Lenvatinib with etoposide plus ifosfamide in patients with refractory or relapsed osteosarcoma (ITCC-050): a multicentre, open-label, multicohort, phase 1/2 study.

BACKGROUND: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors have shown activity in osteosarcoma and might enhance the efficacy of chemotherapy. We aimed to determine the recommended phase 2 dose and antitumour activity of lenvatinib with etoposide plus ifosfamide in patients with refractory or relapsed osteosarcoma. METHODS: This multicentre, open-label, multicohort, phase 1/2 trial was done at 17 hospitals in six countries. Eligible patients were aged 2-25 years, had relapsed or refractory osteosarcoma, measurable or evaluable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, Lansky play-performance score or Karnofsky performance score of 50% or higher, up to one previous VEGF or VEGF receptor-targeted therapy, and a life expectancy of at least 3 months. This study includes a combination dose-finding phase 1 part (cohort 3A) and a phase 2 combination expansion in patients with osteosarcoma (cohort 3B). Lenvatinib was administered orally at a starting dose of 11 mg/m2 per day, capped at 24 mg per day, and etoposide (100 mg/m2 per day) plus ifosfamide (3000 mg/m2 per day) were administered intravenously on days 1-3 of each 21-day cycle for a maximum of five cycles. Lenvatinib monotherapy continued after these five cycles until disease progression, toxic effects, or patient choice to discontinue. The phase 1 primary endpoint was to determine the recommended phase 2 dose by evaluating dose-limiting toxicity and the phase 2 primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 4 months. Progression-free survival was measured in the full analysis set, which included all patients enrolled for efficacy outcomes; safety was assessed in all patients who received any study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02432274. FINDINGS: 30 patients were screened for enrolment into cohort 3A between May 9, 2016, and June 3, 2019, and 22 patients for enrolment into cohort 3B between Sept 13, 2018, and July 18, 2019. Eight patients from cohort 3A and two from cohort 3B were ineligible for enrolment in the study. In phase 1, dose-limiting toxicities were observed in three patients (one in the lenvatinib 11 mg/m2 combination group and two in the 14 mg/m2 combination group) and the recommended phase 2 dose was determined as lenvatinib 14 mg/m2 per day (with daily dose cap of 24 mg) and etoposide 100 mg/m2 per day plus ifosfamide 3000 mg/m2 per day administered intravenously on days 1-3 of each 21-day cycle for a maximum of five cycles. 35 patients from phase 1 (cohort 3A; n=15) and phase 2 (cohort 3B; n=20) were treated at the recommended phase 2 dose and their results were pooled. Progression-free survival at 4 months was 51% (95% CI 34-69) in 18 of 35 patients per the binomial estimate. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (27 [77%] of 35), thrombocytopenia (25 [71%]), anaemia (19 [54%]), and decreased white blood cell count (19 [54%]). 26 [74%] of 35 patients had serious treatment-emergent adverse events and no treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Lenvatinib with etoposide plus ifosfamide shows promising antitumour activity with no new safety signals in patients with refractory and relapsed osteosarcoma. These findings warrant further investigation in an ongoing randomised phase 2 study (NCT04154189). FUNDING: Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Comprehensive evaluation of context dependence of the prognostic impact of MYCN amplification in neuroblastoma: A report from the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) project.

BACKGROUND: MYCN amplification (MYCN-A) is an established adverse prognostic factor in neuroblastoma. The extent to which the prognostic impact of MYCN-A depends on other factors has not been fully characterized. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group database, we constructed Cox models of overall survival (OS) to obtain hazard ratios of the effect of MYCN-A within subgroups defined by other prognostic factors. Cox models assessed the degree to which the prognostic impact of MYCN-A was modulated by each other covariate. We used absolute hazard ratio (HR) differences to construct classification trees to identify subgroups with greatest differential prognostic effect of MYCN-A. RESULTS: In a cohort of 6223 patients with known MYCN status, the OS hazard ratio associated with MYCN-A was 6.3 (95% confidence interval 5.7-7.0, P < .001). Age at diagnosis conferred the largest HR absolute difference for MYCN-A between subgroups (HR absolute difference 16.6; HRs for MYCN-A of 19.6 for <18 months, 3.0 for ≥18 months). MYCN-A remained significantly prognostic of OS after controlling for other factors, abrogating their prognostic strength. Patients whose outcome was most impacted by MYCN status were those who were <18 months, had high mitosis karrhyohexis index (MKI) and low ferritin. CONCLUSION: The prognostic strength of MYCN-A varies depending on which patient subgroup defined by other neuroblastoma risk factors is examined, with greatest strength in patients with otherwise favorable features. MYCN-A has little effect within some subgroups, aiding clinical decision-making if MYCN status cannot be assessed. Subgroups where MYCN-A has large effect may be prioritized for agents targeting Myc family proteins.

