ArticleCancers2025
ESFT13: A Phase II Study Evaluating the Addition of Window and Maintenance Therapy to a Standard Chemotherapy Backbone for the Treatment of High-Risk Ewing Sarcoma.
Article in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
aimPatients with high-risk Ewing sarcoma (ES) have dismal outcomes despite aggressive multimodal therapy. This phase II, single-institution study evaluated the response rate to two up-front cycles of irinotecan, temozolomide, and temsirolimus (ITT) and assessed the tolerability of maintenance therapy following standard treatment in high-risk ES.
methodsEligible patients had newly diagnosed high-risk ES (age ≥14 years old, metastatic disease, or primary pelvic tumor). The therapy included two cycles of window therapy (ITT) followed by interval-compressed chemotherapy (vincristine, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide alternating with ifosfamide and etoposide) and maintenance therapy (cyclophosphamide, sorafenib, and bevacizumab). A two-stage sequential design was employed to assess a >50% WHO response (CR or PR) with 80% power. Patients who required emergent radiation were excluded from receiving window therapy.
resultsSixteen patients (median age 12.2 years; range 4.8-23.6 years) were enrolled (12 evaluable for overall response, 10 for primary tumor response). Only three achieved a PR to window therapy, leading to study closure. All evaluable patients demonstrated a decline in their primary tumor volume (mean decline: 32.5%, standard deviation: 17.6%,
conclusionsITT did not achieve the prespecified response rate of 50%, according to WHO criteria; however, all patients exhibited decreased volume and metabolic activity, highlighting the limitations of conventional response assessments. Maintenance therapy was feasible and well tolerated. Although limited by small sample size, heterogeneous disease presentations, and the absence of a control arm, this study supports further evaluation of ITT and a maintenance approach in larger, randomized trials for high-risk ES.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.