Search

The European Intergroup for Childhood Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (EICNHL) was established 25 years ago with the goal to facilitate clinical trials and research collaborations in the field both within Europe and worldwide. Since its inception, much progress has been made whereby major improvements in outcomes have been achieved. In this Review, we describe the different diagnostic entities of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in children and young adults describing key features of each entity and outlining clinical achievements made in the context of the EICNHL framework. Furthermore, we provide an overview of advances in biopathology with an emphasis on the role of biological studies and how they have shaped available treatments. Finally, for each entity, we describe future goals, upcoming clinical trials, and highlight areas of research that require our focus going forward., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests LB has sat on advisory boards for the BrigaPed study for Takeda and has received support from Bristol Myers Squibb for the nivoALCL clinical trial. GAAB has received institutional payments for consultancies from Novartis, Roche, Takeda, straZeneca, and Janssen. AA has sat on a board for MSD. All other authors have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Despite major progress in the past 40 years, 20% of children with cancer die from the disease, and 40% of survivors have late adverse effects. Innovative, safe, and effective medicines are needed. Although regulatory initiatives in the past 15 years in the USA and Europe have been introduced, new drug development for children with cancer is insufficient. Children and families face major inequity between countries in terms of access to innovative drugs in development. Hurdles and bottlenecks are well known-eg, small numbers of patients, the complexity of developing targeted agents and their biomarkers for selected patients, limitations of US and EU regulations for paediatric medicines, insufficient return on investment, and the global economic crisis facing drug companies. New drug development pathways could efficiently address the challenges with innovative methods and trial designs, investment in biology and preclinical research, new models of partnership and funding including public-private partnerships and precompetitive research consortia, improved regulatory requirements, initiatives and incentives that better address these needs, and increased collaboration between paediatric oncology cooperative groups worldwide. Increased cooperation between all stakeholders-academia, parents' organisations and advocacy groups, regulatory bodies, pharmaceutical companies, philanthropic organisations, and government-will be essential., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

PURPOSE EWS-ETS fusion genes are the driving force in Ewing's sarcoma pathogenesis. Because of the variable breakpoint locations in the involved genes, there is heterogeneity in fusion RNA and protein architecture. Since previous retrospective studies suggested prognostic differences among patients expressing different EWS-FLI1 fusion types, the impact of fusion RNA architecture on disease progression and relapse was studied prospectively within the Euro-E.W.I.N.G. 99 clinical trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS Among 1,957 patients who registered before January 1, 2007, 703 primary tumors were accessible for the molecular biology study. Fusion type was assessed by polymerase chain reaction on frozen (n = 578) or paraffin-embedded materials (n = 125). The primary end point was the time to disease progression or relapse. Results After exclusion of noninformative patients, 565 patients were entered into the prognostic factor analysis comparing type 1 (n = 296), type 2 (n = 133), nontype 1/nontype 2 EWS-FLI1 (n = 91) and EWS-ERG fusions (n = 45). Median follow-up time was 4.5 years. The distribution of sex, age, tumor volume, tumor site, disease extension, or histologic response did not differ between the four fusion type groups. We did not observe any significant prognostic value of the fusion type on the risk of progression or relapse. The only slight difference was that the risk of progression or relapse associated with nontype 1/nontype 2 EWS-FLI1 fusions was 1.38 (95% CI, 0.96 to 2.0) times higher than risk associated with other fusion types, but it was not significant (P = .10). CONCLUSION In contrast to retrospective studies, the prospective evaluation did not confirm a prognostic benefit for type 1 EWS-FLI1 fusions.