Outcome of Patients With Recurrent Osteosarcoma Enrolled in Seven Phase II Trials Through Children's Cancer Group, Pediatric Oncology Group, and Children's Oncology Group: Learning From the Past to Move Forward

Abstract

The use of radiographic response as the primary end point in phase II osteosarcoma trials may limit optimal detection of treatment response because of the calcified tumor matrix. We performed this study to determine if time to progression could be used as an end point for subsequent studies. Patients and MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of outcome for patients with recurrent/refractory osteosarcoma enrolled in one of seven phase II trials conducted by the Children's Oncology Group and predecessor groups from 1997 to 2007. All trials used RECIST or WHO radiographic response criteria and the primary end point of response rate. The following potential prognostic factors-age, trial, number of prior chemotherapy regimens, sex, and race/ethnicity-were evaluated for their impact on event-free survival (EFS). We used data from a phase II study (AOST0221) of patients with osteosarcoma who were given inhaled granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor with first pulmonary recurrence who had an EFS as well as biologic end point to determine the historical disease control rate for patients with fully resected disease. ResultsIn each included trial, the drugs tested were determined to be inactive on the basis of radiographic response rates. The EFS for 96 patients with osteosarcoma and measurable disease was 12% at 4 months (95% CI, 6% to 19%). There was no significant difference in EFS across trials according to number of prior treatment regimens or patient age, sex, and ethnicity. The 12-month EFS for the 42 evaluable patients enrolled in AOST0221 was 20% (95% CI, 10% to 34%). ConclusionThe EFS was uniformly poor for children with recurrent/refractory osteosarcoma in these single-arm phase II trials. We have now constructed baseline EFS outcomes that can be used as a comparison for future phase II trials for recurrent osteosarcoma.

Provocative questions in osteosarcoma basic and translational biology: A report from the Children's Oncology Group

“…Since that time, the demand for preclinical data to justify the initiation of a clinical trial has grown, even as the parameters for what constitutes sufficient preclinical evidence remains undefined (OSPQ4). 86 With this, can trialists and researchers leverage smaller, leaner trial designs to not only vet treatments with strong preclinical justification, but to accelerate the development of newer ideas in a more integrated preclinical/early clinical environment? Beyond identification of a potentially efficacious therapy, another cost of not having active clinical trials is reduced ability to collect and analyze biological specimens toward biomarker discovery and improved understanding of biology.…”

Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in osteosarcoma

“…The observed lack of tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in osteosarcoma raises the question whether RECIST is a flawed endpoint in this disease. The Children's Oncology Group, the Sarcoma Alliance for Research Through Collaboration, and other international groups have completed multiple phase II trials of novel agents in osteosarcoma utilizing objective response rate by RECIST as their primary endpoint . This has included investigation of cytotoxic and molecularly targeted agents including oxaliplatin, ixabepilone, pemetrexed, and gemcitabine with docetaxel .…”

Pathologic fracture in childhood and adolescent osteosarcoma: A single-institution experience

“…In a recent study, Bishop et al. report that perhaps a histological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy may not be an accurate long‐term prognostic marker for patients with OS . This could be an explanation for why the fracture group, despite having a poorer histological response, did not have worse overall survival.…”