Burgert E O, Nesbit M E, Garnsey L A, Gehan E A, Herrmann J, Vietti T J, Cangir A, Tefft M, Evans R, Thomas P
Department of Pediatrics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905.
J Clin Oncol. 1990 Sep;8(9):1514-24. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1990.8.9.1514.
Two hundred fourteen eligible patients with previously untreated, localized Ewing's sarcoma of bone were randomized on IESS-II to receive Adriamycin (ADR; doxorubicin; Adria Laboratories, Columbus, OH), cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and dactinomycin by either a high-dose intermittent method (treatment [trt] 1) or a moderate-dose continuous method (trt 2) similar to the four-drug arm of IESS-I. Patient characteristics (sex, primary site, type of surgery) were stratified at the time of registration; these and other patient characteristics (age, time from symptoms to diagnosis, race) were distributed similarly between treatments. Surgical resection was encouraged, but not mandatory. Local radiation therapy was the same as for IESS-I. The median follow-up time is 5.6 years. The overall outcome was significantly better on trt 1 than on trt 2. At 5 years, the estimated percentages of patients who were disease-free, relapse-free, and surviving were 68%, 73%, and 77% for trt 1 and 48%, 56%, and 63% for trt 2 (P = .02, .03, and .05, respectively). The major reason for treatment failure for both treatment groups was the development of metastatic disease. The lung was the most common site of metastases followed by bone sites. The combined incidence of severe or worse toxicity (67%) was comparable between the treatments; however, severe or worse cardiovascular toxicity was significantly greater on trt 1. Tne only treatment-associated deaths (N = 3) were on trt 1 and were cardiac-related.
214例先前未经治疗的局限性骨尤文肉瘤合格患者在IESS-II研究中被随机分组,分别采用高剂量间歇给药法(治疗方案1)或中剂量持续给药法(治疗方案2)接受阿霉素(ADR;多柔比星;阿德里亚实验室,俄亥俄州哥伦布市)、环磷酰胺、长春新碱和放线菌素D治疗,这两种给药方法类似于IESS-I研究中的四药联合治疗组。登记时对患者特征(性别、原发部位、手术类型)进行了分层;这些特征以及其他患者特征(年龄、从出现症状到确诊的时间、种族)在各治疗组间分布相似。鼓励进行手术切除,但并非强制要求。局部放射治疗与IESS-I研究相同。中位随访时间为5.6年。治疗方案1的总体结果显著优于治疗方案2。5年时,治疗方案1无病、无复发和存活患者的估计百分比分别为68%、73%和77%,治疗方案2分别为48%、%56和63%(P值分别为0.02、0.03和0.05)。两个治疗组治疗失败的主要原因是发生了转移性疾病。肺是最常见的转移部位,其次是骨转移部位。两种治疗方法的严重或更严重毒性联合发生率(67%)相当;然而,治疗方案1的严重或更严重心血管毒性明显更高。仅有的3例与治疗相关的死亡均发生在治疗方案1,且与心脏相关。