The addition of ifosfamide and etoposide to a standard regimen does not affect the outcome for patients with metastatic disease, but it significantly improves the outcome for patients with nonmetastatic Ewing's sarcoma, primitive neuroectodermal tumor of bone, or primitive sarcoma of bone.

VAC and VAI or VIE with surgery (with or without RT), are equally effective for patients with local or regional rhabdomyosarcoma and are more effective for embryonal tumors than therapies used previously. Younger patients with group 1 paratesticular embryonal tumors and all patients with group 1/2 orbit or eyelid tumors can usually be cured with VA chemotherapy along with postoperative RT for group 2 disease.

Intensification of therapy for most patients in IRS-III, using a risk-based study design, significantly improved treatment outcome overall. The largest gain from this strategy was realized in patients with gross residual tumor after biopsy (clinical group III). It was also possible to decrease therapy for selected patient subsets without compromising survival.

Background. Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study (IRS)‐II, (1978–1984) had the general goals of improving the survival and treatment of children with rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS). Methods. Nine hundred ninety‐nine previously untreated eligible patients entered the study after surgery and were randomized or assigned to therapy by IRS Clinical Group (I‐IV), tumor site, and histologic type. Outcomes were compared between treatments and with results of IRS‐I (1972–1978). Results. Patients in Group I, excluding extremity alveolar (EA) RMS, were randomized to standard vincristine (V), dactinomycin (A), and cyclophosphamide (C) or standard VA. At 5 years, disease‐free survival (DFS) and survival (S) rates were similar between VAC and VA (DFS:80%, 70%, P = 0.47; S:85%, 84%, P = 0.73). Patients in Group II, excluding EA RMS, received radiation and were randomized to intensive VA or repetitive‐pulse VAC. Outcomes were similar for rates of DFS (69%, 74%, P = 0.83) and S (88%, 79%, P = 0.17). Patients in Group III, excluding certain pelvic tumors, received radiation and were randomized to repetitive‐pulse VAC or repetitivepulse VAdrC‐VAC (Adr, Adriamycin [doxorubicin]). Complete remission (CR) rates were close at 74%, 78%, respectively (P = 0.32), as were percentages in CR (73%) and S (66%) rates; the latter outcomes were significantly better than IRS‐I (CR: 56%, P < 0.001; S:50%, P < 0.001). Central nervous system prophylaxis for Group III patients with cranial parameningeal sarcoma increased S rate to 67% from 45% in IRS‐I (P < 0.001). Patients in Group IV received the same regimens as Group III; the CR rate was 53%, 38% remained in CR and S rate was 27% with and 26% without Adr (P = 0.90). At 5 years, S rate for IRS‐II, including EA and all pelvic tumors, was 63%: an 8% increase over IRS‐I (P < 0.001). Outcomes by primary site were as good as, or better than, the IRS‐I experience. Conclusions. Combining all Groups and treatments in IRS‐II, the major improvement in S rate at 5 years between studies was in nonmetastatic patients (71% for IRS‐II versus 63% for IRS‐I, P = 0.01).

Alternative and complementary therapy use in pediatric oncology patients is common. Factors have been identified that may be associated with undertaking their use.