Martin McCabe, PhD, on Ewing Sarcoma: Assessment of Topotecan, Cyclophosphamide, and High-Dose Ifosfamide

2022 ASCO Annual Meeting


Martin McCabe, PhD, of the University of Manchester, discusses a phase III assessment of chemotherapy for patients with recurrent and primary refractory Ewing sarcoma. The trial, called rEECur, is the first study to provide comparative toxicity and survival data for the four most commonly used chemotherapy regimens in this disease. The analysis showed that high-dose ifosfamide is more effective in prolonging survival than topotecan plus cyclophosphamide (Abstract LBA2).


Disclaimer: This video transcript has not been proofread or edited and may contain errors.
The rEECur trial is the first randomized control trial of chemotherapy in relapsed and refractory Ewing sarcoma. Before we set up the study, there was obviously no randomized trials, there were very weak data from a series of small retrospective or early phase studies, but as a result, we had no standard of care and there was no defined consensus backbone for us to develop new trials of targeted therapies. We set up the rEECur trial as a multi-arm, multi-stage, simultaneous phase II, phase III randomized control trial of chemotherapy, and this is a very efficient way to study multiple regimens in a very rare patient population. We initially had four chemotherapy arms. We dropped the gemcitabine docetaxel arm in 2018 and the irinotecan-temozolomide arm in 2020, both on the basis of worse event-free survival and worse imaging response. The results are presented at ASCO 2022, with the phase III comparison between the two other arms, which are topotecan/cyclophosphamide and high-dose ifosfamide. The primary outcome was event-free survival, and there was a 2 month difference in median event, three survival between 3.5 months for topotecan/cyclophosphamide and 5.7 months for ifosfamide this equated to a 10% difference in 6-month survival, between 37% and 47%. The secondary outcome measure of overall survival also showed a benefit for ifosfamide, with a 5 month difference in median overall survival, with 10.5 months for topotecan/cyclophosphamide and 15.4 months for ifosfamide. Again, that equated to a 10% difference in both 1-year and 2-year survival, so 1-year survival was 45% versus 55%. We also noticed that there was an interaction between age and the treatment arms. So the benefits of ifosfamide were more obvious in children under 14 than in adolescence and adults. This was true, both for event-free and overall survival. For the secondary outcome of toxicity, the rate of neutropenic fever was similar between both the arms. The patients recruited to ifosfamide had a higher incidence of grade 3 infections, and they also had more renal toxicity and encephalopathy, which were toxicities that we expected, and they were present in 8% and 7% respectively. The other outcome measure that we looked at that we reported was quality of life. And although the quality of life differences were not significant, there was a trend towards improved quality of life in children receiving ifosfamide that wasn't present for children receiving topotecan/cyclophosphamide. There were no obvious trends in adults for quality of life. In conclusion, in the first randomized trial of chemotherapy, we've now shown that ifosfamide is more effective than topotecan/cyclophosphamide, and in turn, those arms are more effective than the two arms that were dropped earlier. However, the differences between these arms are quite subtle. What we actually need is new drugs and new combinations of therapies to cure more patients. Having said that, these data will be very important in us moving forward, both in terms of counseling patients and parents when they come to clinic about the best treatment, but also in designing trials for the future. The study remains open to the ifosfamide arm, and we've also introduced a carboplatin/etoposide arm, which is another chemotherapy regimen that we use in this setting, and we'll be introducing a TKI arm with lenvatinib in combination with ifosfamide later this year.

Related Videos

Gynecologic Cancers

Ursula A. Matulonis, MD, and Nicoletta Colombo, MD, on Ovarian Cancer: Overall Survival Data on Relacorilant Plus Nab-Paclitaxel

Ursula A. Matulonis, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Nicoletta Colombo, MD, of the University of Milan and the European Institute of Oncology, discuss phase II results on the overall survival benefit of intermittent relacorilant, a selective glucocorticoid receptor modulator, combined with nab-paclitaxel, compared with nab-paclitaxel alone in patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. A phase III trial comparing intermittent relacorilant plus nab-paclitaxel with investigator’s choice of chemotherapy in primary platinum-refractory disease is ongoing (Abstract LBA5503).

Prostate Cancer

Neal D. Shore, MD, on Germline Genetic Testing and Its Impact on Prostate Cancer Clinical Decision-Making

Neal D. Shore, MD, of the Carolina Urologic Research Center, discusses his study findings, showing that germline genetic testing influenced care for patients with prostate cancer. Men whose genetic test was positive for a pathogenic germline variant received more recommendations for changes to follow-up and treatment, and for testing and counseling of relatives, than did patients with negative or uncertain test results (Abstract 10500).


Supportive Care
Symptom Management

Sriram Yennu, MD, on Cancer-Related Fatigue: Is Open-Labeled Placebo an Effective Treatment?

Sriram Yennu, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, discusses the placebo response in patients with advanced cancer and cancer-related fatigue. His latest findings show that open-labeled placebo was efficacious in reducing cancer-related fatigue and improving quality of life in fatigued patients with advanced cancer at the end of 1 week. The improvement in fatigue was maintained for 4 weeks (Abstract 12006).

Lung Cancer

Apar Kishor Ganti, MD, on SCLC: Comparing Quality of Life With Once- and Twice-Daily Thoracic Radiotherapy

Apar Kishor Ganti, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, discusses results from the CALGB 30610 study, which showed a similar clinical benefit for once- and twice-daily radiotherapy administered to patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer. While both regimens were well tolerated, patients who received radiotherapy once daily had better quality-of-life scores at week 3 and slightly worse scores at week 12. Patients believed the once-daily regimen was more convenient (Abstract 8504).

Bladder Cancer

Thomas Powles, MD, PhD, and Jonathan E. Rosenberg, MD, on Urothelial Carcinoma: Long-Term Outcomes With Enfortumab Vedotin-ejfv vs Chemotherapy

Thomas Powles, MD, PhD, of Barts Health NHS Trust, Queen Mary University of London, and Jonathan E. Rosenberg, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, discuss the 24-month findings from the phase III EV-301 trial, which suggest that enfortumab vedotin-ejfv continues to show a significant and consistent survival advantage over standard chemotherapy in patients with previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma (Abstract 4516).