Search

BackgroundNeuroblastoma is an embryonic tumour of the sympathetic nervous system, metastatic in half of the patients at diagnosis, with a high preponderance of osteomedullary disease, making accurate evaluation of metastatic sites and response to therapy challenging. Metaiodobenzylguanidine (mIBG), taken into cells via the norepinephrine transporter, provides a sensitive and specific method of assessing tumour in both soft tissue and bone sites. The goal of this report was to develop consensus guidelines for the use of mIBG scans in staging, response assessment and surveillance in neuroblastoma.MethodsThe International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) Task Force, including a multidisciplinary group in paediatric oncology of North and South America, Europe, Oceania and Asia, formed a subcommittee on metastatic disease evaluation, including expert nuclear medicine physicians and oncologists, who developed these guidelines based on their experience and the medical literature, with approval by the larger INRG Task Force.ResultsGuidelines for patient preparation, radiotracer administration, techniques of scanning including timing, energy, specific views, and use of single photon emission computed tomography are included. Optimal timing of scans in relation to therapy and for surveillance is reviewed. Validated semi-quantitative scoring methods in current use are reviewed, with recommendations for use in prognosis and response evaluation.ConclusionsMetaiodobenzylguanidine scans are the most sensitive and specific method of staging and response evaluation in neuroblastoma, particularly when used with a semi-quantitative scoring method. Use of the optimal techniques for mIBG in staging and response, including a semi-quantitative score, is essential for evaluation of the efficacy of new therapy.

Disseminating disease is a predictive and prognostic indicator of poor outcome in children with neuroblastoma. Its accurate and sensitive assessment can facilitate optimal treatment decisions. The International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) Task Force has defined standardised methods for the determination of minimal disease (MD) by immunocytology (IC) and quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (QRT-PCR) using disialoganglioside G(D2) and tyrosine hydroxylase mRNA respectively. The INRG standard operating procedures (SOPs) define methods for collecting, processing and evaluating bone marrow (BM), peripheral blood (PB) and peripheral blood stem cell harvest by IC and QRT-PCR. Sampling PB and BM is recommended at diagnosis, before and after myeloablative therapy and at the end of treatment. Peripheral blood stem cell products should be analysed at the time of harvest. Performing MD detection according to INRG SOPs will enable laboratories throughout the world to compare their results and thus facilitate quality-controlled multi-centre prospective trials to assess the clinical significance of MD and minimal residual disease in heterogeneous patient groups.

Whole body protein synthesis and catabolism were measured using the [ring-2H5]phenylalanine and [1-13C]leucine primed constant infusion technique in 32 paediatric patients with cancer at different stages of treatment. Rates of synthesis (S) and catabolism (C) derived from the [ring-2H5]phenylalanine and [1-13C]leucine models were 4.7 (SD 1.3) (S) and 6.0 (1.5) (C) g/d/kg, and 5.5 (0.8) (S) and 6.8 (1.2) (C) g/d/kg, respectively. These results show that these two tracer techniques give similar results in this study population. Comparison of these values with results previously reported for groups of control children using the [ring-2H5]phenylalanine model (S = 3.69 and 3.93; C = 4.09 and 4.28 g/d/kg) and the [1-13C]leucine model (S = 4.32; C = 4.85 g/d/kg) show that rates of synthesis and catabolism were higher in cancer patients than in controls. Thus whole body protein turnover is increased in children under treatment for cancer. Other indices of metabolism such as plasma amino acids and intermediary metabolites were also measured and showed that, although subjects were in isotopic steady state, there were significant metabolic changes during the course of the primed constant infusions used to measure protein turnover. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of the Innovative Therapies for Children with Cancer (ITCC) consortium is to improve access to novel therapies for children and adolescents with cancer. The evolution of the ITCC clinical trial portfolio since 2003 was reviewed., Methods: All ITCC-labeled phase I/II trials opened between January 1, 2003 and February 3, 2018 were analyzed in two periods (2003-2010 and 2011-2018), and data were extracted from the ITCC database, regulatory agencies' registries, and publications., Results: Sixty-one trials (62% industry-sponsored) enrolled 3,198 patients. The number of trials in the second period increased by almost 300% (16 v 45). All biomarker-driven trials (n = 14) were conducted in the second period. The use of rolling six and model-based designs increased (1 of 9, 11% v 21 of 31, 68%), and that of 3 + 3 designs decreased (5 of 9, 55% v 5 of 31, 16%; P = .014). The proportion of studies evaluating chemotherapeutics only decreased (5 of 16, 31% v 4 of 45, 9%), the proportion of single-agent targeted therapies did not change (9 of 16, 56.2% v 24 of 45, 53.3%), the proportion of combination targeted therapies trials increased (2 of 16, 12%, v 17 of 45, 38%), the proportion of randomized phase II trials increased (1 of 7, 14% v 8 of 14, 57%). More trials were part of a pediatric investigation plan in the second period (4 of 16, 25% v 21 of 45, 46%). The median time for Ethics Committees' approvals was 1.7 times longer for academic compared with industry-sponsored trials., Conclusion: This study reports a shift in the paradigm of early drug development for childhood cancers, with more biologically relevant targets evaluated in biomarker-driven trials or in combination with other therapies and with more model-based or randomized designs and a greater focus on fulfilling regulatory requirements. Improvement of trial setup and recruitment could increase the number of patients benefiting from novel agents.

