VAC and VAI or VIE with surgery (with or without RT), are equally effective for patients with local or regional rhabdomyosarcoma and are more effective for embryonal tumors than therapies used previously. Younger patients with group 1 paratesticular embryonal tumors and all patients with group 1/2 orbit or eyelid tumors can usually be cured with VA chemotherapy along with postoperative RT for group 2 disease.

Children with group IV RMS treated on the IRS-IV study had improved OS and FFS if they had two or fewer metastatic sites and embryonal histology. This favorable subset of patients has outcomes approaching those observed in selected patients with localized, nonmetastatic disease. Thus, these patients might not be appropriate candidates for regimens that include experimental agents with substantial toxicities or unproven antitumor activity.

A B S T R A C T PurposeThe 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 MethodsPatients 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 ␣ level) to detect an increase in 5-year FFS from 64% to 75% with VAC/VTC. ResultsA 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 ϭ .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. ConclusionFor intermediate-risk RMS, VAC/VTC does not significantly improve FFS compared with VAC.

No abstract

No abstract

Since age relates independently to outcome after adjustment for known risk factors, it is likely that other factors, including perhaps patients' tolerance of protocol-specified therapy, explain this relationship.

This series indicated that EOE in children is similar to rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) in its response to multimodal treatment. No benefit was apparent from the addition of DOX to VAC chemotherapy in patients with gross residual EOE.

No abstract