Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 5, 2026

Modeling Chemotherapy Resistant Leukemia In Vitro
Published on: February 9, 2016
High-Dose Chemotherapy and Blood Autologous Stem-Cell Rescue Compared With Standard Chemotherapy in Localized
Jeremy Whelan1, Marie-Cecile Le Deley1, Uta Dirksen1
1Jeremy Whelan, University College Hospital; Ian Judson, Institute of Cancer Research, London; Bernadette Brennan, Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, Manchester; Bruce Morland, Birmingham Children's Hospital; Keith Wheatley, University of Birmingham, Birmingham; Ian Lewis, Leeds Community Healthcare National Health Service Trust, Leeds; Alan Craft, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom; Marie-Cecile Le Deley and Cyril Lervat, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille; Gwénaël Le Teuff, Nathalie Gaspar, and Odile Oberlin, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif; Jean-Yves Blay, Centre Léon Bérard; Perrine Marec-Berard, Institute of Pediatric Onco-Haematology, Lyon; Marie-Pierre Castex, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse, Toulouse; Jean-Claude Gentet, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire La Timone, Marseille; Marta Jimenez, Unicancer; Valerie Laurence and Jean Michon, Institut Curie, Paris; France; Uta Dirksen, Sebastian Bauer, Andreas Ranft, University Hospital Essen, Essen; Susanne Amler, Institut für Biometrie und Klinische Forschung; Wolfgang Hartmann and Heribert Juergens, Universitätsklinikum, Münster, Münster; Stefan Bielack, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart; Stefan Burdach, Comprehensive Cancer Center, München; Dagmar Dilloo, University-Clinic Bonn, Bonn; Angelika Eggert, Charité University; Peter Reichardt, HELIOS Klinikum Berlin-Buch, Berlin; Wolf-Achim Hassenpflug, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg; Thomas Klingebiel, Childrens University Hospital, Frankfurt; Udo Kontny, University Medical Center Aachen, Aachen; Michael Paulussen, Children's and Adolescents' Hospital, Datteln; Germany; Douglas S. Hawkins, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA; Hans Gelderblom, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden; Hendrik van den Berg, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Lars Hjorth, Skane University Hospital, Lund, Sweden; Jarmila Kruseova, Faculty Hospital Motol Prague, Prague, Czech Republic; Ruth Ladenstein, St Anna Children's Hospital and Children's Cancer Research Institute, Vienna, Austria; Sandrine Marreaud, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract:
Purpose For over 30 years, the place of consolidation high-dose chemotherapy in Ewing sarcoma (ES) has been controversial. A randomized study was conducted to determine whether consolidation high-dose chemotherapy improved survival in patients with localized ES at high risk for relapse. Methods Randomization between busulfan and melphalan (BuMel) or standard chemotherapy (vincristine, dactinomycin, and ifosfamide [VAI], seven courses) was offered to patients if they were younger than 50 years of age with poor histologic response (≥ 10% viable cells) after receiving vincristine, ifosfamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (six courses); or had a tumor volume at diagnosis ≥ 200 mL if unresected, or initially resected, or resected after radiotherapy. A 15% improvement in 3-year event-free survival (EFS) was sought (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60). Results Between 2000 and 2015, 240 patients classified as high risk (median age, 17.1 years) were randomly assigned to VAI (n = 118) or BuMel (n = 122). Seventy-eight percent entered the trial because of poor histologic response after chemotherapy alone. Median follow-up was 7.8 years. In an intent-to-treat analysis, the risk of event was significantly decreased by BuMel compared with VAI: HR, 0.64 (95% CI, 0.43 to 0.95; P = .026); 3- and 8-year EFS were, respectively, 69.0% (95% CI, 60.2% to 76.6%) versus 56.7% (95% CI, 47.6% to 65.4%) and 60.7% (95% CI, 51.1% to 69.6%) versus 47.1% (95% CI, 37.7% to 56.8%). Overall survival (OS) also favored BuMel: HR, 0.63 (95% CI, 0.41 to 0.95; P = .028); 3- and 8-year OS were, respectively, 78.0% (95% CI, 69.6% to 84.5%) versus 72.2% (95% CI, 63.3% to 79.6%) and 64.5% (95% CI, 54.4% to 73.5%) versus 55.6% (95% CI, 45.8% to 65.1%). Results were consistent in the sensitivity analysis. Two patients died as a result of BuMel-related toxicity, one after standard chemotherapy. Significantly more BuMel patients experienced severe acute toxicities from this course of chemotherapy compared with multiple VAI courses. Conclusion BuMel improved EFS and OS when given after vincristine, ifosfamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide induction in localized ES with predefined high-risk factors. For this group of patients, BuMel may be an important addition to the standard of care.
Related Concept Videos
Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Cannabinoids
Two synthetic agonists of THC,...
Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Dopamine Receptor Antagonists
Phenothiazines, such as prochlorperazine...
Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists
Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists
Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells
Embryonic Stem Cells