Purpose: Outcomes for children with relapsed and refractory high-risk neuroblastoma (RR-HRNB) remain dismal. The BEACON Neuroblastoma trial (EudraCT 2012-000072-42) evaluated three backbone chemotherapy regimens and the addition of the antiangiogenic agent bevacizumab (B)., Materials and Methods: Patients age 1-21 years with RR-HRNB with adequate organ function and performance status were randomly assigned in a 3 × 2 factorial design to temozolomide (T), irinotecan-temozolomide (IT), or topotecan-temozolomide (TTo) with or without B. The primary end point was best overall response (complete or partial) rate (ORR) during the first six courses, by RECIST or International Neuroblastoma Response Criteria for patients with measurable or evaluable disease, respectively. Safety, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) time were secondary end points., Results: One hundred sixty patients with RR-HRNB were included. For B random assignment (n = 160), the ORR was 26% (95% CI, 17 to 37) with B and 18% (95% CI, 10 to 28) without B (risk ratio [RR], 1.52 [95% CI, 0.83 to 2.77]; P = .17). Adjusted hazard ratio for PFS and OS were 0.89 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.27) and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.70 to 1.45), respectively. For irinotecan ([I]; n = 121) and topotecan (n = 60) random assignments, RRs for ORR were 0.94 and 1.22, respectively. A potential interaction between I and B was identified. For patients in the bevacizumab-irinotecan-temozolomide (BIT) arm, the ORR was 23% (95% CI, 10 to 42), and the 1-year PFS estimate was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.47 to 0.80)., Conclusion: The addition of B met protocol-defined success criteria for ORR and appeared to improve PFS. Within this phase II trial, BIT showed signals of antitumor activity with acceptable tolerability. Future trials will confirm these results in the chemoimmunotherapy era.

