Harmonization of the Upfront Osteosarcoma Treatment Paradigm for Adolescents and Young Adults.

Limited guidance exists on streamlining cancer therapy for adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients 15-39 years of age, as much of the current data are extrapolated from pediatric or adult counterparts and can differ significantly between the two care models. Harmonization of standard treatment approaches has the potential to improve outcomes and establish a foundation for the development of future clinical trials. We present our experience harmonizing treatment and supportive care regimens for AYA patients with osteosarcoma receiving treatment with methotrexate, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MAP) therapy on the pediatric and adult sarcoma services at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

Paediatric strategy forum for medicinal product development of PI3-K, mTOR, AKT and GSK3ß inhibitors in children and adolescents with cancer.

Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3-K) signalling pathway is a crucial path in cancer for cell survival and thus represents an intriguing target for new paediatric anti-cancer drugs. However, the unique clinical toxicities of targeting this pathway (resulting in hyperglycaemia) difficulties combining with chemotherapy, rarity of mutations in childhood tumours and concomitant mutations have resulted in major barriers to clinical translation of these inhibitors in treating both adults and children. Mutations in PIK3CA predict response to PI3-K inhibitors in adult cancers. The same mutations occur in children as in adults, but they are significantly less frequent in paediatrics. In children, high-grade gliomas, especially diffuse midline gliomas (DMG), have the highest incidence of PIK3CA mutations. New mutation-specific PI3-K inhibitors reduce toxicity from on-target PI3-Kα wild-type activity. The mTOR inhibitor everolimus is approved for subependymal giant cell astrocytomas. In paediatric cancers, mTOR inhibitors have been predominantly evaluated by academia, without an overall strategy, in empiric, mutation-agnostic clinical trials with very low response rates to monotherapy. Therefore, future trials of single agent or combination strategies of mTOR inhibitors in childhood cancer should be supported by very strong biological rationale and preclinical data. Further preclinical evaluation of glycogen synthase kinase-3 beta inhibitors is required. Similarly, even where there is an AKT mutation (∼0.1 %), the role of AKT inhibitors in paediatric cancers remains unclear. Patient advocates strongly urged analysing and conserving data from every child participating in a clinical trial. A priority is to evaluate mutation-specific, central nervous system-penetrant PI3-K inhibitors in children with DMG in a rational biological combination. The choice of combination, should be based on the genomic landscape e.g. PTEN loss and resistance mechanisms supported by preclinical data. However, in view of the very rare populations involved, innovative regulatory approaches are needed to generate data for an indication.

Olaparib for childhood tumors harboring defects in DNA damage repair genes: arm H of the NCI-COG Pediatric MATCH trial.

BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Institute-Children's Oncology Group Pediatric Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (MATCH) precision oncology platform trial enrolled children aged 1-21 years with treatment-refractory solid tumors and predefined actionable genetic alterations. Patients with tumors harboring alterations in DNA damage repair (DDR) genes were assigned to receive olaparib. METHODS: Tumor and blood samples were submitted for centralized molecular testing. Tumor and germline sequencing were conducted in parallel. Olaparib was given twice daily for 28-day cycles starting at a dose 30% lower than the adult recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). The primary endpoint was the objective response. RESULTS: Eighteen patients matched (1.5% of those screened) based on the presence of a deleterious gene alteration in BRCA1/2, RAD51C/D, or ATM detected by tumor sequencing without germline subtraction or analysis of loss of heterozygosity (LOH). Eleven (61%) harbored a germline mutation, with only one exhibiting LOH. Six patients enrolled and received the olaparib starting dose of 135 mg/m2/dose. Two participants were fully evaluable; 4 were inevaluable because <85% of the prescribed dose was administered during cycle 1. There were no dose-limiting toxicities or responses. Minimal hematologic toxicity was observed. CONCLUSION: Most DDR gene alterations detected in Pediatric MATCH were germline, monoallelic, and unlikely to confer homologous recombination deficiency predicting sensitivity to olaparib monotherapy. The study closed due to poor accrual. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03233204. IRB approved: initial July 24, 2017.

