A new trial opens: prolonged use of isotretinoin

Aflac ST1001 Prolonged Isotretinoin

Big antibody news

The “third generation” humanized anti-GD2 antibody with protein fusion of IL2 to the antibody has completed Phase I and II clinical trials for melanoma and neuroblastoma, and is now ready for use in Phase III clinical trials. The license for hu14.18-IL2 was just acquired by a small biotech in Vienna called Apeiron. The license was acquired from Merck.

Apeiron’s press release:

Apeiron Licenses Phase II/III Anticancer Ab-IL2 Fusion Protein from Merck KGaA

Long-term follow up of children with and without ch14.18/CHO in German trials NB90 and NB97

It has been a very long wait to finally see this graph. The Germans reported on this at ANR 2008 in Japan, and again at ANR 2010 in Stockholm.  See Graph A in Figure 2. “Follow-up analysis of the patient cohort indicated that immunotherapy with ch14.18 [no cytokines] may prevent late relapses.” Remember this group reported in 2004 “analysis failed to demonstrate an advantage of antibody treatment” –

http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/22/17/3549.long

.

The statement about late relapses is a little puzzling to me. Graph A shows that “events” (which are usually relapses) occurred up until 10 years in both the ch14.18 and maintenance groups. Only the “no consolidation” group had later events.

.

The authors concluded:”Today, the most effective way of antibody based maintenance therapy seems to be a combination immunotherapy with MAB ch14.18, cytokines, and retinoic acid. But these results need confirmation by at least another randomized trial. Further, metronomic low dose oral chemotherapy consolidation was found as effective as MAB ch14.18 consolidation in this retrospective analysis and, therefore, also warrants further evaluation. Prospective clinical trials must demonstrate if the concept of low dose metronomic chemotherapy is feasible and effective after ASCT and in combination with immunotherapy.”

.

Since the early results did not show a benefit of ch14.18 without cytokines, and yet the COG trial showed 20% advantage in early results, it could be argued that there might be a big difference in survival between oral metronomic chemotherapy and ch14.18 with cytokines.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2407-11-21.pdf

Germans report on outcomes of relapsed NB patients who received three different regimens

Treatment and outcomes of patients with relapsed, high-risk neuroblastoma: Results of German trials.

Simon, T., Berthold, F., Borkhardt, A., Kremens, B., De Carolis, B. and Hero, B. (2011), Treatment and outcomes of patients with relapsed, high-risk neuroblastoma: Results of German trials. Pediatric Blood & Cancer, 56: 578–583. doi: 10.1002/pbc.22693

This is an important publication and was presented at ANR 2010. Few groups have tackled relapsed NB in any systematic way. Wendy London’s abstract presented at ASCO 2010 and ANR 2010 on survival after relapse suggests that some relapsed NB children are salvageable, and the Germans and Swedes are advancing understanding in treating relapse. This same approach looking at more aggressive measures for relapsed leukemia kids is how relapse protocols were developed to treat relapsed leukemias.

Drs John Maris and Yael Mosse awarded patent for ALK mutation link to diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of neuroblastoma

Summary of patent:

CHK1 suspected to be a promising target in NB — inhibitors are being tested in adults

‎”CHK1 mRNA expression was higher in MYC–Neuroblastoma-related (MYCN)–amplified (P < 0.0001) and high-risk (P = 0.03) tumors.”

RNAi screen of the protein kinome identifies checkpoint kinase 1 (CHK1) as a therapeutic target in n

www.pnas.org

Edited by Stephen J. Elledge, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, and approved December 17, 2010 (received for review August 23, 2010)

Protein May Be Key to New Treatment in a Childhood Cancer — PHILADELPHIA, Feb. 7, 2011 /PRNewswire-

Neuroblastoma bits from November 2010

.

NCI featured article on ALK inhibitor Crizotinib

While encouraging responses are being seen in lung cancer patients with ALK mutation, drug resistance is expected to be a problem.

Crizotinib Continues to Show Promise for Some Lung Tumors, Faces Challenge of Drug Resistance

.