In a landscape of an increasing number of products and histology and age agnostic trials for rare patient cancer, prioritization of products is required. Paediatric Strategy Forums, organized by ACCELERATE and the European Medicines Agency with participation of the US Food and Drug Administration, are multi-stakeholder meetings that share information to best inform pediatric drug development strategies and subsequent clinical trial decisions. Academia, industry, regulators, and patient advocates are equal members, with patient advocates highlighting unmet needs of children and adolescents with cancer. The 11 Paediatric Strategy Forums since 2017 have made specific and general conclusions to accelerate drug development. Conclusions on product prioritization meetings, as well as global master protocols, have been outputs of these meetings. Forums have provided information for regulatory discussions and decisions by industry to facilitate development of high-priority products; for example, 62% of high-priority assets (agreed at a Forum) in contrast to 5% of those assets not considered high priority have been the subject of a Paediatric Investigational Plan or Written Request. Where there are multiple products of the same class, Forums have recommended a focused and sequential approach. Class prioritization resulted in an increase in waivers for non-prioritized B-cell products (44% to 75%) and a decrease in monotherapy trials, proposed in Paediatric Investigation Plans (PIP) submissions of checkpoint inhibitors from 53% to 19%. Strategy Forums could play a role in defining unmet medical needs. Multi-stakeholder forums, such as the Paediatric Strategy Forum, serve as a model to improve collaboration in the oncology drug development paradigm., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Better therapies for childhood cancer remain an unmet need to improve the dismal prognosis of certain malignancies and to reduce the burden of toxicity. Rescuing discontinued or shelved drugs for children, adolescents, and young adults is a strategy to identify new uses for approved or investigational medicines outside the scope of their original medical indication. Our proposed multistakeholder consensus focuses on the development of innovative, patent-protected targeted agents, sourced from previously shelved or discontinued programs that have the potential to provide significant benefit to underserved patient populations, with unmet medical needs. There are several challenges to continuing/rescuing drugs for pediatric oncology development, which include the lack of information for decision making, corporate strategy considerations underlying the decision to invest in pediatric development, and the contracting and technology transfer complexities required to enable divestment and subsequent development. The multistakeholder approach for drug development has the advantage of conveying a consensus among academia, patient advocates, and importantly industry itself. We propose three areas of action to facilitate rescuing potentially beneficial drugs for children and adolescents with cancer: (i) initiatives to provide information to companies considering developing these drugs and a standards framework; (ii) incentives both in Europe and in the United States to encourage companies to develop pediatric-only drugs, with the reform of the EU Pharmaceutical Legislation posing an important opportunity; and (iii) communication of the issues to all stakeholders. Ultimately, this will benefit children and adolescents with cancer., (© 2023 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

DNA damage response inhibitors have a potentially important therapeutic role in paediatric cancers; however, their optimal use, including patient selection and combination strategy, remains unknown. Moreover, there is an imbalance between the number of drugs with diverse mechanisms of action and the limited number of paediatric patients available to be enrolled in early-phase trials, so prioritisation and a strategy are essential. While PARP inhibitors targeting homologous recombination-deficient tumours have been used primarily in the treatment of adult cancers with BRCA1/2 mutations, BRCA1/2 mutations occur infrequently in childhood tumours, and therefore, a specific response hypothesis is required. Combinations with targeted radiotherapy, ATR inhibitors, or antibody drug conjugates with DNA topoisomerase I inhibitor-related warheads warrant evaluation. Additional monotherapy trials of PARP inhibitors with the same mechanism of action are not recommended. PARP1-specific inhibitors and PARP inhibitors with very good central nervous system penetration also deserve evaluation. ATR, ATM, DNA-PK, CHK1, WEE1, DNA polymerase theta and PKMYT1 inhibitors are early in paediatric development. There should be an overall coordinated strategy for their development. Therefore, an academia/industry consensus of the relevant biomarkers will be established and a focused meeting on ATR inhibitors (as proof of principle) held. CHK1 inhibitors have demonstrated activity in desmoplastic small round cell tumours and have a potential role in the treatment of other paediatric malignancies, such as neuroblastoma and Ewing sarcoma. Access to CHK1 inhibitors for paediatric clinical trials is a high priority. The three key elements in evaluating these inhibitors in children are (1) innovative trial design (design driven by a clear hypothesis with the intent to further investigate responders and non-responders with detailed retrospective molecular analyses to generate a revised or new hypothesis); (2) biomarker selection and (3) rational combination therapy, which is limited by overlapping toxicity. To maximally benefit children with cancer, investigators should work collaboratively to learn the lessons from the past and apply them to future studies. Plans should be based on the relevant biology, with a focus on simultaneous and parallel research in preclinical and clinical settings, and an overall integrated and collaborative strategy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest IG is an employee of Merck Serono Ltd, Feltham, UK, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. TJU is an employee of Repare Therapeutics, Cambridge, MA, USA. TJH is an employee of GSK, Collegeville, PA, USA. BRD is an employee of AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK. JC is an employee of Pfizer, Tadworth, UK. RB is an employee of Genentech, a Member of the Roche Group, South San Francisco, CA, USA. ADJP has consulted for Lilly, Norgine and Developmental Therapeutics Consortium Limited and been an advisor for Amgen. