(Daniel Witt Corell) #1


Im trying to figure out which one to choose, if a relapse should happen?

Our Physician said if we ever came in that position, we would be enrolled in the BEACON trial.

But there is a lot of talk about hu3f8.

Booth trials is available in our hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Thanks for taking you time to answer.


(Shao) #2

What is BEACON trial? I met your doctor once when he was in Barcelona learning the Hu3F8 infusion. I believe HU3F8 is very effective to clear bone and bone marrow MRD. If relapse involves more tissues, your doctor may suggest surgery or other treatment like radiation.

(Daniel Witt Corell) #3

Got this from Nick on a neuroblastoma fb page.

Very nice answer.

Hi Daniel, it will depend on various factors. And most importantly, like you said, hopefully you’ll never get to that point. Firstly, it will depend whether either or both are still available should a relapse happen. As they are both clinical trials at some point they will enrol enough patients and close to recruitment so that the data can be analysed and results published. The next thing will be eligibility. The hu3F8 + GM-CSF study is for osteomedullary disease i.e. confined to the bones (with or without bone marrow involvement). So any soft-tissue relapse is not eligible. hu3F8 + GM-CSF has some data available in terms of response rates from single institution usage (I think it’s maybe around 30% for relapse?) but I don’t believe it’s generally been used as first-line relapse therapy. The wider study that is now open is to see is this can be replicated so that the treatment can be licensed for use in children with relapsed/refractory neuroblastoma. The BEACON study for first relapse is being amended to assess dinutuximab beta in combination with chemotherapy and will recruit around 64 patients across European countries - 42 to chemo+antibody and 22 to chemo alone. Children who are randomised to receive chemo alone will be able to crossover to receive chemo + antibody automatically if they experience further disease progression within 2.5 years of entering the trial. I would suggest that as of today they are both good options, and if somebody’s child is eligible for both then it’s a conversation between them and their oncologist as to which might be the better one to try first. BEACON is a first-relapse (and refractory) study so that might be factored in too. Whilst it’s tough having to make decisions such as this, at the end of the day we know that not all children will respond to any one particular therapy. And chemotherapy remains one of the most effective weapons even in relapse disease. So the bottom line is the more good options that are available for our children the better. Hope that helps in some way.