FDA discusses Crizotinib pediatric trial design

Pediatric Oncology Subcommittee of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) Nov 30, 2010

“If the current COG Phase I/II studies evaluating crizotinib in refractory pediatric solid tumors or ALCL shows promising activity in neuroblastoma, should crizotinib be evaluated in the post-transplant relapsed/refractory setting or should a randomized trial in a less heavily treated population be considered? If the former population (i.e., post-transplant relapsed or refractory) is a more appropriate setting, please discuss whether Progression Free Survival (PFS) is an adequate endpoint.”

Committee discussion questions

.

Insight Genetics Awarded Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery Program Grant

.

http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr_40_1_15.pdf

www.eurojournals.com

.

Scientific American describes the recent advances in viruses that kill cancer — now available to children this year for the first time –

Cancer Therapy Goes Viral: Progress Is Made Tackling Tumors with Viruses: Scientific American

“A new generation of oncolytic viruses are entering late-stage clinical trials, repurposing smallpox and herpesvirus to take on tough tumors.”

.

Search goes on for toxins to kill neuroblastoma

“Luesch is experimenting with toxins—drawn from several species of cyanobacteria—on several types of cancer, including neuroblastoma, a childhood disease that attacks nerve cells. In July 2009, he launched a four-year, $1.2 million NCI-funded study, part of which entails… largazole testing on mice.”

Why Scientists Are Searching for Cures Underwater – Newsweek

.

Childhood cancer survival in Australia

“Survival outcomes using the period method for 11903 children diagnosed with cancer between 1983 and 2006 and prevalent at any time between 1997 and 2006. The overall relative survival was 90.4% after 1 year,  79.5% after 5 years and 74.7% after 20 years.”

Population-based survival estimates for childhood cancer in Australia during the period 1997–2006

www.nature.com

.

Accutane (cis-retinoic acid or isotretinoin) and depression?

A child with neuroblastoma is far more more often a preschooler than a teen. So the risk of suicide and depression is unlikely with such small children. It is a concern with the few teens and young adults with neuroblastoma on this drug, especially since the dosing is 2 to 10 times higher than what is prescribed for acne, and the lower dose is the basis for all the previous studies looking at incidence of depression and suicide. This small study gives important evidence that the drug may not contribute entirely to increased risk:

Severe Acne Linked to Suicide Risk Even Before Treatment Is Started

cme.medscape.com

In a retrospective Swedish cohort, suicide attempts were associated with severe acne even before treatment with isotretinoin was started.

.

.

The neuroblastoma oral papers (OP2) presented on Friday October 22, 2010 at SIOP in Boston covered a range of topics including prognostic factors, targets, and stem cell contamination. This report will focus on the presentation on prognostic significance of segmental alterations in neuroblastoma tumors.

Accumulation of segmental alterations determines progression in neuroblastoma (O024)

Neuroblastoma tumor biology has long been an intense subject of study because of the heterogeneous nature of this disease. Looking at macro, micro, and genetic features reveals the differences in tumors, and why some children with neuroblastoma survive without treatment and others do poorly with the most intense treatments conceived. Now that technology is accessible to analyze genetic profiles, more precise risk can be assigned, and appropriate treatment given. Further, this analysis allows for understanding the evolution of tumor genetics as relapse and progression occurs.

Gudrun Schleiermacher from France presented on a study of numerical and segmental chromosome alterations in neuroblastoma tumors. This subject was a matter of interest at ANR in Stockholm as well, and this abstract was also presented at ASCO in June.[1]  This topic has been the subject of many abstracts at recent meetings, and several recent publications confirm the importance of this work [2-6].

Prior publication in 2009 from this French group included  a comprehensive overview of the genetic alterations of neuroblastoma and clinical significance. A series of 493 neuroblastoma samples was investigated by array-based comparative genomic hybridization and the analysis identified several types of profiles:

Tumors presenting exclusively whole-chromosome copy number variations were associated with excellent survival. No disease-related death was observed in this group. In contrast, tumors with any type of segmental chromosome alterations characterized patients with a high risk of relapse. The analysis of the overall genomic pattern, which probably unravels particular genomic instability mechanisms rather than the analysis of individual markers, is essential to predict relapse in NB patients. It adds critical prognostic information to conventional markers and should be included in future treatment stratification.[2]

Caren and collegues (Sweden) also concurred that these studies have:

implications for therapy in different risk groups and stresses that genome-wide microarray analyses should be included in clinical management to fully evaluate risk, aid diagnosis, and guide treatment. [5]

Schleiermacher and colleagues analyzed 394 neuroblastoma tumors with array-based comparative genomic hybridization and linked the results to clinical data for outcomes. The tumor samples included all risk groups, and analysis was performed again in the event of relapse to discover changes in the tumor profile. The study confirmed that neuroblastoma tumors are characterized by two distinct genetic profiles — either numerical or segmental chromosome alterations.

