JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Biometrika Trust is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Biometrika.

Intensification of therapy for most patients in IRS-III, using a risk-based study design, significantly improved treatment outcome overall. The largest gain from this strategy was realized in patients with gross residual tumor after biopsy (clinical group III). It was also possible to decrease therapy for selected patient subsets without compromising survival.

The results of treatment of 686, previously untreated patients younger than 21 years with rhabdomyosarcoma or undifferentiated sarcoma, who were entered on Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study-I (IRS-I) were analyzed after a minimum potential follow-up time of 7 years. Patients in Clinical Group I (localized disease, completely resected) were randomized to receive either vincristine, dactinomycin, and cyclophosphamide (VAC) or VAC + radiation. At 5 years, approximately 80% of patients given either treatment were still disease-free and there was no significant difference between treatments in the overall percentages of patients surviving of 93% and 81%, respectively (P = 0.67). Patients in Clinical Group II (regional disease, grossly resected) were randomized to receive either vincristine and dactinomycin (VA) + radiation or VAC + radiation. At 5 years, 72% and 65% of the patients, respectively, were disease-free and there was no evidence of a difference between treatments (P = 0.46). The overall survival percentage at 5 years was approximately 72% for both treatments. Patients in Clinical Groups III (gross residual disease after surgery) and IV (metastatic disease) were randomized to receive either "pulse" VAC + radiation or "pulse" VAC + Adriamycin (doxorubicin) + radiation. The complete remission (CR) rate was 69% in Clinical Group III and 50% in IV, with no statistically significant difference in CR rates between treatments in either group. Those who achieved a CR had a nearly 60% chance of staying in remission for 5 years in Clinical Group III compared with approximately 30% in Clinical Group IV. The overall survival percentage at 5 years was 52% in Clinical Group III compared to 20% in Clinical Group IV (P less than 0.0001). The 5-year survival percentage for the entire cohort of 686 patients was 55%. Survival after relapse was poor, being 32% at 1 year and 17% at 2 years. The risk of distant metastasis was much greater than the risk of local recurrence within each clinical group, and there was no evidence of differing types of relapses between treatments. Primary tumors of the orbit and genitourinary tract carried the best prognosis, whereas tumors of the retroperitoneum had the worst prognosis. The authors conclude that for the therapeutic regimens evaluated there was no therapeutic advantage to including radiation in the treatment of Clinical Group I disease, or cyclophosphamide given as a daily low-dose oral regimen in the treatment of Clinical Group II disease or Adriamycin in the treatment of Clinical Groups III and IV diseases.

High-throughput genomic and proteomic technologies are widely used in cancer research to build better predictive models of diagnosis, prognosis and therapy, to identify and characterize key signalling networks and to find new targets for drug development. These technologies present investigators with the task of extracting meaningful statistical and biological information from high-dimensional data spaces, wherein each sample is defined by hundreds or thousands of measurements, usually concurrently obtained. The properties of high dimensionality are often poorly understood or overlooked in data modelling and analysis. From the perspective of translational science, this Review discusses the properties of high-dimensional data spaces that arise in genomic and proteomic studies and the challenges they can pose for data analysis and interpretation.

Background. Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study (IRS)‐II, (1978–1984) had the general goals of improving the survival and treatment of children with rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS). Methods. Nine hundred ninety‐nine previously untreated eligible patients entered the study after surgery and were randomized or assigned to therapy by IRS Clinical Group (I‐IV), tumor site, and histologic type. Outcomes were compared between treatments and with results of IRS‐I (1972–1978). Results. Patients in Group I, excluding extremity alveolar (EA) RMS, were randomized to standard vincristine (V), dactinomycin (A), and cyclophosphamide (C) or standard VA. At 5 years, disease‐free survival (DFS) and survival (S) rates were similar between VAC and VA (DFS:80%, 70%, P = 0.47; S:85%, 84%, P = 0.73). Patients in Group II, excluding EA RMS, received radiation and were randomized to intensive VA or repetitive‐pulse VAC. Outcomes were similar for rates of DFS (69%, 74%, P = 0.83) and S (88%, 79%, P = 0.17). Patients in Group III, excluding certain pelvic tumors, received radiation and were randomized to repetitive‐pulse VAC or repetitivepulse VAdrC‐VAC (Adr, Adriamycin [doxorubicin]). Complete remission (CR) rates were close at 74%, 78%, respectively (P = 0.32), as were percentages in CR (73%) and S (66%) rates; the latter outcomes were significantly better than IRS‐I (CR: 56%, P < 0.001; S:50%, P < 0.001). Central nervous system prophylaxis for Group III patients with cranial parameningeal sarcoma increased S rate to 67% from 45% in IRS‐I (P < 0.001). Patients in Group IV received the same regimens as Group III; the CR rate was 53%, 38% remained in CR and S rate was 27% with and 26% without Adr (P = 0.90). At 5 years, S rate for IRS‐II, including EA and all pelvic tumors, was 63%: an 8% increase over IRS‐I (P < 0.001). Outcomes by primary site were as good as, or better than, the IRS‐I experience. Conclusions. Combining all Groups and treatments in IRS‐II, the major improvement in S rate at 5 years between studies was in nonmetastatic patients (71% for IRS‐II versus 63% for IRS‐I, P = 0.01).

No abstract

Background. There is a need to develop a single prognostically significant classification of rhabdomyosarcomas (RMS) and other related tumors of children, adolescents, and young adults which would be a current guide for their diagnosis, allow valid comparison of outcomes between protocols carried out anywhere in the world, and should enhance recognition of prognostic subsets. Method. Sixteen pathologists from eight pathology groups, representing six countries and several cooperative groups, classified by four histopathologic classification schemes 800 representative tumors of the 999 eligible cases treated on Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study II. Each tumor was classified according to each of the four systems by each of the pathologists. In addition, two independent subsamples of 200 of the 800 patients were reviewed according to the new system, so that 343 distinct patients were reviewed once, and 57 of these twice. Results. A study of the survival rates of all subtypes in the sample of 800 patients led to the formation of a new system. This was tested on two independent subsets of 200 of the original cases and found to be reproducible and predictive of outcome by univariate analysis. A multivariate analysis of the 343 patients classified according to the new system indicated that a survival model including pathologic classification and known prognostic factors of primary site, clinical group, and tumor size was significantly better at predicting survival than a model with only the known prognostic factors. Conclusion. This new classification, termed International Classification of Rhabdomyosarcoma (ICR) by the authors, was reproducible and predictive of outcome among patients with differing histologies treated uniformly on the Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma II protocols. We believe it should be utilized by all pathologists and cooperative groups to classify rhabdomyosarcomas in order to provide comparability among and within multi‐institutional studies. Cancer 1995;76:1073‐85.

No abstract