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: There is an increasing need to evaluate innovative drugs for childhood cancer using combination strategies. Strong biological rationale and clinical experience suggest that multiple agents will be more efficacious than monotherapy for most diseases and may overcome resistance mechanisms and increase synergy. The process to evaluate these combination trials needs to maximize efficiency and should be agreed by all stakeholders., Methods: After a review of existing combination trial methodologies, regulatory requirements, and current results, a consensus among stakeholders was achieved., Results: Combinations of anticancer therapies should be developed on the basis of mechanism of action and robust preclinical evaluation, and may include data from adult clinical trials. The general principle for combination early-phase studies is that, when possible, clinical trials should be dose- and schedule-confirmatory rather than dose-exploratory, and every effort should be made to optimize doses early. Efficient early-phase combination trials should be seamless, including dose confirmation and randomized expansion. Dose evaluation designs for combinations depend on the extent of previous knowledge. If not previously evaluated, limited evaluation of monotherapy should be included in the same clinical trial as the combination. Randomized evaluation of a new agent plus standard therapy versus standard therapy is the most effective approach to isolate the effect and toxicity of the novel agent. Platform trials may be valuable in the evaluation of combination studies. Patient advocates and regulators should be engaged with investigators early in a proposed clinical development pathway and trial design must consider regulatory requirements., Conclusion: An optimized, agreed approach to the design and evaluation of early-phase pediatric combination trials will accelerate drug development and benefit all stakeholders, most importantly children and adolescents with cancer.

Background: Understanding the landscape of clinical trials for patients with neuroblastoma may inform efforts to improve drug development., Procedure: We evaluated therapeutic trials for patients with neuroblastoma from 2011 to 2020 in our search using clinical trial information from ClinicalTrials.gov, Clinicaltrialregister.eu, PubMed, and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting collection. Trends in trials and treatments over time were evaluated qualitatively., Results: A total of 192 trials met inclusion criteria. A median of 20.5 trials were started per year, which was stable over time. There were 87 (45%) phase 1, 100 (51%) phase 2, and only five (2.6%) phase 3 trials. The median time to completion was 4.9 years for phase 1 and 2 trials (no phase 3 trials reported as completed during the study period). In all, 34% of trials were international, while 20% of trials were intercontinental. Eighty-nine percent of nonmyeloablative trials included at least one novel agent. 48% of these trials studied combination therapies, and 86% of these combinations included conventional chemotherapy. Among 157 trials that included a targeted agent, 78 targets were identified, with GD2 being the primary target under investigation in 16.7% of these trials. Only eight trials were included in regulatory decisions, which led to European Medicines Agency (EMA) or Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for neuroblastoma., Conclusions: The large number of trials initiated per year, the range of targets, and the rate of intercontinental collaboration are encouraging. The paucity of late-stage trials, the prolonged trial duration, and relative lack of combination studies are major causes of concern. This work will inform future drug development for neuroblastoma., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

The European Paediatric Medicine Regulation was launched in 2007, aiming to provide better medicines for children. However, its benefit for paediatric patients with cancer has been questioned and the European Paediatric and Orphan Regulations have been under review since November, 2020. To ascertain the effect of the European Paediatric Medicine Regulation, all paediatric anti-cancer medicines assessed by the European Medicines Agency from 1995 to 2022 were identified and reviewed using the agency's public assessment reports, and all Paediatric Investigation Plans granted since 2007 were analysed. 16 new molecular entities (NMEs; ie, a drug that contains an active moiety that had never been approved before) have been approved since the regulation was launched in 2007. The number of paediatric marketing authorisations increased from 2007 but represented the same 17% of all anti-cancer drug marketing authorisations before and after 2007. After 2007, nine (56%) of 16 NMEs were first authorised both in adults and children. For seven NMEs, a first paediatric indication was approved with a median lag time of 6·4 years (range 1·2-21·5 years) after the first authorisation in adults. Half of NMEs were authorised for the treatment of malignancies responsible for only 5·4% of all European childhood cancer deaths, including three medicines for melanoma and thyroid cancer-adult cancers occurring very rarely in children. The increased number of paediatric anti-cancer NMEs after 2007 is a result of the major increase in new medicines authorised for adult cancers since 2005 rather than a direct effect of the Paediatric Regulation. Paediatric development of these NMEs was driven by their adult market and did not address major unmet medical needs of children and adolescents with cancer. An improved, fit-for-purpose regulatory environment that incentivises paediatric drug development based on mechanism of action, better incentives, and a systematic multi-stakeholder engagement, with greater investment from industry, public funding, and non-governmental organisations, will increase the number of new medicines approved in the future to cure more children and adolescents with cancer., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests GV has received consulting fees paid to his institution from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Hutchinson-Medi Pharma, Pyramid, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech, and travel support from Roche and Bayer. All other authors declare no competing interests. ACCELERATE is funded by the Andrew McDonough B(+) Foundation and the European Society for Paediatric Oncology., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: We declare no competing interests.