Tumors were first divided into five groups based on genomic aberrations: numerical only, segmental only, MYCN amplified, numerical and segmental, MYCN and numerical. The tumors with only numerical alterations had the best prognosis. No breakpoint pattern was observed in the segmental-only group which contained up to 1000 breakpoints. Seven or more breakpoints portended a worse prognosis, and was an independent factor in multivariate analysis. More breakpoints were correlated with higher age at diagnosis, higher stage of disease, and higher risk of relapse.

Tumors with only numerical alterations at diagnosis frequently acquired segmental alterations upon relapse. This could not be strictly attributed to chemotherapy since tumors treated with surgery only had acquired segmental aberrations. The authors concluded that tumor progression is directly linked to an accumulation of segmental alterations.

References

1. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jul 1;28(19):3122-30. Epub 2010 Jun 1. Accumulation of Segmental Alterations Determines Progression in Neuroblastoma. PMID: 20516441

2. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Mar 1;27(7):1026-33. Epub 2009 Jan 26.  Overall genomic pattern is a predictor of outcome in neuroblastoma. PMID: 19171713

3. British Journal of Cancer (2007) 97, 238–246.  Chromosomal CGH identifies patients with a higher risk of relapse in neuroblastoma without MYCN amplification. [free fulltext]

4. Am J Pathol. 2010 Jun;176(6):2616-25. Epub 2010 Apr 15. 2p24 Gain region harboring MYCN gene compared with MYCN amplified and nonamplified neuroblastoma: biological and clinical characteristics. PMID: 20395439

5. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Mar 2;107(9):4323-8. Epub 2010 Feb 9.  High-risk neuroblastoma tumors with 11q-deletion display a poor prognostic, chromosome instability phenotype with later onset. [free fulltext]

6. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:2243-2253.  Chromosome 1p and 11q Deletions and Outcome in Neuroblastoma. [free fulltext]

Travel to this meeting was supported by:

• Lighthouse Laboratories
• Max’s Ring of Fire
• Magic Water
• Friends of Will
• Solving Kids’ Cancer
• Children’s Neuroblastoma Cancer Foundation

.

.

Swedish researchers share the prize at SIOP for winning posters on neuroblastoma

Drs Fredrik Hedborg (Uppsala University) and Catarina Trägar (Karolinska Institute) shared the top prize for neuroblastoma research poster at SIOP 2010.

PH036 Age dependent genotypes in high-risk neuroblastoma: MYCN amplification is a fast track to aggressive disease whereas segmental deletion of 11q implies a more complex, multi-step tumor evolution (p. 896)

Dr Hedborg and colleagues explored the age-dependence of the genetics of aggressive disease in 30 high-risk and 4 intermediate-risk children. MYCN amplification was present in all but one of the 12 youngest children (mean age 29.6 months, range 4 – 30 months) and MYCN amplification was absent in all but one of the 11 oldest (mean age 65.6 months, range 57 – 169 months), and 12/18 of these had 11q loss. This age differential was confirmed by the Swedish Childhood Cancer Registry where mean ages at diagnosis were 29.4 months for MYCN amplified (n=65)  and 54.8 months for MYCN-non-amplified (n=46). Significantly more segmental chromosome aberrations were noted in older children with 11q loss, and this data suggest that two major pathways exist in the development of aggressive neuroblastoma. MYCN-amplification tumors in younger children result from fewer but rapid genetic events, whereas tumors in older children with 11q loss are the result of a slower, multi-step process.

