title: Rapid COJEC versus standard induction therapies for high-risk neuroblastoma.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Neuroblastoma is a rare malignant disease and mainly affects infants and very young children. The tumors mainly develop in the adrenal medullary tissue and an abdominal mass is the most common presentation. The high-risk group is characterized by metastasis and other characteristics that increase the risk for an adverse outcome. In the rapid COJEC induction schedule, higher single doses of selected drugs than standard induction schedules are administered over a substantially shorter treatment period, with shorter intervals between cycles. Shorter intervals and higher doses increase the dose intensity of chemotherapy and might improve survival.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of the rapid COJEC induction schedule as compared to standard induction schedules in patients with high-risk neuroblastoma (as defined by the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) classification system). Outcomes of interest were complete response, early toxicity and treatment-related mortality as primary endpoints and overall survival, progression- and event-free survival, late non-hematological toxicity, and health-related quality of life as secondary endpoints.
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched the electronic databases CENTRAL (2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE (PubMed), and EMBASE (Ovid) for articles from inception to 11 November 2014. Further searches included trial registries, conference proceedings, and reference lists of recent reviews and relevant articles. We did not apply limits on publication year or languages.
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomized controlled trials evaluating the rapid COJEC induction schedule for high-risk neuroblastoma patients compared to standard induction schedules.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two review authors performed study selection, abstracted data on study and patient characteristics, and assessed risk of bias independently. We resolved differences by discussion or by appeal to a third review author. We performed analyses according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used the five GRADE considerations, study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias, to judge the quality of the evidence. We downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision
  
  
  RESULTS
  We identified one randomized controlled trial (CCLG-ENSG-5) that included 262 patients with high-risk neuroblastoma who were randomized to receive either rapid COJEC (N = 130) or standard OPEC/COJEC (N = 132) induction chemotherapy. We graded the evidence as low quality; we downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision.There was no clear evidence of a difference between the treatment groups in complete response (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.38), treatment-related mortality (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.39), overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.10), and event-free survival (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.13). We calculated the HRs using the complete follow-up period of the trial.Febrile neutropenia (two or more episodes), proven fungal infections, septicemia (one or more episodes), gastrointestinal toxicity (grade 3 or 4), renal toxicity (glomerular filtration rate < 80 ml/min per body surface area of 1.73 m(2)), neurological toxicity (grade 3 or 4), and ototoxicity (Brock grade 2 to 4) were addressed as early toxicities (during pre-operative chemotherapy). For febrile neutropenia, septicemia, and renal toxicity, a statistically significant difference in favor of the standard treatment arm was identified; for all other early toxicities no clear evidence of a difference between treatment groups was identified. With regard to late non-hematological toxicities (median follow-up 12.7 years; range 6.9 to 16.5 years), the study provided data on any complication, renal toxicity (glomerular filtration rate < 80 ml/min per body surface area of 1.73m(2)), ototoxicity (Brock grade 1 to 4), endocrine complications, neurocognitive complications (i.e. behavioral, speech, or learning difficulties), and second malignancies. For endocrine complications and neurocognitive complications, a statistically significant difference in favor of the rapid COJEC arm was found; for all other late non-hematological toxicities no clear evidence of a difference between treatment groups was identified.Data on progression-free survival and health-related quality of life were not reported.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  We identified one randomized controlled trial that evaluated rapid COJEC versus standard induction therapy in patients with high-risk neuroblastoma. No clear evidence of a difference in complete response, treatment-related mortality, overall survival, and event-free survival between the treatment alternatives was found. This could be the result of low power or too short a follow-up period. Results of both early and late toxicities were ambiguous. Information on progression-free survival and health-related quality of life were not available. This trial was performed in the 1990s. Since then, many changes in, for example, treatment and risk classification have occurred. Therefore, based on the currently available evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of rapid COJEC and standard induction therapy in patients with high-risk neuroblastoma. More research is needed for a definitive conclusion.
authors.affiliation: Pediatric Oncology and Hematology, Children's Hospital, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, Cologne, NW, Germany, 50937.
authors.forename: Frank
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Peinemann
authors.forename: Doreen A
authors.initials: DA
authors.lastname: Tushabe
authors.forename: Elvira C
authors.initials: EC
authors.lastname: van Dalen
authors.forename: Frank
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Berthold
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000971:Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D016190:Carboplatin / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000009:adverse effects; D002648:Child; D002675:Child, Preschool; D002945:Cisplatin / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000009:adverse effects; D003520:Cyclophosphamide / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000009:adverse effects; D004334:Drug Administration Schedule; D005047:Etoposide / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000009:adverse effects; D006801:Humans; D060828:Induction Chemotherapy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D007223:Infant; D009447:Neuroblastoma / Q000188:drug therapy*; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D014750:Vincristine / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000009:adverse effects
chemical_list: D014750:Vincristine; D005047:Etoposide; D003520:Cyclophosphamide; D016190:Carboplatin; D002945:Cisplatin