This manuscript describes the experience from registration until randomisation for a cohort of 2260 patients with osteosarcoma who joined the EURAMOS-1 trial. This includes pre-operative chemotherapy and surgery. It sets out the practical issues in collaboration and in achieving randomisation.
Solid supported probes have proven to be an efficient tool for chemical proteomics. The kinobeads technology features kinase inhibitors covalently attached to Sepharose for affinity enrichment of kinomes from cell or tissue lysates. This technology, combined with quantitative mass spectrometry, is of particular interest for the profiling of kinase inhibitors. It often leads to the identification of new targets for medicinal chemistry campaigns where it allows a two-in-one binding and selectivity assay. The assay can also uncover resistance mechanisms and molecular sources of toxicity. Here we report on the optimization of the kinobead assay resulting in the combination of five chemical probes and four cell lines to cover half the human kinome in a single assay (∼ 260 kinases). We show the utility and large-scale applicability of the new version of kinobeads by reprofiling the small molecule kinase inhibitors Alvocidib, Crizotinib, Dasatinib, Fasudil, Hydroxyfasudil, Nilotinib, Ibrutinib, Imatinib, and Sunitinib.
PURPOSE The R2Pulm trial was conducted to evaluate the effect of busulfan-melphalan high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell rescue (BuMel) without whole-lung irradiation (WLI) on event-free survival (main end point) and overall survival, compared with standard chemotherapy with WLI in Ewing sarcoma (ES) presenting with pulmonary and/or pleural metastases. METHODS From 2000 to 2015, we enrolled patients younger than 50 years of age with newly diagnosed ES and with only pulmonary or pleural metastases. Patients received chemotherapy with six courses of vincristine, ifosfamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (VIDE) and one course of vincristine, dactinomycin, and ifosfamide (VAI) before either BuMel or seven courses of VAI and WLI (VAI plus WLI) by randomized assignment. The analysis was conducted as intention to treat. The estimates of the hazard ratio (HR), 95% CI, and P value were corrected for the three previous interim analyses by the inverse normal method. RESULTS Of 543 potentially eligible patients, 287 were randomly assigned to VAI plus WLI (n = 143) or BuMel (n = 144). Selected patients requiring radiotherapy to an axial primary site were excluded from randomization to avoid excess organ toxicity from interaction between radiotherapy and busulfan. Median follow-up was 8.1 years. We did not observe any significant difference in survival outcomes between treatment groups. Event-free survival was 50.6% versus 56.6% at 3 years and 43.1% versus 52.9% at 8 years, for VAI plus WLI and BuMel patients, respectively, resulting in an HR of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.56 to 1.10; P = .16). For overall survival, the HR was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.70 to 1.44; P = .99). Four patients died as a result of BuMel-related toxicity, and none died after VAI plus WLI. Significantly more patients in the BuMel arm experienced severe acute toxicities than in the VAI plus WLI arm. CONCLUSION In ES with pulmonary or pleural metastases, there is no clear benefit from BuMel compared with conventional VAI plus WLI.
11502 Background: Five-year survival of RR-ES is about 15%. Several chemotherapy regimens are used, but without robust evidence. rEECur, the first randomised controlled trial in this setting, is defining a standard of care, balancing efficacy and toxicity. Methods: Patients aged 4 to 50 with RR-ES and fit to receive chemotherapy were randomised between topotecan & cyclophosphamide (TC), irinotecan & temolozomide (IT), gemcitabine & docetaxel (GD) or high-dose ifosfamide (IFOS). Primary outcome measure was objective response (OR) after 4 cycles by RECIST 1.1. Secondary outcomes included PFS, OS and toxicity. A probability-based Bayesian approach was used with multiple pairwise comparisons. At the first interim analysis patients allocated to GD had worse OR and PFS than the other arms and accrual to the GD arm was halted. The second interim assessment was planned to determine which arm should be closed when at least 75 evaluable patients had been recruited to the remaining arms and evaluated for the primary outcome measure. Results: 366 patients (87% RECIST-evaluable), recruited between 18/12/14 and 17/12/19, were randomised to TC (n=124), IT (118), GD (72) and IFOS (53). Median age was 20 years (range 4-49). Patients had: refractory disease (19%), first recurrence (66%), > first recurrence (14%). Initial disease site was bone in (66%). Sites of progression were: primary site only (16%) pleuropulmonary only (32%), other metastatic (52%). At median follow up of 9.2 months, outcome in the IT arm was: response rate 20%, median PFS 4.7 months (95% CI: 3.4 to 5.7), median OS 13.9 months (95% CI: 10.6 to 18.1). The table shows, for each pairwise comparison of IT with the other open arms (randomly labelled A and B to maintain blinding), the probabilities that OR, PFS and OS were better for X than for each other arm (RR = risk ratio, HR = hazard ratio). For OR, PFS and OS, all comparisons favoured arms A and B. The main grade 3/4 adverse events (% patients with an event) for IT (left hand values) compared with A and B pooled were: vomiting (6% v 1%), nausea (6% v 0%), diarrhoea (17% v 0%), fatigue (3% v 1%) and febrile neutropenia (3% v 24%). Conclusions: The first randomised trial in RR-ES has shown that IT, used as a control arm in planned and ongoing randomised phase II studies in RR-ES, is less effective than A and B in achieving tumour shrinkage or prolonging PFS and OS. The remaining two arms are continuing to recruit patients. Clinical trial information: ISRCTN36453794 . [Table: see text]
11007 Background: 5-year survival of RR-ES is about 15%. Several chemotherapy regimens are used, but without robust evidence. rEECur, the first randomised controlled trial in this setting, is defining a standard of care, balancing efficacy and toxicity. Methods: Patients aged 4 to 50 with RR-ES and fit to receive chemotherapy were randomised 2, 3 or 4 ways between topotecan & cyclophosphamide (TC), irinotecan & temolozomide (IT), gemcitabine & docetaxel (GD) or high-dose ifosfamide (IFOS). Primary outcome measure was objective response (OR) after 4 cycles by RECIST 1.1. Secondary outcomes included PFS, OS and toxicity. A probability-based Bayesian approach was used. The first interim assessment to determine which arm should be closed occurred when 50 evaluable patients had been recruited to 3 arms and evaluated for the primary outcome measure. Results: 242 patients (89% RECIST-evaluable) recruited between 18/12/14 and 21/06/18 were randomised to TC (n=75), IT (71), GD (66) and IFOS (30). Median age was 21 years (range 4 to 49). Patients had: refractory ES (20%), 1st recurrence (63%), >1st recurrence (17%); initial primary disease arose in bone in 60%; disease progression sites were primary site (17%), pleuropulmonary (29%) or other metastatic (54%). Median follow up was 11.3 months. Outcomes in the GD arm were: response rate 11.5% (95% CI: 4.4 to 23%), median PFS 3.0 months (95% CI: 1.6 to 8.0), median OS 13.7 months (95% CI: 10.1 to 23.9). The table shows, for each pairwise comparison of GD with the other arms (randomly labelled A, B, C to maintain blinding of open arms), the probabilities given the observed data that OR, PFS and OS were better for GD than for each other arm (RR: relative risk, HR: hazard ratio). For OR and PFS, all comparisons favoured the other arms. There were fewer grade 3/4 adverse events with GD than with the other arms pooled (58% v. 74%). Conclusions: rEECur has shown that GD is a less effective treatment than TC, IT or IFOS in reducing tumour burden or prolonging PFS in RR-ES. Recruitment continues to the remaining arms. Clinical trial information: ISRCTN36453794. [Table: see text]
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.