PH038 Differences in biological features and survival improvement between genetic subsets of high-risk neuroblastoma indicate the need of adapted treatment (p. 897)

Dr Trägar and colleagues also looked at Swedish registry data and noted older age for 34 children with 11q deletion (median age 41 months) and longer median survival of 40 months compared to children with MYCN-amplified tumors (median age 22.5 months, median survival 16 months), but both groups had similar 8 year overall survival rate of ~35%.

Survival data were reported as follows:
.

.

.

.
The researchers concluded that 11q-deletion tumors present later than MYCN-amplified tumors, but noted that prognosis is similar, and suggest further consideration is needed for therapeutic approaches for 11q-deleted tumors since prognosis has not improved for this group since the 1980s.

Both research teams have contributed to increased understanding concerning the relationship between age and biology of neuroblastoma high-risk tumors.

Travel to this meeting was supported by:

• Lighthouse Laboratories
• Max’s Ring of Fire
• Magic Water
• Friends of Will
• Solving Kids’ Cancer
• Children’s Neuroblastoma Cancer Foundation

.
.

Rare news

A disease that afflicts only 350 children per year in the US (in the high-risk form) does not make headlines very often. But after the September 30, 2010 publication of the New England Journal of Medicine article revealing the results of the phase III chimeric antibody trial (ch14.18 given with two cytokines GM-CSF and IL2), neuroblastoma was all over the news including prime time national news. Over 200 news stories appeared within the next 2 days and over 3000 blogs reported on the story. Click on image below for a nice example of one of the medical blogs:

From Science Life blog at University of Chicago

The news was actually first released March 19, 2009 after an early review of the study. The study was amended so that the randomization was stopped and all eligible children could  receive the antibody.

This is quite a dramatic story on many levels.

An absolute must read is an excellent article giving more background on the story in the NCI Cancer Bulletin. The article details the incredible perseverance required of Dr Alice Yu, Dr Paul Sondel, Dr Malcolm Smith, and the entire COG team to bring this antibody to children with neuroblastoma. The research on this antibody began in 1985, and yet it took 25 years to get solid proof that the antibody improves survival. Why did it take so long?

Antibody and drug development are not the same

Antibodies are first isolated from mice that are “challenged” with a tumor and produce antibodies against that tumor. The production is shown in the illustration below from a wikipedia article which describes the process:

This particular antibody targets GD2 which is a glycolipid (sugar-fat) antigen on the surface of NB cells. This antigen is also present on other cancers, including melanoma. GD2 is also expressed on some normal nerve cells, which is why the treatment causes pain. “First generation” antibodies are entirely mouse products (termed “murine”) and is why a normal immune system reacts quickly to produce anti-mouse human antibodies (HAMA) which effectively neutralize the action of the mouse antibody. Examples of first generation anti-GD2 antibodies are Memorial Sloan-Kettering’s 3F8 antibody (research also began in 1985[1]) and 14G1,14G2b, and 14G2a antibodies.[2]  The ch14.18 chimeric antibody is a “second generation” anti-GD2 antibody, since it has been engineered to be 75% human and 25% mouse in makeup, and why it is labeled chimeric (a “mix” of human and mouse). This greatly reduced the incidence of forming antibodies against the ch14.18. Two “third generation” antibodies that are fully humanized have been developed to date  and have been tested in clinical trials:

• St Jude’s hu14.18K322A, in a phase 1 study now for neuroblastoma and melanoma, and given without cytokines
• hu14.18-IL2, a fusion protein where the cytokine IL2 is attached to the antibody (in phase 2 study now for melanoma)

The hu14.18-IL2 antibody has already shown significant efficacy in a phase II study for relapsed and refractory neuroblastoma with results just published in October 4, 2010 issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology.[3]

Plans are underway now for both ch14.18 and hu14.18-IL2 to be used in further clinical trials in combination with other promising agents for relapsed/refractory neuroblastoma and these trials will begin accruing at COG institutions in 2011.

