Consensus recommendations for systemic therapies in the management of relapsed Ewing sarcoma: A report from the National Ewing Sarcoma Tumor Board
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ewing sarcoma (ES) is a malignant tumor of bone and soft tissue that most often occurs in children, adolescents, and young adults. Debate and controversy remain in the management of relapsed/refractory ES (RR-ES). The authors leveraged the expertise assembled by the National Ewing Sarcoma Tumor Board, a multidisciplinary virtual tumor board that meets monthly to discuss challenging cases of ES. In this review, they focus on select topics that apply to the management of patients with RR-ES. The specific topics covered include the initial approach of such patients and discussion of the goals of care, the role of molecular testing, chemotherapy regimens and novel agents to consider, the role of maintenance therapy, and the use of high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell rescue. The data referenced are often limited to subgroup analyses and/or compiled from multiple sources. Although not intended to replace the clinical judgement of treating physicians, these guidelines are intended to support clinicians and provide some clarity and recommendations for the management of patients with RR-ES. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Ewing sarcoma (ES) is a bone and soft tissue cancer that most often occurs in teenagers and young adults. This article uses the experience of the National Ewing Sarcoma Tumor Board, a multi-institution, multidisciplinary virtual tumor board that meets monthly to discuss challenging cases of ES and to address questions related to the treatment of patients with relapsed ES. Although not intended to replace the clinical judgement of treating physicians and limited by available data, these consensus recommendations will support clinicians who treat patients with this challenging malignancy, made even more difficult when it recurs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".