Citations

PURPOSE Proton radiotherapy (PRT) may lessen the neuropsychological risk traditionally associated with cranial radiotherapy for the treatment of pediatric brain tumors by reducing the dose to normal tissue compared with that of photon radiotherapy (XRT). We examined the change in intellectual scores over time in patients with pediatric medulloblastoma treated with craniospinal PRT versus XRT. METHODS Intelligence test scores were obtained for a sample of pediatric patients treated between 2007 and 2018 on the same medulloblastoma protocols that differed only in radiotherapy modality (PRT v XRT). Growth curve analyses compared change in scores over time since diagnosis between groups. RESULTS Longitudinal intelligence data from 79 patients (37 PRT, 42 XRT) were examined. Groups were similar on most demographic/clinical variables, including sex (67.1% male), age at diagnosis (mean, 8.6 years), craniospinal irradiation dose (median, 23.4 Gy), length of follow-up (mean, 4.3 years), and parental education (mean, 14.3 years). Boost dose ( P < .001) and boost margin ( P = .001) differed between groups. Adjusting for covariates, the PRT group exhibited superior long-term outcomes in global intelligence quotient (IQ), perceptual reasoning, and working memory compared with the XRT group (all P < .05). The XRT group exhibited a significant decline in global IQ, working memory, and processing speed (all P < .05). The PRT group exhibited stable scores over time in all domains with the exception of processing speed ( P = .003). CONCLUSION To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare intellectual trajectories between pediatric patients treated for medulloblastoma with PRT versus those treated with XRT on comparable, contemporary protocols. PRT was associated with more favorable intellectual outcomes in most domains compared with XRT, although processing speed emerged as a vulnerable domain for both groups. This study provides the strongest evidence to date of an intellectual sparing advantage with PRT in the treatment of pediatric medulloblastoma.

Abstract Background Cranial radiotherapy (RT) is associated with risk for cognitive and adaptive dysfunction. Proton RT (PRT) is a technique hypothesized to spare cognition by reducing exposure to nontarget brain tissue. However, little is known regarding functional outcomes in survivors of pediatric brain tumor (BT) treated with PRT. The present study examined the relationship between cognitive and adaptive outcomes in pediatric BT survivors post‐PRT. Methods Survivors treated with either focal (n = 33) or craniospinal irradiation (CSI; n = 37) PRT completed neurocognitive evaluations approximately 5 years post‐treatment. Results of intelligence testing and ratings of adaptive functioning are reported. Mediation models examined the relationship among radiation field, cognition, and adaptive functioning. Results The PRT CSI group demonstrated worse cognitive outcomes than the PRT Focal group across each cognitive index (Cohen's d = 0.56–0.70). Parent ratings of adaptive functioning were also worse in the PRT CSI group than the PRT Focal group (Global Adaptive Composite, d = 0.53; conceptual skills, d = 0.67). Cognitive performance fully mediated the relationship between radiation field and adaptive outcomes, while controlling for group differences in tumor histology and RT dose. Conclusions Focal PRT survivors demonstrated generally positive outcomes with weaknesses in processing speed and aspects of adaptive functioning. CSI exposure was associated with more consistently poor cognitive and adaptive outcomes. The increased risk for adaptive dysfunction in the PRT CSI group appeared due to the effects of CSI on cognition. Efforts to reduce the volume of tissue exposure to RT remain important.

