Evaluation of local control strategies on patterns of treatment failure in patients with localized ewing sarcoma treated on AEWS1031: A report from the children’s oncology group.
Authors: Ahmed Safia K. , Binitie Odion , Krailo Mark D. , Buxton Allen , Indelicato Daniel J. , Callan Alexandra , Christ Alexander , Chuba Paul J. , Nadel Helen Ruth , Pawel Bruce , Gorlick Richard Greg , Reed Damon R. , DuBois Steven G. , Janeway Katherine A. , Leavey Patrick , Mascarenhas Leo , Laack Nadia N. 
Published: June 2023

11529 Background: To evaluate clinical characteristics and patterns of treatment failure in patients with localized Ewing sarcoma (ES) treated on AEWS1031 according to local control (LC) strategies, tumor size, and tumor site. Methods: AEWS1031 was a phase 3 randomized trial comparing two interval compressed chemotherapy regimens. Patients who completed LC on AEWS1031 were analyzed. LC was with surgery alone (S), definitive radiation therapy (RT), or surgery plus radiation (S+RT), and determined by the treating investigator. Local failure (LF) and distant failure (DF) were defined as recurrence at primary tumor site or distant site, respectively. Fine and Gray method was used to estimate cumulative incidence of LF and DF from time LC was completed. P-values were calculated using logrank or Gray’s test, as appropriate. A two-sided p-value of ≤0.05 was considered significant. Results: 588 patients completed LC. Median age at enrollment was 13.0 years (range: 0.6- 33.9 years). Tumor sites were categorized as extremity (230; 39%), axial (142; 24%), extraosseous (110; 19%), and pelvis (106; 18%). At diagnosis, tumor volume (TV) was ≥200 mL in 170 patients (31%) and maximum tumor dimension (MTD) was ≥8 cm in 289 patients (52%). LC was with S in 320 patients (54%), RT in 160 (27%), and S+RT in 108 (18%). Eight patients received preoperative RT. Fifty-three patients (13.1%) who received S±RT had an R1 resection. LC with S was more likely for extremity (58%), RT for pelvis (38%) and S+ RT for axial (36%) and extraosseous (34%) primary tumors (p <0.01). With median follow up of 67.6 months from LC, the 5-year cumulative incidences of LF and DF for the entire cohort were 6.0% (95% CI, 4.3-8.3%) and 11.0% (95% CI, 8.6-13.9%), respectively. Eleven patients experienced simultaneous LF and DF. LF incidence was 5.0% for S, 8.4% for RT, and 5.6% for S+RT (p=0.47). DF incidence was 11.8% for S, 6.4% for RT, and 15.1% for S+RT (p=0.16). LF incidence by tumor site was 3.6% for extremity, 8.7% for pelvis, 7.3% for axial, and 6.8% for extraosseous (p=0.08). LF incidence was higher for primary tumors ≥200 mL (11.3%) compared to tumors < 200 mL (3.9%; p<0.01) and for tumors ≥8 cm (7.8%) compared to tumors < 8 cm (4.4%; p=0.02). Tumor size was associated with a higher LF incidence for S and RT, but not for S+RT (Table). LF incidence was 4.0% for R0, 7.5% for R1 with RT, and 16.7% for R1 without RT (p=0.02). Conclusions: We report the lowest LF incidence to date for prospective ES trials conducted. Both larger TV and MTD were associated with higher LF. Future investigations will aim to evaluate the impact of chemotherapy dose-intensity on LC and identify risk-stratification variables for improved LC. Five-year LF incidence by LC and tumor size. Clinical trial information: NCT01231906 . [Table: see text]