Factors Influencing the Outcome of Patients with Primary Ewing Sarcoma of the Sacrum.

Background: Ewing sarcoma (EwS) is a rare and highly malignant bone tumor primarily affecting children, adolescents, and young adults. The pelvis, trunk, and lower extremities are the most common sites, while EwS of the sacrum as a primary site is very rare, and only few studies focusing on this location are published. Due to the anatomical condition, local treatment is challenging in sacral malignancies. We analyzed factors that might influence the outcome of patients suffering from sacral EwS. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data of the GPOH EURO-E.W.I.N.G 99 trial and the EWING 2008 trial, with a cohort of 124 patients with localized or metastatic sacral EwS. The study endpoints were overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS). OS and EFS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and univariate comparisons were estimated using the log-rank test. Hazard ratios (HRs) with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated in a multivariable Cox regression model. Results: The presence of metastases (3y-EFS: 0.33 vs. 0.68; P < 0.001; HR = 3.4, 95% CI 1.7 to 6.6; 3y-OS: 0.48 vs. 0.85; P < 0.001; HR = 4.23, 95% CI 1.8 to 9.7), large tumor volume (≥200 ml) (3y-EFS: 0.36 vs. 0.69; P=0.02; HR = 2.1, 95% CI 1.1 to 4.0; 3y-OS: 0.42 vs. 0.73; P=0.04; HR = 2.1, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.5), and age ≥18 years (3y-EFS: 0.41 vs. 0.60; P=0.02; HR = 2.6, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.2; 3y-OS: 0.294 vs. 0.59; P=0.01; HR = 2.92, 95% CI 1.29 to 6.6) were revealed as adverse prognostic factors. Conclusion: Young age seems to positively influence patients` survival, especially in patients with primary metastatic disease. In this context, our results support other studies, stating that older age has a negative impact on survival. Tumor volume, metastases, and the type of local therapy modality have an impact on the outcome of sacral EwS. Level of evidence: Level 2. This trial is registered with NCT00020566 and NCT00987636.

Zoledronic Acid Add-on Therapy for Standard-Risk Ewing Sarcoma Patients in the Ewing 2008R1 Trial.

PURPOSE: The phase III, open-label, prospective, multicenter, randomized Ewing 2008R1 trial (EudraCT2008-003658-13) was conducted in 12 countries to evaluate the effect of zoledronic acid (ZOL) maintenance therapy compared with no add-on regarding event-free survival (EFS, primary endpoint) and overall survival (OS) in standard-risk Ewing sarcoma (EWS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had localized EWS with either good histologic response to induction chemotherapy and/or small tumors (<200 mL). Patients received six cycles of VIDE induction and eight cycles of VAI (male) or eight cycles of VAC (female) consolidation. ZOL treatment started parallel to the sixth consolidation cycle. Randomization was stratified by tumor site (pelvis/other). The two-sided adaptive inverse-normal four-stage design (planned sample size 448 patients, significance level 5%, power 80%) was changed after the first interim analysis using the Müller-Schäfer method. RESULTS: Between April 2010 and November 2018, 284 patients were randomized (142 ZOL/142 no add-on). With a median follow-up of 3.9 years, EFS was not significantly different between ZOL and no add-on group in the adaptive design (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.43-1.28, P = 0.27, intention-to-treat). Three-year EFS rates were 84.0% (95% CI, 77.7%-90.8%) for ZOL vs. 81.7% (95% CI, 75.2%-88.8%) for no add-on. Results were similar in the per-protocol collective. OS was not different between groups. The 3-year OS was 92.8% (95% CI, 88.4%-97.5%) for ZOL and 94.6% (95% CI, 90.9%-98.6%) for no add-on. Noticeable more renal, neurologic, and gastrointestinal toxicities were observed for ZOL (P < 0.05). Severe renal toxicities occurred more often in the ZOL arm (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with standard-risk localized EWS, there is no additional benefit from maintenance treatment with ZOL.

Association between local treatment modalities and event-free survival, overall survival, and local recurrence in patients with localised Ewing Sarcoma. Report from the Ewing 2008 trial.

BACKGROUND: Local 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 METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: We 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). CONCLUSION: Patients 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.

Effect of Radiotherapy Dose on Outcome in Nonmetastatic Ewing Sarcoma.

Purpose: Radiation 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 Materials: The 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. Results: S&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). Conclusions: In 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.

High-Dose Treosulfan and Melphalan as Consolidation Therapy Versus Standard Therapy for High-Risk (Metastatic) Ewing Sarcoma.

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 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 Müller-Schäfer 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.