Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2013 Sep;60(9):1411-7.
doi: 10.1002/pbc.24532. Epub 2013 Mar 22.

PAX-FOXO1 fusion status drives unfavorable outcome for children with rhabdomyosarcoma: a children's oncology group report

Stephen X Skapek  1 , James Anderson, Frederic G Barr, Julia A Bridge, Julie M Gastier-Foster, David M Parham, Erin R Rudzinski, Timothy Triche, Douglas S Hawkins
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

PAX-FOXO1 fusion status drives unfavorable outcome for children with rhabdomyosarcoma: a children's oncology group report

Stephen X Skapek et al. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2013 Sep.

Abstract

Background: Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is divided into two major histological subtypes: alveolar (ARMS) and embryonal (ERMS), with most ARMS expressing one of two oncogenic genes fusing PAX3 or PAX7 with FOXO1 (P3F and P7F, respectively). The Children's Oncology Group (COG) carried out a multi-institutional clinical trial to evaluate the prognostic value of PAX-FOXO1 fusion status.

Methods: Study participants were treated on COG protocol D9803 for intermediate risk ARMS or ERMS using multi-agent chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery. Central diagnostic pathology review and molecular testing for fusion genes were carried out on prospectively collected specimens. Event-free (EFS) and overall survival (OS) at 5 years were correlated with histological subtype and PAX-FOXO1 status.

Results: Of 616 eligible D9803 enrollees, 434 cases had adequate clinical, molecular, and pathology data for definitive classification as ERMS, ARMS P3F+ or P7F+, or ARMSn (without detectable fusion). EFS was worse for those with ARMS P3F+ (54%) and P7F+ (65%) than those with ERMS (77%; P < 0.001). EFS for ARMSn and ERMS were not statistically different (90% vs. 77%, P = 0.15). ARMS P3F+ had poorer OS (64%) than ARMS P7F+ (87%), ARMSn (89%), and ERMS (82%; P = 0.006).

Conclusions: ARMSn has an outcome similar to ERMS and superior EFS compared to ARMS with either P3F or P7F, when given therapy designed for children with intermediate risk RMS. This prospective analysis supports incorporation of PAX-FOXO1 fusion status into risk stratification and treatment allocation.

Keywords: PAX-FOXO1; rhabdomyosarcoma; survival.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest: Nothing to declare.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CONSORT diagram depicting the subsets of the COG D9803 study participants utilized for the current analysis. UDS, undifferentiated sarcoma; NOS, not otherwise specified; Unk, unknown.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Kaplan–Meier curves depicting (A) event-free survival and (B) overall survival in years following diagnosis for ARMS (n = 129) and ERMS (n = 305) based on re-reviewed histologic diagnosis. P = 0.0035 (A) and 0.040 (B).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Kaplan–Meier curves depicting (A) event-free and (B) overall survival in years following diagnosis based on molecular classification of disease as being ERMS (n = 305) or ARMSn (n = 21), ARMS PF3+ (n = 85), or ARMS PF7+ (n = 23). P < 0.001 (A) and 0.0035 (B).
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Kaplan–Meier curves depicting (A) event-free and (B) overall survival in years following diagnosis based on molecular classification of disease as being ARMSn (n = 10), ARMS PF3+ (n = 28), or ARMS PF7+ (n = 12) within the subset of patients with Stage 1 or Stage 2, 3 and Group I/II disease. P = 0.13 (A) and 0.13 (B).
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Kaplan–Meier curves depicting (A) event-free and (B) overall survival in years following diagnosis based on molecular classification of disease as being ERMS (n = 261), ARMSn (n = 11), ARMS PF3+ (n = 57), or ARMS PF7+ (n = 11) within the subset of patients with Stage 2, 3 and Group III disease. P < 0.001 (A) and 0.0054 (B).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Womer RB, Pressey JG. Rhabdomyosarcoma and soft tissue sarcoma in childhood. Curr Opin Oncol. 2000;12:337–344. - PubMed
    1. Merlino G, Helman LJ. Rhabdomyosarcoma—Working out the pathways. Oncogene. 1999;18:5340–5348. - PubMed
    1. Oberlin O, Rey A, Lyden E, et al. Prognostic factors in metastatic rhabdomyosarcomas: Results of a pooled analysis from United States and European cooperative groups. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2384–2389. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Arndt CA, Stoner JA, Hawkins DS, et al. Vincristine, actinomycin, and cyclophosphamide compared with vincristine, actinomycin, and cyclophosphamide alternating with vincristine, topotecan, and cyclophosphamide for intermediate-risk rhabdomyosarcoma: Children’s oncology group study D980. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5182–5188. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Crist WM, Anderson JR, Meza JL, et al. Intergroup rhabdomyosarcoma study-IV: Results for patients with nonmetastatic disease. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:3091–3102. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

-