More to the story

Ironically, this pivotal phase III ch14.18 trial that showed such a dramatic improvement to survival had some difficulty accruing. It is interesting to note that the other recent phase III studies all accrued patients at a relatively even pace (~90-100 patients per year) with the exception of this ch14.18 antibody study:

• CCG-3891 (1991 – 1996) double randomization of transplant and cis-retinoic acid accrued 539 over 6 years or ~ 90 per year [4]
• COG-A3973 (2001 – 2006) randomization for purge vs no purge of stem cells for stem cell transplant accrued 489 over 5 years or ~ 98 per year [5]
• COG-ANBL0032 (2001 – 2009) randomization of ch14.18 vs no ch14.18 accrued 226 over 7.5 years or ~ 30 per year [6]
• COG-ANBL0532 (2007 – 2012) randomization of single vs tandem transplant is accruing on schedule (should be complete by fall 2012) at 495 over 5 years or ~ 99 per year [7]

The striking fact is that if the early analysis had not revealed a significant difference in outcome, accruing at this rate this trial might have been ongoing until 2014.

Medical ethics, trial design, and real children

With success also comes inevitable heart ache. Hindsight can be a bitter pill to swallow. It is impossible to forget the children who did not receive the antibody and had increased chance of relapse as a result. By the time 2 years elapsed from randomization, 38/113 children had relapsed after receiving the antibody,  but 61 children had relapsed after receiving no antibody, an excess incidence of relapse in 23 children. Was it really necessary to randomize the antibody? If it was a promising treatment why was it not just given to everyone?

There are no easy answers to this fair and difficult question. While there were high hopes the ch14.18 antibody given with two cytokines would help, no one really knew if it would make a difference in survival. After all, in 2004 the German study group (GPOH) had published their retrospective findings that the ch14.18/CHO antibody (made with hamsters instead of mice, and given without cytokines) made no difference in survival when groups were compared from GPOH NB90 and NB97 protocols.[8]

A perfect example of this very quandary was played out with neuroblastoma not long ago. A method was devised in the early 1990s to purge stem cells of neuroblastoma with monoclonal antibodies (of all things) and magnetic beads. The purged stem cells could then be frozen and returned to children after high-dose (myeloablative) chemotherapy. This idea made so much sense: why not clean up the stem cells first and remove the risk of re-infusing the child with NB cells?

Fast forward to the negative results of a very costly and lengthy phase III study — purging had made no difference at all in the survival of high-risk NB children. These results were presented at the 2007 ASCO meeting, but are still not published to date. [9]

So what are the implications? The purging costs upwards of $30,000 per child. It also wastes 50% or more of the stem cells in the process. Knowing that this expensive, wasteful  process is not needed is a very important finding. A similar finding could have been in store for ch14.18 with cytokines. Randomizing is not necessary when a dramatic and consistent response results from a treatment. Not every child responded to ch14.18 treatment in earlier studies, so efficacy had to be proven before it could become a standard treatment. After all, 5 months of ch14.18 treatment with cytokines is a very expensive and complex ordeal, and children are required to spend up to 7 additional weeks in the hospital for this intensive treatment.

In the midst of the celebration over this genuine breakthrough, it is nevertheless heartbreaking to realize that a total of 99 children out of the 226 (both groups) had relapsed by two years — or 44%. It is poignant to note that each of the researchers interviewed about this remarkable study also made the comment “We must do better.” There is an impressive array of researchers and clinicians who have dedicated their entire careers to pushing that sad high-risk neuroblastoma survival curve upward. They see the faces of the children who have been lost along the way in those curves too.

Costly development and production

Developing an antibody (a biopharmaceutical) is far more complex that developing a drug. Cost of production and additional regulatory requirements make this an expensive endeavor. For example, $8 million of 2009 stimulus funds were awarded December 2009 to SAIC-Frederick (NCI research partner) to produce a two year supply of ch14.18:

NCI, through the BDP [Biopharmaceutical Development Program], is to deliver sufficient number of vials of finished product to treat all neuroblastoma patients for whom antibody Ch14.18 has become the clinical standard of care. This 2-year interval for NCI production can be used as a transition to licensing and commercial production. In addition, for the Cancer Immunotherapy Network, the NCI, through the BDP, will develop and supply vials of agents of great interest of the extramural community for further clinical investigation.

