 28-day cycle, oral cyclophosphamide at 25 mg/m 2 twice a day, 1 week on/1 week off. The primary endpoint was objective response rate. Irradiation/radioablation of primary tumour or metastasis could be administered as per physician's choice. Biomarker evaluation was performed by tumour immunohistochemistry, whole exome and RNA sequencing, and immunophenotyping of peripheral blood by flow cytometry., Results: Thirteen patients were treated with a median age of 15 years (range: 5.5-19.4). The main histologies were high-grade glioma, neuroblastoma, and desmoplastic small round cell tumour (DSRCT). The safety profile was similar to those of single-agent nivolumab, albeit haematologic toxicity, mainly lymphocytopenia, was commonly reported with the addition of cyclophosphamide +/- irradiation. Two patients with DSRCT and ependymoma presented unconfirmed partial response and prolonged disease stabilisation. Low mutational load with modest intratumour CD3+ T-cell infiltration and immunosuppressive tumour microenvironment were observed in the tumour samples. Under combined treatment, no positive modulation of circulating T cells was displayed, while derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio increased., Conclusions: Nivolumab in combination with cyclophosphamide was well tolerated but had limited activity in this paediatric setting. Metronomic cyclophosphamide did not modulate systemic immune response that could compensate limited T-cell infiltration and the immunosuppressive tumour microenvironment. CLINICALTRIALS., Gov Identifier: NCT2813135., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement N.A., V.M.C., G.V., and B.G. declared consultancy or advisory role to BMS. All other authors declared no potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Advanced intraocular retinoblastoma can be cured by enucleation, but spread of retinoblastoma cells beyond the natural limits of the eye is related to a high mortality. Adjuvant therapy after enucleation has been shown to prevent metastasis in children with risk factors for extraocular retinoblastoma. However, histological criteria and adjuvant treatment regimens vary and there is no unifying consensus on the optimal choice of treatment., Method: Data on guidelines for adjuvant treatment in European retinoblastoma referral centres were collected in an online survey among all members of the European Retinoblastoma Group (EURbG) network. Extended information was gathered via personal email communication., Results: Data were collected from 26 centres in 17 countries. Guidelines for adjuvant treatment were in place at 92.3% of retinoblastoma centres. There was a consensus on indication for and intensity of adjuvant treatment among more than 80% of all centres. The majority of centres use no adjuvant treatment for isolated focal choroidal invasion or prelaminar optic nerve invasion. Patients with massive choroidal invasion or postlaminar optic nerve invasion receive adjuvant chemotherapy, while microscopic invasion of the resection margin of the optic nerve or extension through the sclera are treated with combined chemo- and radiotherapy., Conclusion: Indications and adjuvant treatment regimens in European retinoblastoma referral centres are similar but not uniform. Further biomarkers in addition to histopathological risk factors could improve treatment stratification. The high consensus in European centres is an excellent foundation for a common European study with prospective validation of new biomarkers., (© 2021 The Authors. Pediatric Blood & Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Introduction: Data regarding real-world impact on cancer clinical research during COVID-19 are scarce. We analysed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the conduct of paediatric cancer phase I-II trials in Europe through the experience of the Innovative Therapies for Children with Cancer (ITCC)., Methods: A survey was sent to all ITCC-accredited early-phase clinical trial hospitals including questions about impact on staff activities, recruitment, patient care, supply of investigational products and legal aspects, between 1st March and 30th April 2020., Results: Thirty-one of 53 hospitals from 12 countries participated. Challenges reported included staff constraints (30% drop), reduction in planned monitoring activity (67% drop of site initiation visits and 64% of monitoring visits) and patient recruitment (61% drop compared with that in 2019). The percentage of phase I, phase II trials and molecular platforms closing to recruitment in at least one site was 48.5%, 61.3% and 64.3%, respectively. In addition, 26% of sites had restrictions on performing trial assessments because of local contingency plans. Almost half of the units suffered impact upon pending contracts. Most hospitals (65%) are planning on improving organisational and structural changes., Conclusion: