TY - JOUR
T1 - Zoledronic Acid Add-on Therapy for Standard-Risk Ewing Sarcoma Patients in the Ewing 2008R1 Trial
AU - Koch, Raphael
AU - Haveman, Lianne
AU - Ladenstein, Ruth
AU - Brichard, Benedicte
AU - Jurgens, Heribert
AU - Cyprova, Sona
AU - van den Berg, Henk
AU - Hassenpflug, Wolf
AU - Raciborska, Anna
AU - Ek, Torben
AU - Baumhoer, Daniel
AU - Egerer, Gerlinde
AU - Kager, Leo
AU - Renard, Marleen
AU - Hauser, Peter
AU - Burdach, Stefan
AU - Bovee, Judith V.M.G.
AU - Hong, Angela M.
AU - Reichardt, Peter
AU - Kruseova, Jarmila
AU - Streitburger, Arne
AU - Kuhne, Thomas
AU - Kessler, Torsten
AU - Bernkopf, Marie
AU - Butterfaß-Bahloul, Trude
AU - Dhooge, Catharina
AU - Bauer, Sebastian
AU - Kiss, Janos
AU - Paulussen, Michael
AU - Bonar, Fiona
AU - Ranft, Andreas
AU - Timmermann, Beate
AU - Rascon, Jelena
AU - Vieth, Volker
AU - Kanerva, Jukka
AU - Faldum, Andreas
AU - Hartmann, Wolfgang
AU - Hjorth, Lars
AU - Bhadri, Vivek A.
AU - Metzler, Markus
AU - Gelderblom, Hans
AU - Dirksen, Uta
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
c2023 American Association for Cancer Research.
PY - 2023/12/15
Y1 - 2023/12/15
N2 - Purpose: The phase III, open-label, prospective, multicenter, randomized Ewing 2008R1 trial (EudraCT2008-003658-13) was conducted in 12 countries to evaluate the effect of zoledronic acid (ZOL) maintenance therapy compared with no add-on regarding event-free survival (EFS, primary endpoint) and overall survival (OS) in standard-risk Ewing sarcoma (EWS). Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had localized EWS with either good histologic response to induction chemotherapy and/or small tumors (<200 mL). Patients received six cycles of VIDE induction and eight cycles of VAI (male) or eight cycles of VAC (female) consolidation. ZOL treatment started parallel to the sixth consolidation cycle. Randomization was stratified by tumor site (pelvis/other). The two-sided adaptive inverse–normal four-stage design (planned sample size 448 patients, significance level 5%, power 80%) was changed after the first interim analysis using the Muller € –Sch€afer method. Results: Between April 2010 and November 2018, 284 patients were randomized (142 ZOL/142 no add-on). With a median follow-up of 3.9 years, EFS was not significantly different between ZOL and no add-on group in the adaptive design (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.43–1.28, P ¼ 0.27, intention-to-treat). Three-year EFS rates were 84.0% (95% CI, 77.7%–90.8%) for ZOL vs. 81.7% (95% CI, 75.2%–88.8%) for no add-on. Results were similar in the per-protocol collective. OS was not different between groups. The 3-year OS was 92.8% (95% CI, 88.4%–97.5%) for ZOL and 94.6% (95% CI, 90.9%–98.6%) for no add-on. Noticeable more renal, neurologic, and gastrointestinal toxicities were observed for ZOL (P < 0.05). Severe renal toxicities occurred more often in the ZOL arm (P ¼ 0.003). Conclusions: In patients with standard-risk localized EWS, there is no additional benefit from maintenance treatment with ZOL.
AB - Purpose: The phase III, open-label, prospective, multicenter, randomized Ewing 2008R1 trial (EudraCT2008-003658-13) was conducted in 12 countries to evaluate the effect of zoledronic acid (ZOL) maintenance therapy compared with no add-on regarding event-free survival (EFS, primary endpoint) and overall survival (OS) in standard-risk Ewing sarcoma (EWS). Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had localized EWS with either good histologic response to induction chemotherapy and/or small tumors (<200 mL). Patients received six cycles of VIDE induction and eight cycles of VAI (male) or eight cycles of VAC (female) consolidation. ZOL treatment started parallel to the sixth consolidation cycle. Randomization was stratified by tumor site (pelvis/other). The two-sided adaptive inverse–normal four-stage design (planned sample size 448 patients, significance level 5%, power 80%) was changed after the first interim analysis using the Muller € –Sch€afer method. Results: Between April 2010 and November 2018, 284 patients were randomized (142 ZOL/142 no add-on). With a median follow-up of 3.9 years, EFS was not significantly different between ZOL and no add-on group in the adaptive design (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.43–1.28, P ¼ 0.27, intention-to-treat). Three-year EFS rates were 84.0% (95% CI, 77.7%–90.8%) for ZOL vs. 81.7% (95% CI, 75.2%–88.8%) for no add-on. Results were similar in the per-protocol collective. OS was not different between groups. The 3-year OS was 92.8% (95% CI, 88.4%–97.5%) for ZOL and 94.6% (95% CI, 90.9%–98.6%) for no add-on. Noticeable more renal, neurologic, and gastrointestinal toxicities were observed for ZOL (P < 0.05). Severe renal toxicities occurred more often in the ZOL arm (P ¼ 0.003). Conclusions: In patients with standard-risk localized EWS, there is no additional benefit from maintenance treatment with ZOL.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85180004716&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-23-1966
DO - 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-23-1966
M3 - Article
C2 - 37843857
AN - SCOPUS:85180004716
SN - 1078-0432
VL - 29
SP - 5057
EP - 5068
JO - Clinical Cancer Research
JF - Clinical Cancer Research
IS - 24
ER -