Abstract Introduction Ibrutinib has become a new standard of care in patients with previously treated CLL/SLL based on the phase 3 RESONATE study (Byrd, et al. NEJM 2014) and other trials evaluating ibrutinib mainly as a single agent in CLL. The first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study (HELIOS) investigating ibrutinib in combination with bendamustine and rituximab (BR) was recently reported (Chanan-Khan, et al. ASCO 2015), with ibrutinib significantly extending progression-free survival and reducing the risk of progression/death by 80%. The study design provides an opportunity to examine the overall safety and management of adverse events (AEs) with ibrutinib and placebo in a blinded manner that previously has not been possible. Here we examine the safety and management of AEs with ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR in HELIOS. Methods Patients with active CLL/SLL following ≥ 1 prior line of systemic therapy were randomized 1:1 to receive BR (≤ 6 cycles) with either ibrutinib 420 mg daily or placebo (n = 289 in each group). Safety was a secondary end point. Results Median exposure to ibrutinib and placebo was 14.7 and 12.8 months, respectively. Rates of infection in the ibrutinib + BR and placebo + BR arms were similar (all-grade, 70.4%; grade ≥ 3, 26.8% vs all-grade, 70.0%; grade ≥ 3, 22.6%, respectively) but exposure-adjusted analysis reveals an overall lower rate of infections with ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR (10.3/100 vs 11.2/100 patient-months), with similar rates of grade ≥ 3 infections (2.4/100 patient-months each arm). Rates of all-grade (grade 3/4) anemia were 22.3% (3.5%) with ibrutinib + BR and 28.9% (8.0%) with placebo + BR. Patients also required fewer transfusions with ibrutinib + BR (23%) vs placebo + BR (29%), the majority of which were red blood cell transfusions. Similar proportions of patients used growth factors in both arms (54% vs 52%, respectively). Grade 3/4 neutropenia was reported at similar rates in both arms (53.7% vs 50.5%, respectively); however, fewer patients discontinued due to treatment-related neutropenia with ibrutinib + BR (1.0%) vs placebo + BR (2.8%). Rates of thrombocytopenia were slightly higher with ibrutinib + BR (30.7%) than placebo + BR (24.0%), but rates of grade 3/4 events were similar between arms (15.0% each arm). Atrial fibrillation (AF) was observed more frequently in patients on ibrutinib + BR than placebo + BR (7.3% vs 2.8% overall and 2.8% vs 0.7% grade 3/4, respectively). However, only 4 patients with grade 3/4 AF discontinued therapy in the ibrutinib arm. No patients with grade 1/2 AF discontinued treatment. One-third of patients held ibrutinib treatment to manage AF, with all restarting at the same dose (420 mg). Median (range) time to onset was 3.0 (0.3-17.5) months with ibrutinib + BR and 2.4 (0.6-18.9) months with placebo + BR. Importantly, in those with a prior history of AF or abnormal heart rhythm, only 7/25 receiving ibrutinib + BR and 2/22 receiving placebo + BR developed AF/atrial flutter on study. The rates of any-grade bleeding were 31.0% and 14.6%, respectively, with the majority being grade 1 (77.5% and 69.0%, respectively). Low rates of grade 3/4 major bleeding were observed in the ibrutinib + BR (2.1%) and placebo + BR (1.7%) arms. Many patients (41.8% ibrutinib + BR, 41.1% placebo + BR) were receiving concomitant anticoagulant/antiplatelet medication. A low rate of treatment-related lymphocytosis was observed in both arms (7.0% ibrutinib + BR, 5.9% placebo + BR). The majority of cases resolved within 2 weeks. Conclusions In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, the addition of ibrutinib to BR was well tolerated and did not significantly impact the safety profile of BR. In addition, ibrutinib was associated with reduced rates of anemia and transfusional support. Consistent with its known toxicity profile, patients in the ibrutinib + BR arm had higher rates of bleeding (mostly grade 1 or 2) and AF; however, few patients discontinued therapy as a result of these AEs. A prior history of AF or abnormal heart rhythm did not lead to recurrent episodes in the majority of cases. Taken together, the results from HELIOS establish the significant efficacy of ibrutinib and also the overall positive risk-benefit profile of ibrutinib + BR. Disclosures Cramer: Janssen: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Hoffman LaRoche: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Other: Travel grant; Glaxo Smith Klein/Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Other: Travel grant. Demirkan:Celgene: Other: Travel reimbursement; Amgen: Consultancy. Fraser:Hoffman LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Santucci Silva:Janssen: Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel reimbursement; Hoffman LaRoche: Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding. Janssens:Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy. Goy:Allos, Biogen Idec, Celgene, Genentech, and Millennium. Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mayer:Janssen: Research Funding. Dilhuydy:Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Bartlett:Medimmune: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Rule:Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; Gilead: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; J&J: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding. Sun:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Phelps:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mahler:Janssen: Employment, Other: Travel reimbursement. Salman:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Howes:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hallek:AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Boehringher Ingelheim: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Recent results from the HELIOS phase 3 study in relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL demonstrated that the addition of ibrutinib to chemoimmunotherapy with bendamustine/rituximab (BR) leads to an 80% reduction in risk of progression or death compared with placebo + BR (Chanan-Khan et al. ASCO 2015). In addition to prolongation of progression-free survival (PFS; median not reached vs 13.3 months; hazard ratio: 0.203, 95% confidence interval: 0.150-0.276, p<0.0001), overall response rate (ORR) and rates of complete response (CR) or CR with incomplete marrow recovery (CRi) were significantly improved with ibrutinib + BR (ORR: 82.7% vs 67.8%; CR/CRi: 10.4% vs 2.8%). Here we report additional analyses on the quality of response with ibrutinib combined with BR. Methods In total, 578 patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL requiring treatment were randomized 1:1 (289 per arm) to receive BR (≤ 6 cycles) with either ibrutinib (420 mg daily) or placebo. Purine analog refractoriness (yes vs no) and number of prior therapies (1 vs > 1) were stratification factors. Pts with deletion 17p (del17p; > 20% of cells) were excluded. All pts were required to have ≥ 1 abnormal lymph node (LN; defined as a measurable lesion > 1.5 cm). The primary end point was independent review committee (IRC)-assessed PFS. In this analysis, individual parameters of response (LN, spleen, overall radiology, absolute lymphocyte count [ALC], complete blood count [CBC], and bone marrow [BM]) were evaluated. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed by flow cytometry using an 8-color panel (Rawstron AC, et al. Leukemia. 2007;21:956-964); MRD samples were collected at confirmation of suspected CR (bone marrow) and every 3 months thereafter (peripheral blood). Rate of MRD-negative response was defined as the proportion of pts who reached negative disease status (< 0.01%, ie, < 1 CLL cell/10,000 leukocytes) in any sample. Reported MRD rates are based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Results The ORR assessed by the IRC was 82.7% with ibrutinib + BR vs 67.8% with placebo + BR (p < 0.0001), and was consistent with ORR reported by the treating physician (investigator assessed) (ORR: 86.2% vs 68.9%, p < 0.0001). However, rates of CR/CRi were higher by investigator assessment (21.4%, ibrutinib + BR vs 5.9%, placebo + BR) than IRC (10.4% vs 2.8%). The IRC employed an independent evaluation of radiological scans including stringent evaluation of LN and volumetric assessment of spleen size-the main reasons for the difference in CR/CRi rates between investigator and IRC assessment. At baseline, similar proportions of pts in each arm had bulky disease defined as LN > 5 cm (54%-58%) or abnormal spleen (~40%) as assessed by IRC. Complete resolution of previous CLL/SLL manifestations as assessed by the IRC was achieved more often in the ibrutinib + BR arm in comparison with placebo + BR for LN (34.6% vs 15.2%), spleen (56.7% vs 37.0%), overall radiology (21.1% vs 9.0%), and BM (19.7% vs 5.9%). Rates of normalization of ALC (> 90%) and CBC (> 70%) were high and similar in the 2 arms. MRD was assessed in 120 pts treated with ibrutinib + BR and 57 pts treated with placebo + BR and was negative in 37 pts and 14 pts, respectively, which corresponds with an MRD-negative response rate of 12.8% vs 4.8% for ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR (p = 0.0011). Investigator-determined responses by different levels of MRD are shown in Table 1. The percentage of pts with an MRD level < 1% was higher with ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR (32.2% vs 11.8%). Moreover, the percentage of pts with an MRD level < 0.1% was higher for ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR (24.6% vs 7.6%) suggesting that the depth of response with ibrutinib + BR was superior. Kaplan-Meier plots by MRD level (Figure 1) show that a lower MRD level was associated with a longer PFS. However, pts in the ibrutinib + BR arm had a more sustained response at every MRD level compared with pts in the placebo + BR arm. Conclusions Pts treated with ibrutinib + BR showed not only a higher ORR, but also a greater depth