MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Survival and prognostic factors of patients with Ewing sarcoma at first recurrence following modern era multimodal therapy: A report from the Children’s Oncology Group (COG).

2025· article· en· W4410803408 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Cohen‐Gogo, Allen Buxton, Natalie DelRocco, Mark Krailo, Richard B. Womer, Leo Mascarenhas, Patrick J. Leavey, Julia Glade Bender, Odion Binitie, Safia K. Ahmed, Damon R. Reed, Katherine A. Janeway, Steven G. DuBois

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCogOncologyInternal medicineOverall survivalSarcomaEwing's sarcomaChemotherapyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10035 Background: Ewing sarcoma (EwS) is a rare malignancy of children, adolescents and young adults for which outcomes have progressively improved through intensification of conventional chemotherapy, including interval compression of cycles. Prior cooperative group reports of relapsed EwS included patients treated less intensively and with fewer treatment options at relapse. Here, we report overall survival (OS) and prognostic factors post-first recurrence in patients with EwS treated with frontline interval-compressed chemotherapy. Methods: We included patients treated on the last three phase 3 COG EwS studies treated with interval compressed chemotherapy, which accrued from 2001-2019. Patients with initially localized disease (L-EwS) were treated on AEWS0031 arm B and AEWS1031. Patients with initially metastatic disease (M-EwS) were treated on AEWS1221. The primary outcome was OS from first relapse. Demographic and clinical data from original diagnosis and from relapse were analyzed as potential prognostic factors. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed and groups compared with log-rank tests. Results: 366 patients experienced disease recurrence as first event and were included in this analysis (AEWS0031 arm B, n = 69, AEWS1031, n = 115, for a total of 184 with L-EwS; AEWS1221, n = 182, all with M-EwS). Median age at relapse was 16 years. Median time from initial enrollment to first relapse was 1.52 years and was shorter for patients with M-EwS (Kruskall-Wallis, p < 0.001). First relapses were isolated local, isolated distant, and combined in 24%, 70%, and 6.4% of patients, respectively. Metastatic stage at initial diagnosis was associated with increased risk of post-first recurrence OS event (p < 0.0001). Two-year OS post-first recurrence (OS 2y ) was 25.6% for patients with M-EwS and 48.5% for patients with L-EwS. Time to first recurrence was also a predictor of post-recurrence survival (p < 0.0001): patients with initial L-EwS and relapse < 2 years from diagnosis had OS 2y of 31.4% vs. 70.8% for later relapses. Patients with initial M-EwS and relapse < 2 years from diagnosis had OS 2y of 18.9% vs. 71.2%. Patients with combined relapses had higher risk of post-relapse death compared to other patterns of failure (p = 0.003), an effect that was largely driven by the one seen in patients with initial L-EwS. Conclusions: Overall survival of patients with first recurrent EwS after having received modern era therapy with interval compressed chemotherapy on recent COG trials remains poor, particularly for M-EwS, early relapse and combined relapses. These data will inform the design of trials for this relapsed population and provide critical data to help counsel patients about goals of care at first relapse.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→