Scaling up and implementing the digital Survivorship Passport tool in routine clinical care - The European multidisciplinary PanCareSurPass project.

BACKGROUND: Childhood cancer survivors (CCS), of whom there are about 500,000 living in Europe, are at an increased risk of developing health problems [1-6] and require lifelong Survivorship Care. There are information and knowledge gaps among CCS and healthcare providers (HCPs) about requirements for Survivorship Care [7-9] that can be addressed by the Survivorship Passport (SurPass), a digital tool providing CCS and HCPs with a comprehensive summary of past treatment and tailored recommendations for Survivorship Care. The potential of the SurPass to improve person-centred Survivorship Care has been demonstrated previously [10,11]. METHODS: The EU-funded PanCareSurPass project will develop an updated version (v2.0) of the SurPass allowing for semi-automated data entry and implement it in six European countries (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Lithuania and Spain), representative of three infrastructure healthcare scenarios typically found in Europe. The implementation study will investigate the impact on person-centred care, as well as costs and processes of scaling up the SurPass. Interoperability between electronic health record systems and SurPass v2.0 will be addressed using the Health Level Seven (HL7) International interoperability standards. RESULTS: PanCareSurPass will deliver an interoperable digital SurPass with comprehensive evidence on person-centred outcomes, technical feasibility and health economics impacts. An Implementation Toolkit will be developed and freely shared to promote and support the future implementation of SurPass across Europe. CONCLUSIONS: PanCareSurPass is a novel European collaboration that will improve person-centred Survivorship Care for CCS across Europe through a robust assessment of the implementation of SurPass v2.0 in different healthcare settings.

European recommendations for short-term surveillance of health problems in childhood, adolescent and young adult cancer survivors from the end of treatment to 5 years after diagnosis: a PanCare guideline.

PURPOSE: Childhood, adolescent and young adult (CAYA) cancer survivors require ongoing surveillance for health problems from the end of cancer treatment throughout their lives. There is a lack of evidence-based guidelines on optimal surveillance strategies for the period from the end of treatment to 5 years after diagnosis. We aimed to address this gap by developing recommendations for short-term surveillance of health problems based on existing long-term follow-up (LTFU) care guidelines. METHODS: The guideline working group, consisting of healthcare professionals, parents and survivor representatives from 10 countries, worked together to identify relevant health problems that may occur in survivors between the end of treatment and 5 years after diagnosis and to develop recommendations for short-term surveillance of health problems. The recommendations were drawn from existing LTFU guidelines and adapted where necessary based on clinical expertise. RESULTS: The working group developed 44 recommendations for short-term surveillance of health problems, which were divided into four categories based on the level of surveillance required: awareness only (n = 11), awareness, history and/or physical examination without surveillance test (n = 15), awareness, history and/or physical examination with potential surveillance test (n = 1) and awareness, history and/or physical examination with surveillance test (n = 17). CONCLUSION: The development of a guideline for short-term surveillance of health problems fills a critical gap in survivorship care for CAYA cancer survivors, providing much-needed support immediately after treatment up to 5 years after diagnosis. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: This guideline will support healthcare professionals to provide appropriate follow-up care and improve the quality of life of CAYA cancer survivors.

Barriers and facilitators to implementation of the interoperable Survivorship Passport (SurPass) v2.0 in 6 European countries: a PanCareSurPass online survey study.

PURPOSE: Long-term follow-up (LTFU) care for childhood cancer survivors (CCSs) is essential to improve and maintain their quality of life. The Survivorship Passport (SurPass) is a digital tool which can aid in the delivery of adequate LTFU care. During the European PanCareSurPass (PCSP) project, the SurPass v2.0 will be implemented and evaluated at six LTFU care clinics in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Lithuania and Spain. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the SurPass v2.0 with regard to the care process as well as ethical, legal, social and economical aspects. METHODS: An online, semi-structured survey was distributed to 75 stakeholders (LTFU care providers, LTFU care program managers and CCSs) affiliated with one of the six centres. Barriers and facilitators identified in four centres or more were defined as main contextual factors influencing implementation of SurPass v2.0. RESULTS: Fifty-four barriers and 50 facilitators were identified. Among the main barriers were a lack of time and (financial) resources, gaps in knowledge concerning ethical and legal issues and a potential increase in health-related anxiety in CCSs upon receiving a SurPass. Main facilitators included institutions' access to electronic medical records, as well as previous experience with SurPass or similar tools. CONCLUSIONS: We provided an overview of contextual factors that may influence SurPass implementation. Solutions should be found to overcome barriers and ensure effective implementation of SurPass v2.0 into routine clinical care. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: These findings will be used to inform on an implementation strategy tailored for the six centres.