Evolution of the Innovative Therapies for Children With Cancer Consortium Trial Portfolio for Drug Development for Children With Cancer.

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.

Bevacizumab, Irinotecan, or Topotecan Added to Temozolomide for Children With Relapsed and Refractory Neuroblastoma: Results of the ITCC-SIOPEN BEACON-Neuroblastoma Trial.

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.

Impact of ACCELERATE Paediatric Strategy Forums: a review of the value of multi-stakeholder meetings in oncology drug development.

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.

Rescuing Drugs That are Discontinued in Adult Oncology Development for the Benefit of Children and Adolescents With Cancer - An ACCELERATE Multistakeholder Consensus.

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.

Paediatric Strategy Forum for medicinal product development of DNA damage response pathway inhibitors in children and adolescents with cancer: ACCELERATE in collaboration with the European Medicines Agency with participation of the Food and Drug Administration.

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.

Combination Early-Phase Trials of Anticancer Agents in Children and Adolescents.

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.

Impact of the EU Paediatric Medicine Regulation on new anti-cancer medicines for the treatment of children and adolescents.

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.

Systematic review of clinical drug development activities for neuroblastoma from 2011 to 2020.

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.

ACCELERATE - Five years accelerating cancer drug development for children and adolescents.

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.

Pediatric Cancer Data Commons: Federating and Democratizing Data for Childhood Cancer Research.

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.

Second Paediatric Strategy Forum for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibition in paediatric malignancies: ACCELERATE in collaboration with the European Medicines Agency with the participation of the Food and Drug Administration.

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.

Randomized Trial of Two Induction Therapy Regimens for High-Risk Neuroblastoma: HR-NBL1.5 International Society of Pediatric Oncology European Neuroblastoma Group Study.

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.

Phase 1 dose-escalation and pharmacokinetic study of regorafenib in paediatric patients with recurrent or refractory solid malignancies.

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/m2) 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/m2). 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/m2. 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/m2. Regorafenib demonstrated acceptable tolerability and preliminary antitumour activity, supporting further investigation in paediatric patients. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT02085148.

A global approach to long-term follow-up of targeted and immune-based therapy in childhood and adolescence.

While considerable efforts and progress in our understanding of the long-term toxicities of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy in children with cancer have been made over the last 5 decades, there continues to be a wide gap in our knowledge of the long-term health impact of most novel targeted and immunotherapy agents. To address this gap, ACCELERATE, a multi-stakeholder collaboration of clinical and translational academics, regulators from the EMA and FDA, patient/family advocates and members spanning small biotechnology through to large pharmaceutical companies have initiated the development of an international long-term follow-up data registry to collect this important information prospectively. Providing critical safety data on the long-term use of these approved and investigational therapies in children will support the regulatory requirements and labeling information. It will also provide the necessary insight to help guide physicians and families on the appropriateness of a targeted or immune therapy for their child and inform survivorship planning.

A nomogram of clinical and biologic factors to predict survival in children newly diagnosed with high-risk neuroblastoma: An International Neuroblastoma Risk Group project.

BACKGROUND: Long-term outcome remains poor for children with high-risk neuroblastoma (five-year overall survival [OS] ∼50%). Our objectives were to (a) identify prognostic biomarkers and apply them in a nomogram to identify the subgroup of ultra-high-risk patients at highest risk of disease progression/death, for whom novel frontline therapy is urgently needed; and (b) validate the nomogram in an independent cohort. METHODS: A total of 1820 high-risk patients (≥18 months old with metastatic neuroblastoma), diagnosed 1998-2015, from the International Neuroblastoma Risk Groups (INRG) Data Commons were analyzed in a retrospective cohort study. Using multivariable Cox regression of OS from diagnosis, a nomogram was created from prognostic biomarkers to predict three-year OS. External validation was performed using the SIOPEN HR-NBL1 trial cohort (n = 521), evidenced by receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: The nomogram, including MYCN status (P < 0.0001), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (P = 0.0007), and presence of bone marrow metastases (P = 0.004), had robust performance and was validated. Applying the nomogram at diagnosis (a) gives prognosis of an individual patient and (b) identifies patients predicted to have poor outcome (three-year OS was 30% ± 5% for patients with a nomogram score of > 82 points; 58% ± 1% for those ≤82 points). Median follow-up time was 5.5 years (range, 0-14.1). CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk neuroblastoma, a novel, publicly available nomogram using prognostic biomarkers (MYCN status, LDH, presence of bone marrow metastases; https://neuroblastoma.shinyapps.io/High-Risk-Neuroblastoma-Nomogram/) has the flexibility to apply a clinically suitable and context-specific cutoff to identify patients at highest risk of death. This will facilitate testing urgently needed new frontline treatment options to improve outcome for these children.

Age Dependency of the Prognostic Impact of Tumor Genomics in Localized Resectable MYCN-Nonamplified Neuroblastomas. Report From the SIOPEN Biology Group on the LNESG Trials and a COG Validation Group.

PURPOSE: For localized, resectable neuroblastoma without MYCN amplification, surgery only is recommended even if incomplete. However, it is not known whether the genomic background of these tumors may influence outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Diagnostic samples were obtained from 317 tumors, International Neuroblastoma Staging System stages 1/2A/2B, from 3 cohorts: Localized Neuroblastoma European Study Group I/II and Children's Oncology Group. Genomic data were analyzed using multi- and pangenomic techniques and fluorescence in-situ hybridization in 2 age groups (cutoff age, 18 months) and were quality controlled by the International Society of Pediatric Oncology European Neuroblastoma (SIOPEN) Biology Group. RESULTS: Patients with stage 1 tumors had an excellent outcome (5-year event-free survival [EFS] ± standard deviation [SD], 95% ± 2%; 5-year overall survival [OS], 99% ± 1%). In contrast, patients with stage 2 tumors had a reduced EFS in both age groups (5-year EFS ± SD, 84% ± 3% in patients < 18 months of age and 75% ± 7% in patients ≥ 18 months of age). However, OS was significantly decreased only in the latter group (5-year OS ± SD in < 18months and ≥ 18months, 96% ± 2% and 81% ± 7%, respectively; P = .001). In < 18months, relapses occurred independent of segmental chromosome aberrations (SCAs); only 1p loss decreased EFS (5-year EFS ± SD in patients 1p loss and no 1p loss, 62% ± 13% and 87% ± 3%, respectively; P = .019) but not OS (5-year OS ± SD, 92% ± 8% and 97% ± 2%, respectively). In patients ≥ 18 months, only SCAs led to relapse and death, with 11q loss as the strongest marker (11q loss and no 11q loss: 5-year EFS ± SD, 48% ± 16% and 85% ± 7%, P = .033; 5-year OS ± SD, 46% ± 22% and 92% ± 6%, P = .038). CONCLUSION: Genomic aberrations of resectable non-MYCN-amplified stage 2 neuroblastomas have a distinct age-dependent prognostic impact. Chromosome 1p loss is a risk factor for relapse but not for diminished OS in patients < 18 months, SCAs (especially 11q loss) are risk factors for reduced EFS and OS in those > 18months. In older patients with SCA, a randomized trial of postoperative chemotherapy compared with observation alone may be indicated.