of response, with more CRs and a higher rate of resolution of LN, spleen, and BM involvement. Furthermore, the rate and depth of MRD negativity was improved, and appeared to last longer in pts treated with ibrutinib + BR compared with pts receiving placebo + BR. With a median follow up of 17 months in the ibrutinib + BR arm, no MRD-negative pts and few MRD-positive pts had progressed, thus evaluating a trend in PFS with MRD negativity is currently limited in this arm. Disclosures Cramer: Gilead: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Klein/Novartis: Research Funding; Astellas: Other: Travel grant; Mundipharma: Other: Travel grant; Janssen: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Hoffman LaRoche: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Combination of bendamustine, obinutuzumab and ibrutinib for treatment of CLL. Fraser:Hoffman LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Demirkan:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Other: Travel reimbursement. Santucci Silva:Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; Hoffman LaRoche: Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel reimbursement. Janssens:Mundipharma: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy. Goy:Allos, Biogen Idec, Celgene, Genentech, and Millennium. Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mayer:Janssen: Research Funding. Dilhuydy:Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Bartlett:Millenium: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Rule:Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; J&J: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; Gilead: Research Funding. Sun:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Phelps:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mahler:Janssen: Employment, Other: Travel reimbursement. Salman:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schaffer:Janssen: Employment. Balasubramanian:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Equity Ownership; Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Howes:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hallek:AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Boehringher Ingelheim: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) with CLL/SLL that have del11q tend to have relatively short remission durations and shorter overall survival (OS) with standard chemotherapy regimens. Ibrutinib (ibr), a first-in-class, oral, once-daily inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) is indicated by the US FDA for the treatment of pts with CLL/SLL and allows for treatment without chemotherapy. In phase 3 studies, treatment with single-agent ibr was superior to treatment with ofatumumab (ofa) in relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL/SLL (RESONATE; Byrd, N Engl J Med 2013) or chlorambucil (clb) in treatment-naïve (TN) CLL/SLL (RESONATE-2; Burger, N Engl J Med 2015); treatment with ibr + bendamustine/rituximab (BR) was also superior to treatment with BR in R/R CLL/SLL (HELIOS; Chanan-Khan, Lancet Oncol 2016). We examined the outcome of pts in these 3 studies who did or did not have del11q to determine the impact of del11q on clinical outcomes. Methods: In RESONATE, pts with R/R CLL/SLL received ibr 420 mg/day until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity (tox) vs ofa for up to 24 weeks (300 mg week 1, 2000 mg weekly for 7 weeks, 2000 mg every 4 weeks for 16 weeks). In RESONATE-2, pts ≥65 years of age with TN CLL/SLL (excluding del17p) received ibr 420 mg/day until PD or tox vs clb 0.5 mg/kg (up to max of 0.8 mg/kg) on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle (≤12 cycles). In HELIOS, pts with R/R CLL/SLL (excluding del17p) received BR (≤6 cycles) with or without ibr 420 mg/day (starting on day 2 of cycle 1) followed by single-agent ibr or placebo continued until PD or tox. Data from pts in the 3 studies were pooled (ibr pool, comparator pool) and analyzed based on whether or not their CLL/SLL had del11q. We performed a multivariate analysis to examine for risk factors prognostic for survival (del11q del17p, age, sex, race, current Rai stage, baseline ECOG PS, number of prior therapies, cytopenias; no multiplicity adjustment). Results: A total of 1210 pts with del11q data were included in the analysis: 609 in the ibr pool (179 with del11q, 430 without del11q) vs 601 in the comparator pool (149 with del11q, 452 without del11q). Demographics and baseline characteristics were generally similar in pts regardless of del11q status; differences of more than 10% included proportions with bulky disease ≥5 cm (63% vs 49%) and unmutated IGHV (88% vs 72%) in pts with or without del11q, respectively. Median lymphadenopathy and absolute lymphocyte counts were also higher in pts with del11q. At the time of the primary analysis, median treatment durations in the ibr pool were 20.0 mo with del11q and 18.7 mo without del11q; in the comparator pool 5.3 mo with del11q and 8.5 mo without del11q. Overall, ibr-treated