The study reveals a profound disruption of paediatric cancer early-phase clinical research due to the COVID-19 pandemic across Europe. Reported difficulties affected both patient care and monitoring activity. Efforts should be made to reallocate resources to avoid lost opportunities for patients and to allow the continued advancement of oncology research. Identified adaptations to clinical trial procedures may be integrated to increase preparedness of clinical research to futures crises., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement N. André reports a consulting or advisory role for Bayer, BMS and Akina. He received funding for trial from BMS and molecules for trials from BMS and Pierre Fabre. He received travel support from BMS. K. Nysom reports a consulting or advisory role for YmAbs and Bayer and receiving honoraria from YmAbs and Bayer. L. Marshall reports a consulting or advisory role for Bayer, BMS, Eisai and Tesaro and receiving honoraria from Bayer for speaking in symposia/educational events. M. Gambart reports a consulting or advisory role for Bayer and receiving grants for travel expenses from Jazz pharmaceutical and Eusapharma. C. Rossig reports receiving honoraria for educational presentations and advice by Amgen, Pfizer, Celgene, Roche, BMS, Novartis and Genentech. F. Fagioli reports a consultant or advisory role for Amgen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme and Takeda. I. Øra reports a consulting or advisory role for and receiving honoraria from Bayer. B. De Wilde reports a consultant or advisory role for Bayer, Roche and Novartis. C. Rizzari reports receiving personal and/or institutional grants, travel support and consultation fees from Amgen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, SOBI and Servier. S. Palmu reports a consulting or advisory role for Boehringer Ingelheim and receiving honoraria for educational events and travel expenses from Octapharma and Sobi. L. Moreno reports being a member of a data monitoring committees for clinical trials sponsored by Novartis, Actuate Therapeutics, Shionogi, Incyte, the University of Southampton and the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust; a consulting role for Novartis and Shionogi. He also reports being a member of the Executive Committee of SIOPEN (European neuroblastoma research cooperative group), organisation which receives royalties for the sales of dinutuximab beta. He reports that his institution receives funding from sponsors for DMC participation, advisory role or conducting industry-sponsored clinical trials. F. Bautista reports a consultant or advisory role for Bayer, Amgen, Sanofi and EusaPharma and receiving honoraria for speaking at symposia from Amgen and Jazz Pharmaceuticals and support for attending symposia from Takeda, EusaPharma, Shire and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. The rest of the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: nab-Paclitaxel has demonstrated efficacy in adults with solid tumours and preclinical activity in paediatric solid tumour models. Results from phase I of a phase I/II study in paediatric patients with recurrent/refractory solid tumours treated with nab-paclitaxel are reported., Patients and Methods: Patients with recurrent/refractory extracranial solid tumours received nab-paclitaxel on days 1, 8 and 15 every 4 weeks at 120, 150, 180, 210, 240, or 270 mg/m 2 (rolling-6 dose-escalation) to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose (RP2D)., Results: Sixty-four patients were treated. Dose-limiting toxicities were grade 3 dizziness at 120 mg/m 2 and grade 4 neutropenia >7 days at 270 mg/m 2 . The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events were haematologic, including neutropenia (36%), leukopenia (36%) and lymphopenia (25%). Although the MTD was not reached, 270 mg/m 2 was declared non-tolerable due to grade 3/4 toxicities during cycles 1-2 (neutropenia, n = 5/7; skin toxicity, n = 2/7; peripheral neuropathy, n = 1/7). Of 58 efficacy-evaluable patients, complete response occurred in one patient (2%; Ewing sarcoma) and partial responses in four patients (7%; rhabdomyosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, renal tumour with pulmonary metastases [high-grade, malignant] and sarcoma not otherwise specified); all responses occurred at ≥210 mg/m 2 . Thirteen patients (22%) had stable disease (5 lasting ≥16 weeks) per RECIST., Conclusions: nab-Paclitaxel 240 mg/m 2 qw3/4 (nearly double the adult recommended monotherapy dose for this schedule in metastatic breast cancer) was selected as the RP2D based on the tolerability profile, pharmacokinetics and antitumour activity. Phase II is currently enrolling patients with recurrent/refractory neuroblastoma, rhabdomyosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT01962103., Eudract: 2013-000144-26., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)