4.7 Article

Nonmetastatic Ewing family tumors: high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell rescue in poor responder patients. Results of the Italian Sarcoma Group/Scandinavian Sarcoma Group III protocol

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 5, Pages 1221-1227

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdq573

Keywords

chemotherapy-induced necrosis; Ewing sarcoma; high-dose chemotherapy

Categories

Funding

  1. Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli (Italy) Progetti di Ricerca Corrente
  2. Italian Sarcoma Group
  3. Scandinavian Sarcoma Group

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: High-dose chemotherapy (HDT) was added to conventional chemotherapy in Ewing sarcoma family tumor (EFT) patients, poor responders (PRs) to induction chemotherapy in order to improve their survival. Patients and methods: Patients aged <= 40 years with nonmetastatic Ewing sarcoma (ES) received vincristine (V), doxorubicin (A), cyclofosfamide (C), actinomycin (Ac), ifosfamide (I) and etoposide (E) (VACAc-IE regimen) as induction chemotherapy. As maintenance treatment, good responders (GR) received nine cycles of VACAc-IE regimen. PRs received three cycles of VAC-IE, mobilizing cycle with CE and HDT with Busulfan and Melphalan with stem cell support. Results: Three hundred patients [median age 15 years (3-40 years)] entered the study. One patient refused local treatment, 242 (81%) underwent surgery [with radiotherapy (RT) in 80] and 57 (19%) RT alone. No toxic deaths were recorded. Overall GR were 146 (49%). Twenty-eight PR did not receive HDT. At a median follow-up of 64 months (21-116 months), 5-year overall and event-free survival (EFS) were 75% and 69%, respectively. Five-year EFS was 75% for GR, 72% for PR treated with HDT and 33% for PR who did not receive HDT. Conclusions: High-dose therapy added to the VACA-IE regimen in PR patients is feasible and effective. Selected groups of patients with ES can benefit from HDT.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available