Transitioning is currently underway for United Therapeutics to begin producing ch14.18, and complete the FDA registration process. Keeping an eye on further use in melanoma is of interest since that will potentially make ch14.18 a more profitable product for United Therapeutics.[10]

Implications for Europe

At ANR (Advances in Neuroblastoma Research) in 2008 and 2010 and at SIOP 2009 the German group (GPOH) reported that after longer follow-up, the ch14.18/CHO treatment might prevent late relapses. The GPOH is planning to reintroduce ch14.18/CHO treatment. The large SIOP trial SIOP-EUROPE-HR-NBL-1 opened in 2002 and had planned to randomize ch14.18 but since the results of the COG study, the SIOP study was amended to give all eligible children ch14.18 with or without subcutaneous IL2. There is such a great body of evidence showing that GM-CSF is an essential part of this treatment, hopefully the regulatory hurdles will be quickly resolved and children in Europe will soon have the opportunity to get this better treatment regimen. See John Roger’s ANR report for more on this very important subject.

References

1. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1985 Feb 28;127(1):1-7. Ganglioside GD2 specificity of monoclonal antibodies to human neuroblastoma cell.

2. Cancer Research 49, 2857-2861, June 1, 1989. Functional Properties and Effect on Growth Suppression of Human Neuroblastoma Tumors by Isotype Switch Variants of Monoclonal Antiganglioside GD2 Antibody 14.18

3. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Oct 4. Antitumor Activity of Hu14.18-IL2 in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Neuroblastoma: A Children’s Oncology Group (COG) Phase II Study

4. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Mar 1;27(7):1007-13. Long-Term Results for Children With High-Risk Neuroblastoma Treated on a Randomized Trial of Myeloablative Therapy Followed by 13-cis-Retinoic Acid: A Children’s Oncology Group Study

5.  Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2007 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings Part I. Vol 25, No. 18S (June 20 Supplement), 2007: 9505 Response and toxicity to a dose-intensive multi-agent chemotherapy induction regimen for high risk neuroblastoma (HR-NB): A Children’s Oncology Group (COG A3973) study

6. N Engl J Med. 2010 Sep 30;363(14):1324-34. Anti-GD2 antibody with GM-CSF, interleukin-2, and isotretinoin for neuroblastoma.

7. Correspondence with investigators

8. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Sep 1;22(17):3549-57. Consolidation treatment with chimeric anti-GD2-antibody ch14.18 in children older than 1 year with metastatic neuroblastoma.

9.  Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2007 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings Part I. Vol 25, No. 18S (June 20 Supplement), 2007: 9505 Response and toxicity to a dose-intensive multi-agent chemotherapy induction regimen for high risk neuroblastoma (HR-NB): A Children’s Oncology Group (COG A3973) study

10.  Clinical Cancer Research August 1997 3; 1277 Phase IB trial of chimeric antidisialoganglioside antibody plus interleukin 2 for melanoma patients.

C10 (p. 80) “Late effects in neuroblastoma”

Dr Lisa Diller (Boston Children’s/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute) reviewed recent published data on late effects and presented new data in the Neuroblastoma Update Course on June 21st, 2010 at the Advances in Neuroblastoma Research meeting in Stockholm, Sweden. The session was organized by Sue Cohn and Andrew Pearson and chaired by Sue Cohn and Rani George.

The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study provided long-term survivorship data for those treated for neuroblastoma between 1970 and 1986, and results on 954 5-year survivors were published in Journal of the National Cancer Institute August 2009.[1]

Of the 954 children, 832 records were abstracted, and only about 10% were stage 4 survivors, so the vast majority (~90%) of the survivor data most likely represented low and intermediate risk survivors.  Only 38% of the survivors had surgery + chemotherapy + radiation.  Of all the survivors, at least 90% had 15 years of follow-up. Of 1358 there were 84 deaths (41 recurrences)  and higher risk of death if diagnosed over the age of 5 and had multimodal therapy. The children treated for neuroblastoma were compared to a cohort of 3899 siblings to determine if there was a higher incidence of health problems. There was a higher incidence of chronic health conditions involving the neurological, sensory, endocrine, and musculoskeletal systems in children treated for neuroblastoma.