pts had higher overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates and longer progression-free survival (PFS, Figure) and OS than comparator-treated pts regardless of del11q status. In the ibr pool, the presence of del11q was associated with a trend of longer PFS and OS while in the comparator pool, pts with del11q had shorter PFS (Figure, Table), as compared to pts without del11q. Results were similar when excluding pts with del17p (10% of ibr pool [6%/11% with/without del11q] and 9% of comparator pool [8%/10% with/without del11q]; Table). By multivariate analysis, in the comparator pool, del11q, male sex, >1 prior therapy, presence of cytopenias, and unmutated IGHV (in R/R only) were associated with shorter PFS. However, these differences were not found in the ibr pool. The presence of del11q did not unfavorably impact the tempo of reductions in lymphadenopathy for ibr-treated pts, but did for comparator-treated pts. Adverse events leading to discontinuation were similar in ibr- and comparator-treated pts (12% [9% vs 13% with/without del11q] vs 13% [12% vs 13% with/without del11q]). Deaths within 30 days of last dose occurred in 31 pts (5% [3% vs 6% with/without del11q]) in the ibr pool and 28 pts (5% [6% vs 4% with/without del11q]) in the comparator pool. Conclusions: Treatment with ibr was superior to comparator regardless of del11q status; the benefit of ibr was most marked for pts with CLL/SLL with del11q. Presence of del11q was associated with a trend of longer PFS and OS in ibr-treated pts and shorter PFS and lower ORR in comparator-treated pts. By multivariate analysis, presence of del11q was a prognostic factor for shorter PFS for comparator-treated pts, but not for ibr-treated pts. Disclosures Kipps: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Hillmen:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding. Demirkan:Amgen: Consultancy. Coutre:Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Barrientos:Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Barr:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy. O'Brien:Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Fraser:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Jaeger:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Cramer:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Astellas: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding. Stilgenbauer:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Hoffman La-Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Salman:Janssen Research & Development: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Solman:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; AbbVie: Equity Ownership. Cheng:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; AbbVie: Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Phelps:Johnson & Johnson: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ninomoto:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment; Amgen, Inc.: Equity Ownership; AbbVie: Equity Ownership. Howes:Janssen: Employment, Other: Leadership; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. James:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment; AbbVie: Equity Ownership. Hallek:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

AbstractPurpose/Objective(s)Bladder and prostate are unfavorable sites for rhabdomyosarcoma (B/P‐RMS), and represent a challenging location for radiotherapy.Materials/MethodsNineteen patients with B/P‐RMS were enrolled on a prospective registry protocol (2008‐2017) and treated with chemotherapy, proton beam therapy (PBT), and surgical resection (n = 8; 42%). Emphasis was given to treatment technique, disease‐related outcomes, and toxicity associated with PBT.ResultsThe majority of patients had bladder RMS (74%) of embryonal histology (95%), Group III (68%), and intermediate‐risk disease by Children's Oncology Group (COG) risk stratification (89%). Seven patients (37%) had primary tumors >5 cm in size. All patients were treated according to COG protocols. With a median follow‐up of 66.2 months, 5‐year overall survival (OS) and progression‐free survival (PFS) were 76%. Four patients (21%) experienced disease relapse, all presenting with local failure. The 5‐year local control (LC) rate was 76%. Tumor size predicted LC, with 5‐year LC for patients with >5 cm tumors being 43% versus 100% for those with ≤5 cm tumors (P = .006). Univariate analysis demonstrated an effect of tumor size on OS (tumor >5 cm, hazard ratio [HR] 17.7, P = .049) and PFS (HR 17.7, P = .049). Acute grade 2 toxicity was observed in two patients (11%, transient proctitis). Late grade 2+ toxicity was observed in three patients (16%; n = 1 grade 2 skeletal deformity; n = 3 transient grade 2 urinary incontinence; one patient experienced both).ConclusionsPBT for B/P‐RMS affords promising disease‐related outcomes with an acceptable toxicity profile. Higher local failure rates were observed for larger tumors, supporting dose‐escalation components of ongoing RMS clinical trials.