Outcomes in ovarian Sertoli-Leydig cell tumor: A report from the International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma/DICER1 and Ovarian and Testicular Stromal Tumor Registries.

OBJECTIVE: Sertoli-Leydig cell tumors (SLCTs) are rare sex cord-stromal tumors, representing <0.5% of all ovarian tumors. We sought to describe prognostic factors, treatment and outcomes for individuals with ovarian SLCT. METHODS: Individuals with SLCT were enrolled in the International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma/DICER1 Registry and/or the International Ovarian and Testicular Stromal Tumor Registry. Medical records were systematically abstracted, and pathology was centrally reviewed when available. RESULTS: In total, 191 participants with ovarian SLCT enrolled, with most (92%, 175/191) presenting with FIGO stage I disease. Germline DICER1 results were available for 156 patients; of these 58% had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variant. Somatic (tumor) DICER1 testing showed RNase IIIb hotspot variants in 97% (88/91) of intermediately and poorly differentiated tumors. Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered in 40% (77/191) of cases, and among these, nearly all patients received platinum-based regimens (95%, 73/77), and 30% (23/77) received regimens that included an alkylating agent. Three-year recurrence-free survival for patients with stage IA tumors was 93.6% (95% CI: 88.2-99.3%) compared to 67.1% (95% CI: 55.2-81.6%) for all stage IC and 60.6% (95% CI: 40.3-91.0%) for stage II-IV (p < .001) tumors. Among patients with FIGO stage I tumors, those with mesenchymal heterologous elements treated with surgery alone were at higher risk for recurrence (HR: 74.18, 95% CI: 17.99-305.85). CONCLUSION: Most individuals with SLCT fare well, though specific risk factors such as mesenchymal heterologous elements are associated with poor prognosis. We also highlight the role of DICER1 surveillance in early detection of SLCT, facilitating stage IA resection.

Factors influencing parents' choice of palliative treatment goals for children with relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma: A multi-site longitudinal survey study.

BACKGROUND: Many parents of children with advanced cancer report curative goals and continue intensive therapies that can compound symptoms and suffering. Factors that influence parents to choose palliation as the primary treatment goal are not well understood. The objective of this study was to examine experiences impacting parents' report of palliative goals adjusted for time. The authors hypothesized that awareness of poor prognosis, recall of oncologists' prognostic disclosure, intensive treatments, and burdensome symptoms and suffering would influence palliative goal-setting. METHODS: The authors collected prospective, longitudinal surveys from parents of children with relapsed/refractory neuroblastoma at nine pediatric cancer centers across the United States, beginning at relapse and continuing every 3 months for 18 months or until death. Hypothesized covariates were examined for possible associations with parental report of palliative goals. Generalized linear mixed models were used to evaluate factors associated with parents' report of palliative goals at different time points. RESULTS: A total of 96 parents completed surveys. Parents were more likely to report a primary goal of palliation when they recalled communication about prognosis by their child's oncologist (odds ratio [OR], 52.48; p = .010). Treatment intensity and previous ineffective therapeutic regimens were not associated with parents' report of palliative goals adjusted for time. A parent who reported new suffering for their child was less likely to report palliative goals (OR, 0.13; p = .008). CONCLUSIONS: Parents of children with poor prognosis cancer may not report palliative goals spontaneously in the setting of treatment-related suffering. Prognostic communication, however, does influence palliative goal-setting. Evidence-based interventions are needed to encourage timely, person-centered prognostic disclosure in the setting of advanced pediatric cancer. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Many parents of children with poor-prognosis cancer continue to pursue curative treatments that may worsen symptoms and suffering. Little is known about which factors influence parents to choose palliative care as their child's main treatment goal. To explore this question, we asked parents of children with advanced neuroblastoma across the United States to complete multiple surveys over time. We found that the intensity of treatment, number of treatments, and suffering from treatment did not influence parents to choose palliative goals. However, when parents remembered their child's oncologist talking about prognosis, they were more likely to choose palliative goals of care.