Pooled Analysis of Phase II Window Studies in Children With Contemporary High-Risk Metastatic Rhabdomyosarcoma: A Report From the Soft Tissue Sarcoma Committee of the Children's Oncology Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Soft Tissue Sarcoma Committee of the Children's Oncology Group has conducted five upfront window trials in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma to identify promising new treatment agents. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This pooled analysis identified a total of 420 patients (115 from Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study III [IRS-III] and 305 from the five window trials). We assessed window therapy response rate, failure-free survival (FFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Response rates (complete + partial response) assessed at week 6 of window therapy ranged from 41% to 55% and did not predict FFS (P = .073) or OS (P = .31). FFS was influenced by trial (P = .048); patients enrolled onto IRS-III and the ifosfamide/etoposide and ifosfamide/doxorubicin trials fared best. When grouped and compared with topoisomerase I poison trials, ifosfamide/topoisomerase II inhibitor trials had superior FFS (P = .013). However, there was no difference in survival. CONCLUSION: Upfront phase II window trials can efficiently provide robust estimates of activity for new agents and combinations in newly diagnosed patients with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma. Our data indicate that, for some phase II window trials, the risk of treatment failure may be increased but that the trend towards lower survival for some of the window trials compared with IRS-III is not statistically significant. Window nonresponders did not suffer worse FFS or OS than patients who responded to window therapy. Finally, these results provide a rationale for incorporating ifosfamide, etoposide, doxorubicin, and topoisomerase I poisons in future trials of high-risk metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".