Rapid evaluation and subsequent regulatory approval of new drugs are critical to improving survival and reducing long-term side-effects for children and adolescents with cancer. The international multi-stakeholder organisation ACCELERATE was created to advance the timely investigation of new anti-cancer drugs. ACCELERATE has enhanced communication and understanding between academia, industry, patient advocates and regulators. It has promoted a mechanism-of-action driven drug development approach and developed Paediatric Strategy Forums. These initiatives have facilitated prioritisation of medicinal products and a focused and sequential strategy for drug development where there are multiple potential agents. ACCELERATE has championed the early assessment of promising drugs in adolescents through their inclusion in adult early phase trials. ACCELERATE has strongly supported alignment between the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration and identification of unmet medical needs through multi-stakeholder collaboration. Early engagement between all stakeholders in the development of new drugs is critical. Innovative clinical trial designs are required, necessitating early discussion with sponsors and regulators. Amplifying the patient advocate voice through inclusion across the drug development continuum will lead to better, patient-centric trials. By these means, children and adolescents with cancer can maximally and rapidly benefit from innovative products to improve outcomes and reduce burdensome sequelae., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: PCA is an employee of Sanofi. EB is an employee of Day One Biopharmaceuticals. HC is an employee of Hoffmann-La Roche and owns stock of Hoffmann-La-Roche. SGD has consulted for Bayer and received travel expenses from Loxo, Roche and Salarius. LG has been an unpaid advisor to Amgen, Janssen, Kura, Novartis, OnKure and Pfizer and owns stock in Amgen, Sanofi Paris and Mirati. MK is an employee of Day One Biopharmaceuticals. KarstenNysom has consulted for Y-mAbs and has been an advisor to EUSA Pharma, Y-mAbs and Bayer and provided teaching to Y-mAbs and Bayer. ADJP has consulted for Lilly, Norgine and Developmental Therapeutics Consortium Limited and been an advisor for Amgen. RR is an employee of Gritstone Oncology, Inc. JS is an employee of INOVIO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. DW is an employee of Janssen Research & Development. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The first (2017) and sixth (2021) multistakeholder Paediatric Strategy Forums focused on anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibition in paediatric malignancies. ALK is an important oncogene and target in several paediatric tumours (anaplastic large cell lymphoma [ALCL], inflammatory myofibroblastic tumour [IMT], neuroblastoma and hemispheric gliomas in infants and young children) with unmet therapeutic needs. ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been demonstrated to be active both in ALK fusion-kinase positive ALCL and IMT. ALK alterations differ, with fusions occurring in ALCL, IMT and gliomas, and activating mutations and amplification in neuroblastoma. While there are many ALK inhibitors in development, the number of children diagnosed with ALK driven malignancies is very small. The objectives of this ALK Forum were to (i) Describe current knowledge of ALK biology in childhood cancers; (ii) Provide an overview of the development of ALK inhibitors for children; (iii) Identify the unmet needs taking into account planned or current ongoing trials; (iv) Conclude how second/third-generation inhibitors could be evaluated and prioritised; (v) Identify lessons learnt from the experience with ALK inhibitors to accelerate the paediatric development of other anti-cancer targeted agents in the new regulatory environments. There has been progress over the last four years, with more trials of ALK inhibitors opened in paediatrics and more regulatory submissions. In January 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved crizotinib for the treatment of paediatric and young adult patients with relapsed or refractory ALCL and there are paediatric investigation plans (PIPs) for brigatinib and for crizotinib in ALCL and IMT. In ALCL, the current goal is to investigate the inclusion of ALK inhibitors in front-line therapy with the aim of decreasing toxicity with higher/similar efficacy compared to present first-line therapies. For IMT, the focus is to develop a joint prospective trial with one product in children, adolescents and adults, taking advantage of the common biology across the age spectrum. As approximately 50% of IMTs are ALK-positive, molecular analysis is required to identify