Rhabdomyosarcoma is the most common soft-tissue sarcoma in children in the United States with an incidence of 4.5 per million, which translates into approximately 350 new diagnoses per year. The use of risk-based multimodal therapies developed by cooperative groups has been largely responsible for improving the 5-year survival rates for this disease, which now exceed 70%. 1 Despite marked improvements in the outcomes of most children with rhabdomyosarcoma, survival rates for patients with metastatic disease and select patients with intermediate-risk disease, such as those with unresectable stage 2/3 tumors, have not significantly improved over the past 30 years. The Children's Oncology Group Soft Tissue Sarcoma Committee (COG-STS) has used vincristine, actinomycin, and cyclophosphamide (VAC) as the main backbone for treating rhabdomyosarcoma. To improve the survival of patients with intermediate-risk disease, the COG-STS conducted a series of clinical trials in which doses of active agents were intensified or novel agents such as camptothecins were incorporated. Promising activity was found in phase 2 window trials of patients with metastatic rhabdomyosarcomas. 2,3 For example, in a prospective single-arm trial of 115 patients with intermediate-risk rhabdomyosarcoma, dose escalation of cyclophosphamide to 4.5 g/m 2 did not result in improved outcomes and was associated with significant gastrointestinal toxicity. 4 In the prospective randomized trial D9803, 516 patients with intermediate-risk rhabdomyosarcoma were randomly assigned to receive VAC chemotherapy with a cyclophosphamide dose of 2.2 g/m 2 or VAC alternating with vincristine, cyclophosphamide, and topotecan (VTC; Table 1). The estimated 4-year failure-free survival and overall survival rates were similar for the 2 arms. 6 In the most recent trial ARST0531, which is the subject of this report, 448 patients with intermediate-risk rhabdomyosarcoma were randomized to receive VAC chemotherapy or VAC alternating with vincristine and irinotecan (VI). The 4-year event-free survival and overall survival rates were similar for both arms, but the VAC/VI arm had fewer hematologic toxicities and more gastrointestinal toxicities than the VAC arm. 7 On the basis of these results, the COG-STS adopted VAC/VI as the new backbone for therapy for patients with intermediate-risk disease in the ongoing study ARST1431.In a study published in Cancer, 8 Casey and investigators of the COG-STS report increased local failure rates in patients with intermediate-risk rhabdomyosarcoma enrolled in ARST0531. Eligibility criteria for this trial included a diagnosis of nonmetastatic alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma or incompletely resected embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma arising at unfavorable sites (stage 2/3, group III). Chemotherapy consisted of VAC at a dose of 1.2 g/m 2 or VAC alternating with VI. Local control started at week 4, and radiation therapy (RT) doses were tailored to the volume of the residual tumor. Patients with node-negative group I/II alveolar tumors received 36 Gy, whereas thos...