A systematic review of early phase studies for children and young people with relapsed and refractory rhabdomyosarcoma: The REFoRMS-SR project.

Rhabdomyosarcoma is the commonest soft tissue sarcoma in children. Around one-third of children with rhabdomyosarcoma experience relapse or have refractory disease, which is associated with a poor prognosis. This systematic review of early phase studies in pediatric relapsed/refractory rhabdomyosarcoma was conducted to inform future research and provide accurate information to families and clinicians making difficult treatment choices. Nine databases and five trial registries were searched in June 2021. Early phase studies of interventions for disease control in patients under 18 years old with relapsed/refractory rhabdomyosarcoma were eligible. No language/geographic restrictions were applied. Studies conducted after 2000 were included. Survival outcomes, response rates, quality of life and adverse event data were extracted. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment (Downs and Black Checklist) were conducted by two researchers. Owing to heterogeneity in the included studies, narrative synthesis was conducted. Of 16,965 records screened, 129 published studies including over 1100 relapsed/refractory rhabdomyosarcoma patients were eligible. Most studies evaluated systemic therapies. Where reported, 70% of studies reported a median progression-free survival ≤6 months. Objective response rate was 21.6%. Adverse events were mostly hematological. One-hundred and seven trial registry records of 99 studies were also eligible, 63 of which report they are currently recruiting. Study quality was limited by poor and inconsistent reporting. Outcomes for children with relapsed/refractory rhabdomyosarcoma who enroll on early phase studies are poor. Improving reporting quality and consistency would facilitate the synthesis of early phase studies in relapsed/refractory rhabdomyosarcoma (PROSPERO registration: CRD42021266254).

Research priorities for children's cancer: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: To engage children who have experienced cancer, childhood cancer survivors, their families and professionals to systematically identify and prioritise research questions about childhood cancer to inform the future research agenda. DESIGN: James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. SETTING: UK health service and community. METHODS: A steering group oversaw the initiative. Potential research questions were collected in an online survey, then checked to ensure they were unanswered. Shortlisting via a second online survey identified the highest priority questions. A parallel process with children was undertaken. A final consensus workshop was held to determine the Top 10 priorities. PARTICIPANTS: Children and survivors of childhood cancer, diagnosed before age 16, their families, friends and professionals who work with this population. RESULTS: Four hundred and eighty-eight people submitted 1299 potential questions. These were refined into 108 unique questions; 4 were already answered and 3 were under active study, therefore, removed. Three hundred and twenty-seven respondents completed the shortlisting survey. Seventy-one children submitted questions in the children's surveys, eight children attended a workshop to prioritise these questions. The Top 5 questions from children were taken to the final workshop where 23 questions in total were discussed by 25 participants (young adults, carers and professionals). The top priority was 'can we find effective and kinder (less burdensome, more tolerable, with fewer short and long-term effects) treatments for children with cancer, including relapsed cancer?' CONCLUSIONS: We have identified research priorities for children's cancer from the perspectives of children, survivors, their families and the professionals who care for them. Questions reflect the breadth of the cancer experience, including diagnosis, relapse, hospital experience, support during/after treatment and the long-term impact of cancer. These should inform funding of future research as they are the questions that matter most to the people who could benefit from research.