patients to be treated with an ALK inhibitor. For neuroblastoma, crizotinib has not shown robust anti-tumour activity. A focused and sequential development of ALK inhibitors with very good central nervous system (CNS) penetration in CNS tumours with ALK fusions should be undertaken. The Forum reinforced the strong need for global academic collaboration, very early involvement of regulators with studies seeking possible registration and early academia-multicompany engagement. Innovations in study design and conduct and the use of 'real-world data' supporting development in these rare sub-groups of patients for whom randomised clinical trials are not feasible are important initiatives. A focused and sequenced development strategy, where one product is evaluated first with other products being assessed sequentially, is applicable for ALK inhibitors and other medicinal products in children., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement EB is an employee of Day One Biopharmaceuticals and was an employee of Pfizer. HC is an employee of Hoffmann-La Roche. SGD has consulted for Bayer and received travel expenses from Loxo Oncology, Roche, and Salarius. FD is the European principal investigator of the Roche Alectinib study and participated in advisory boards for Bayer, BMS, Roche, Celgene, LOXO Oncology, Servier and Tesaro and received travel expenses from Bayer, BMS, Roche and consultancy from Servier and received funding for research projects from Onxeo, Synth-Innove. LVM has consulted for Bayer and participated in advisory boards for BMS and Tesaro, and been a Data Monitoring Committee Member for Eisai and Merck. YM is an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals International. YPM has been a consultant for Pfizer. KN participated in advisory boards, consulted and taught for Bayer, Y-mAbs, and EUSA. GS is an employee of Xcovery. ADJP has participated in advisory boards for Novartis, Takeda, Merck, Lilly and Celgene and consulted for Lilly and Developmental Therapeutics Consortium Limited. KW is an employee of Pfizer. WW has consulted for Takeda and participated in an advisory board for Takeda Pharmaceuticals International. ZFZ is an employee of Turning Point Therapeutics. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The international pediatric oncology community has a long history of research collaboration. In the United States, the 2019 launch of the Children's Cancer Data Initiative puts the focus on developing a rich and robust data ecosystem for pediatric oncology. In this spirit, we present here our experience in constructing the Pediatric Cancer Data Commons (PCDC) to highlight the significance of this effort in fighting pediatric cancer and improving outcomes and to provide essential information to those creating resources in other disease areas. The University of Chicago's PCDC team has worked with the international research community since 2015 to build data commons for children's cancers. We identified six critical features of successful data commons design and implementation: (1) establish the need for a data commons, (2) develop and deploy the technical infrastructure, (3) establish and implement governance, (4) make the data commons platform easy and intuitive for researchers, (5) socialize the data commons and create working knowledge and expertise in the research community, and (6) plan for longevity and sustainability. Data commons are critical to conducting research on large patient cohorts that will ultimately lead to improved outcomes for children with cancer. There is value in connecting high-quality clinical and phenotype data to external sources of data such as genomic, proteomics, and imaging data. Next steps for the PCDC include creating an informed and invested data-sharing culture, developing sustainable methods of data collection and sharing, standardizing genetic biomarker reporting, incorporating radiologic and molecular analysis data, and building models for electronic patient consent. The methods and processes described here can be extended to any clinical area and provide a blueprint for others wishing to develop similar resources., Competing Interests: Suzi BirzConsulting or Advisory Role: Litmus Health Stefanie Hecker-NoltingResearch Funding: Eisai Nathalie GasparConsulting or Advisory Role: Eisai, IpsenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Eisai Gianni BisognoConsulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, Roche, iQone healthcareTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Jazz Pharmaceuticals Dirk ReinhardtConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Bluebird Bio, Hexal, BMS, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, JanssenResearch Funding: Celgene, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, BluebirBioTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Jazz Pharmaceuticals C. Michel ZwaanConsulting or Advisory Role: Takeda, incyte, Sanofi, Bayer, NovartisResearch Funding: Pfizer, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Celgene, TakedaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Jazz Pharmaceuticals Lindsay FrazierStock and Other Ownership Interests: Decibel TherapeuticsConsulting or Advisory Role: Decibel Therapeutics Katherine JanewayHonoraria: Foundation MedicineConsulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, IpsenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bayer Doug HawkinsResearch Funding: Loxo, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bayer, Lilly, Eisai, Amgen, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, PfizerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bayer, AstraZeneca E. Anders KolbTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech Susan CohnStock and Other Ownership Interests: Merck, Stryker (I), Amgen (I), Pfizer (I), AbbVie, Amgen, Lilly, Sanofi, Accelerated Medical Diagnostics, Novo Nordisk, Gilead Sciences, United Health Group, TevaHonoraria: Y-mAbs TherapeuticsResearch Funding: United Therapeutics, Merck Andrew D. J. PearsonConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, Takeda, Merck, CelgeneTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Lilly, Takeda, Merck, Celgene Samuel VolchenboumStock and Other Ownership Interests: Litmus HealthConsulting or Advisory Role: AccordantTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Sanford HealthNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: Induction therapy is a critical component of the therapy of high-risk neuroblastoma. We aimed to assess if the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) N5 induction regimen (MSKCC-N5) would improve metastatic complete response (mCR) rate and 3-year event-free survival (EFS) compared with rapid COJEC (rCOJEC; cisplatin [C], vincristine [O], carboplatin [J], etoposide [E], and cyclophosphamide [C])., Patients and Methods: Patients (age 1-20 years) with stage 4 neuroblastoma or stage 4/4s aged < 1 year with MYCN amplification were eligible for random assignment to rCOJEC or MSKCC-N5. Random assignment was stratified according to national group and metastatic sites. Following induction, therapy comprised primary tumor resection, high-dose busulfan and melphalan, radiotherapy to the primary tumor site, and isotretinoin with ch14.18/CHO (dinutuximab beta) antibody with or without interleukin-2 immunotherapy. The primary end points were mCR rate and 3-year EFS., Results: A total of six hundred thirty patients were randomly assigned to receive rCOJEC (n = 313) or MSKCC-N5 (n = 317). Median age at diagnosis was 3.2 years (range, 1 month to 20 years), and 16 were younger than 1 year of age with MYCN amplification. mCR rate following rCOJEC induction (32%, 86/272 evaluable patients) was not significantly different from 35% (99/281) with MSKCC-N5 ( P = .368), and 3-year EFS was 44% ± 3% for rCOJEC compared with 47% ± 3% for MSKCC-N5 ( P = .527). Three-year overall survival was 60% ± 3% for rCOJEC compared with 65% ± 3% for MSKCC-N5 ( P = .379). Toxic death rates with both regimens were 1%. However, nonhematologic CTC grade 3 and 4 toxicities were higher with MSKCC-N5: 68% (193/283) versus 48% (129/268) ( P < .001); infection 35% versus 25% ( P = .011); stomatitis 25% versus 3% ( P < .001); nausea and vomiting 17% versus 7% ( P < .001); and diarrhea 7% versus 3% ( P = .011)., Conclusion: No difference in outcome was observed between rCOJEC and MSKCC-N5; however, acute toxicity was less with rCOJEC, and therefore rCOJEC is the preferred induction regimen for International Society of Pediatric Oncology European Neuroblastoma Group., Competing Interests: Alberto GaraventaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Takeda Dominique Valteau-CouanetConsulting or Advisory Role: EUSA PharmaResearch Funding: Orphelia PharmaPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Royalties from Apeiron to SIOPENTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: EUSA Pharma, Jazz Pharmaceuticals Martin ElliottConsulting or Advisory Role: Bayer Godfrey C. F. ChanLeadership: Xelllera, PengeniaConsulting or Advisory Role: Xellera, PengeniaSpeakers' Bureau: Xellera, PengeniaPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Xellera, Pengenia Walentyna BalwierzHonoraria: Shire, Gilead Sciences, Novartis, AmgenConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Novartis, Roche, TakedaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Shire, Roche, Servier Cormac OwensEmployment: Ymabs Therapeutics Inc Vassilios PapadakisHonoraria: EUSA Pharma, NovartisConsulting or Advisory Role: SOBITravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Sanofi, Gilead Sciences, Novartis, Astellas Pharma Toby TrahairStock and Other Ownership Interests: CSL Limited, Osteopore Ltd, Medical Developments International, Cochlear Limited, Sonic Healthcare Limited, Medibank Private LimitedConsulting or Advisory Role: IPSOSExpert Testimony: EUSA Pharma, KMC HealthcareUncompensated Relationships: EUSA Pharma, KMC Healthcare Gudrun SchleiermacherHonoraria: BMSResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, MSDavenir, RocheTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche Andrew D. J. PearsonConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, Takeda, Merck, CelgeneTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Lilly, Takeda, Merck, Celgene Ruth Lydia LadensteinHonoraria: Apeiron Biologics, Boehringer Ingelheim, EUSA PharmaConsulting or Advisory Role: Apeiron Biologics, Boehringer Ingelheim, EUSA PharmaResearch Funding: Apeiron Biologics, EUSA PharmaPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Apeiron Biologics, EUSA PharmaExpert Testimony: Apeiron Biologics, EUSA PharmaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Apeiron Biologics, EUSA PharmaNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background: This phase 1 study evaluated safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and antitumour activity of regorafenib in paediatric patients with solid tumours., Patients and Methods: Patients (aged 6 months to <18 years) with recurrent/refractory solid tumours received oral regorafenib once daily for 3 weeks on/1 week off. The starting dose (60 mg/m 2 ) was derived from an adult physiology-based PK model and scaled to children; dose escalation was followed by safety expansion of the MTD cohort. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were evaluated using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Regorafenib PK was evaluated using a population PK model., Results: Forty-one patients (median age 13 years) received regorafenib (four cohorts: 60-93 mg/m 2 ). Five of 23 evaluable patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (Grade 4 thrombocytopenia, Grade 3 maculopapular rash, pyrexia, hypertension, and exfoliative dermatitis [each n = 1]). The MTD was defined as 82 mg/m 2 . The most common Grade ≥3 drug-related TEAE was thrombocytopenia (10%). The incidence and severity of hypertension, diarrhoea, fatigue, hypothyroidism, and hand-foot skin reaction were lower than reported in adults. Regorafenib exposure increased with dose, with substantial overlap because of moderate-to-high interpatient variability. One patient with rhabdomyosarcoma experienced an unconfirmed partial response; 15 patients had stable disease, five for >16 weeks., Conclusions: The recommended phase 2 dose of single-agent regorafenib in paediatric patients with solid malignancies is 82 mg/m 2 . Regorafenib demonstrated acceptable tolerability and preliminary antitumour activity, supporting further investigation in paediatric patients., Clinical Trial Number: NCT02085148., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: B.G. has received advisory board fees from Bayer. B.M. has received honoraria from Takeda and consulting or advisory board fees from Bayer and Clinigen Group. I.J. has received travel, accommodation, and expenses from Chugai Pharma. D.F. has received advisory board fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb. A.D.J.P. has received advisory board fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Genentech, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, and Takeda. G.V. has provided advice to Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Roche-Genentech, Celgene, Lilly, and Ipsen, without personal remuneration and received travel and accommodation from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Roche-Genentech. P.M. is an employee of Bayer. J.K. is an employee of Bayer. U.M. is an employee of ClinStat and has received consulting or advisory board fees from Bayer. S.S. is an employee of Bayer. M.T. was an employee of Bayer until January 2020 and owns stock in Bayer and is currently an employee of Boehringer Ingelheim. B.A.P. is an employee of Bayer and owns stock in Bayer. A.C. is an employee of Bayer and owns stock in Bayer and AstraZeneca. A.C.A. is an employee of Novartis Pharmaceuticals and was an employee of Bayer until May 2018. L.V.M. has received honoraria and consulting or advisory board fees from Bayer (outside of the agent/study covered in the manuscript) and consulting or advisory board fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, and Tesaro., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)