Advertisement
Journal of Clinical Oncology  
Search for:
Limit by:
  Browse by Subject or Issue
Home Search or Browse JCO My JCO Subscriptions Customer Service Site Map

Originally published as JCO Early Release 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.3768 on September 21 2009

Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 27, No 31 (November 1), 2009: pp. 5182-5188
© 2009 American Society of Clinical Oncology.

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Publisher's Note
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Save to my personal folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRights & Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Arndt, C. A.S.
Right arrow Articles by Meyer, W. H.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Arndt, C. A.S.
Right arrow Articles by Meyer, W. H.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Pediatric Oncology

Vincristine, Actinomycin, and Cyclophosphamide Compared With Vincristine, Actinomycin, and Cyclophosphamide Alternating With Vincristine, Topotecan, and Cyclophosphamide for Intermediate-Risk Rhabdomyosarcoma: Children's Oncology Group Study D9803

Carola A.S. Arndt, Julie A. Stoner, Douglas S. Hawkins, David A. Rodeberg, Andrea A. Hayes-Jordan, Charles N. Paidas, David M. Parham, Lisa A. Teot, Moody D. Wharam, John C. Breneman, Sarah S. Donaldson, James R. Anderson, William H. Meyer

From the Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Departments of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Pathology, and Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK; Division of Hematology/Oncology, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA; Departments of Pediatric Surgery and Pathology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Surgery, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Tampa Children's Hospital, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL; Department of Radiation Oncology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD; Division of Radiation Oncology, Cincinnati Children's Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH; Radiation Oncology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; and Preventive and Societal Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha NE.

Corresponding author: Carola A.S. Arndt, MD, Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905; e-mail: carndt{at}mayo.edu.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of patients with intermediate-risk rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) treated with standard VAC (vincristine, dactinomycin, and cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy to that of patients treated with VAC alternating with vincristine, topotecan, and cyclophosphamide (VAC/VTC).

Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned to 39 weeks of VAC versus VAC/VTC; local therapy began after week 12. Patients with parameningeal RMS with intracranial extension (PME) were treated with VAC and immediate x-ray therapy. The primary study end point was failure-free survival (FFS). The study was designed with 80% power (5% two-sided {alpha} level) to detect an increase in 5-year FFS from 64% to 75% with VAC/VTC.

Results A total of 617 eligible patients were entered onto the study: 264 were randomly assigned to VAC and 252 to VAC/VTC; 101 PME patients were nonrandomly treated with VAC. Treatment strata were embryonal RMS, stage 2/3, group III (33%); embryonal RMS, group IV, less than age 10 years (7%); alveolar RMS or undifferentiated sarcoma (UDS), stage 1 or group I (17%); alveolar RMS/UDS (27%); and PME (16%). At a median follow-up of 4.3 years, 4-year FFS was 73% with VAC and 68% with VAC/VTC (P = .3). There was no difference in effect of VAC versus VAC/VTC across risk groups. The frequency of second malignancies was similar between the two treatment groups.

Conclusion For intermediate-risk RMS, VAC/VTC does not significantly improve FFS compared with VAC.

Supported by Grants No. U10 CA98543 and U10 CA98413 from the National Cancer Institute/National Institutes of Health.

Presented in part at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, June 1-5, 2007, Chicago, IL, and presented in part at the 40th Congress of the International Society of Paediatric Oncology, October 2-6, 2008, Berlin, Germany.

Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this article.

Clinical trial information can be found for the following: NCT00003958 [ClinicalTrials.gov] .


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?




About
JCO
 Editorial
Roster
 Advertising
Information
 Librarians &
Institutions
 Rights &
Permissions
 PDA Services

Copyright © 2009 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
Terms and Conditions of Use
  HighWire Press HighWire Press™ assists in the publication of JCO Online