BackgroundLocal treatment is a crucial element in the standard of care for Ewing sarcoma (EWS). While systemic treatment is improved in randomised clinical trials, local treatment modalities are... Show moreBackgroundLocal treatment is a crucial element in the standard of care for Ewing sarcoma (EWS). While systemic treatment is improved in randomised clinical trials, local treatment modalities are discussed controversially. We analysed the association between local therapy and event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), and local recurrence (LR) in prospectively collected data of patients with localised EWS.Patients and methodsWe analysed data from the international Ewing 2008 study registered between 2009 and 2019 in 117 centres. After induction chemotherapy, patients received surgery, radiotherapy, or a combination thereof. We performed Cox regression, conducted propensity score-weighted sensitivity analysis, and performed subgroup analyses. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals are reported.ResultsWe included 863 patients with localised EWS (surgery alone: 331, combination therapy: 358, definitive radiotherapy: 174). In patients treated with combination therapy compared to surgery alone, EFS HR was 0.84 (0.57–1.24; p = 0.38), OS HR was 0.84 (0.57–1.23; p = 0.41), and LR HR was 0.58 (0.26–1.31; p = 0.19). Hazards of any event were increased in patients treated with definitive radiotherapy compared to surgery only, HR 1.53 (1.02–2.31; p = 0.04). Patients with poor responses to chemotherapy benefitted from combination therapy over definitive surgery with an EFS HR 0.49 (0.27–0.89; p = 0.02). Patients with pelvic tumours benefitted from combination therapy over surgery only regarding LR, HR 0.12 (0.02–0.72; p = 0.02).ConclusionPatients with poor responses to chemotherapy benefitted from radiotherapy added to surgery. In the whole group, radiotherapy alone as opposed to surgery alone increased the hazards of any event. Show less
PurposeRadiation therapy (RT) is an integral part of Ewing sarcoma (EwS) therapy. The Ewing 2008 protocol recommended RT doses ranging from 45 to 54 Gy. However, some patients received other doses... Show morePurposeRadiation therapy (RT) is an integral part of Ewing sarcoma (EwS) therapy. The Ewing 2008 protocol recommended RT doses ranging from 45 to 54 Gy. However, some patients received other doses of RT. We analyzed the effect of different RT doses on event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with EwS.Methods and MaterialsThe Ewing 2008 database included 528 RT-admitted patients with nonmetastatic EwS. Recommended multimodal therapy consisted of multiagent chemotherapy and local treatment consisting of surgery (S&RT group) and/or RT (RT group). EFS and OS were analyzed with uni- and multivariable Cox regression models including known prognostic factors such as age, sex, tumor volume, surgical margins, and histologic response.ResultsS&RT was performed in 332 patients (62.9%), and 145 patients (27.5%) received definitive RT. Standard dose ≤ 53 Gy (d1) was admitted in 57.8%, high dose of 54 to 58 Gy (d2) in 35.5%, and very high dose ≥ 59 Gy (d3) in 6.6% of patients. In the RT group, RT dose was d1 in 11.7%, d2 in 44.1%, and d3 in 44.1% of patients. Three-year EFS in the S&RT group was 76.6% for d1, 73.7% for d2, and 68.2% for d3 (P = .42) and in the RT group 52.9%, 62.5%, and 70.3% (P = .63), respectively. Multivariable Cox regression revealed age ≥ 15 years (hazard ratio [HR], 2.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.63-4.38) and nonradical margins (HR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.05-2.93) for the S&RT group (sex, P = .96; histologic response, P = .07; tumor volume, P = .50; dose, P = .10) and large tumor volume (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.21-4.0) for the RT group as independent factors (dose, P = .15; age, P = .08; sex, P = .40).ConclusionsIn the combined local therapy modality group, treatment with higher RT dose had an effect on EFS, whereas higher dose of radiation when treated with definitive RT was associated with an increased OS. Indications for selection biases for dosage were found. Upcoming trials will assess the value of different RT doses in a randomized manner to control for potential selection bias. Show less
PURPOSE Ewing 2008R3 was conducted in 12 countries and evaluated the effect of treosulfan and melphalan high-dose chemotherapy (TreoMel-HDT) followed by reinfusion of autologous hematopoietic stem... Show morePURPOSE Ewing 2008R3 was conducted in 12 countries and evaluated the effect of treosulfan and melphalan high-dose chemotherapy (TreoMel-HDT) followed by reinfusion of autologous hematopoietic stem cells on event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival in high-risk Ewing sarcoma (EWS). METHODS Phase III, open-label, prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial. Eligible patients had disseminated EWS with metastases to bone and/or other sites, excluding patients with only pulmonary metastases. Patients received six cycles of vincristine, ifosfamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide induction and eight cycles of vincristine, actinomycin D, and cyclophosphamide consolidation therapy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive additional TreoMel-HDT or no further treatment (control). The random assignment was stratified by number of bone metastases (1, 2-5, and > 5). The one-sided adaptive-inverse-normal-4-stage-design was changed after the first interim analysis via Muller-Schafer method. RESULTS Between 2009 and 2018, 109 patients were randomly assigned, and 55 received TreoMel-HDT. With a median follow-up of 3.3 years, there was no significant difference in EFS between TreoMel-HDT and control in the adaptive design (hazard ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.32, intention-to-treat). Three-year EFS was 20.9% (95% CI, 11.5 to 37.9) in TreoMel-HDT and 19.2% (95% CI, 10.8 to 34.4) in control patients. The results were similar in the per-protocol collective. Males treated with TreoMel-HDT had better EFS compared with controls: median 1.0 years (95% CI, 0.8 to 2.2) versus 0.6 years (95% CI, 0.5 to 0.9); P = .035; HR 0.52 (0.28 to 0.97). Patients age < 14 years benefited from TreoMel-HDT with a 3-years EFS of 39.3% (95% CI, 20.4 to 75.8%) versus 9% (95% CI, 2.4 to 34); P = .016; HR 0.40 (0.19 to 0.87). These effects were similar in the per-protocol collective. This observation is supported by comparable results from the nonrandomized trial EE99R3. CONCLUSION In patients with very high-risk EWS, additional TreoMel-HDT was of no benefit for the entire cohort of patients. TreoMel-HDT may be of benefit for children age < 14 years. (c) 2022 by American Society of Clinical Oncology Show less