Dr Diller also mentioned evidence from soon-to-be published institutional data that advanced bone age or epiphyseal closure is more common in children treated with cis-retinoic acid than children who did not have cis-retinoic acid. There is a theoretical toxicity proposed related to cis-retinoic acid given with anti-GD2 antibody (ch14.18) because of clearance issues, but this has yet to be verified.[2]

References

1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Aug 19;101(16):1131-40. Epub 2009 Jul 31. [fulltext]

2. ANR 2010 “Neuroblastoma Update Course” ANR 2010 Abstract Programme, p 80.

Clinical and biological features predictive of survival after relapse of neuroblastoma: A study from the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) Database.

Citation: J Clin Oncol 28:15s, 2010 (suppl; abstr 9518)

Wendy London is the Lead Statistician for neuroblastoma research for the Children’s Oncology Group (COG), and Data Center Statistics Committee Chair for the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) project and has recently joined the team at Boston Children’s/Dana-Farber.

Dr London spoke on this topic at both ASCO 2010 (15 minute presentation on Monday for the Pediatric Oncology II session) and at ANR 2010 (25 minute presentation during the Monday Neuroblastoma Update Course)  and another 15 minute presentation on this same topic was given by by Victoria Castel on Thursday during the clinical plenary session. Three presentations–two at ANR!  This alone gives you an idea of the importance of this study–the largest ever done on this topic.

As I was preparing to report on this study, I saw that OncologySTAT.com (an excellent source of trustworthy oncology information by Elsevier, a world-leading publisher of medical information)  just released a report of their own. I highly encourage you to read their article.

Of 8800 INRG patients, 2266 experienced a “non-death first event.”

The INRG database includes all risk groups diagnosed from 1990 to 2002 in North America, Europe, Japan, and Australia.

Events are defined as relapse, progression, or second malignancy. Death as a first event was not included in this study.

Although prognostic factors are used to stratify treatment at diagnosis, no one has previously analyzed what factors are predictive of outcome post-relapse.  This study posed the question: is time-to-relapse a factor affecting outcome? Are there any other factors affecting outcome?

Of all the children who had events, median follow-up was 3.6 years (1 day to 13.7 years) and the characteristics of these children were:

• 73% ≥ 18 months old
• 72% were stage 4
• 33% were MYCN amplified

The median time to relapse for the 2266 children who had events was 13.2 months with a range of 1 day to 11.4 years. An anecdotal aside, I happen to know a fellow who relapsed 13.5 years after high-risk diagnosis, obviously not included in this data although he was diagnosed at Boston Children’s in 1991. He survived almost 5 years post-relapse.

The overall survival at 5 years after first event (all risk groups) is 20% ± 1%.

Those who had a first event in less than 1 year from diagnosis (n=1012) had approximately 25% overall survival and those who had first event after 1 year (n=1254) had about 10% overall survival.

When looking at those who relapsed before (n=2081) and after (n=184) 3 years, the gap closes at close to 20% survival.

The risk of death differs over time.

Time-to-first-event, age >18 mo, stage 4, MYCN amplified, diploidy, high MKI, undifferentiated grade, and 1p aberration were significantly predictive of death after relapse (p<0.0001), but not 11q aberration. Compared to children who had a first event more than 6 mo from diagnosis, those who relapsed 6-<18 mo from diagnosis had increased risk of death, while relapses ≥18 mo from diagnosis had decreased risk of death. Shorter time- to-first-event was not independently predictive of death after adjustment for undifferentiated grade, high MKI, MYCN amplification, or diploidy.

In a survival tree regression analysis that adjusted for time-to-relapse, disease stage was identified as the most highly significant variable for survival post relapse. Stage 4 patients (n=1578)  had a 5-year survival of 8% ± 1%, compared with 52% ± 3%  for those who were stage 1, 2, 3, or 4S (n=622).

Three groups were defined as salvageable for relapse treatment:

• stage 4, with nonamplified MYCN, and less than 18 months of age.
• stage 1, 2, 3, or 4S with MYCN amplification.
• stage 1, 2, 3, or 4S with nonamplified MYCN and undifferentiated grade histology.

Patients who had stage 4 disease and MYCN amplification had a 5-year survival of 4% ± 1% , compared with 12% ± 2% for stage 4 patients with nonamplified MYCN.

This information can help stratify children for relapse therapies.

NOTE: None of this data included how the children were treated for relapse. I am hoping this work will eventually lead to a rational plan for relapse therapy.

My take on this report? There WERE survivors in every group of relapse children….