Abstract

Adolescents and young adults (AYA) with cancer have been designated as a vulnerable population by the National Cancer Institute. This group, defined by the ages of 16-39 years, has not enjoyed the same survival improvements over the past several decades as older and younger cohorts. Several barriers prevent the optimal delivery of oncologic care in this subpopulation. This review will describe these challenges in the context of the major hematologic malignancies affecting this population (acute lymphoblastic leukemia [ALL], acute myeloid leukemia [AML], Hodgkin lymphoma [HL], and non-Hodgkin lymphoma [NHL]). For example, historical differences in care delivery between pediatric and adult health care systems have created confusion about optimal treatment planning for AYAs, a population that spans the pediatric-adult divide. In the case of ALL, retrospective studies have demonstrated significantly better outcomes when AYAs are treated according to pediatric and not adult protocols. Additional challenges more specific to AYAs include increased treatment-related toxicity relative to younger patients; less access to care and, specifically, access to clinical trials; lower adherence to medications and treatment plans; and psychosocial stressors relevant to individuals at this stage of life. Recognizing and responding to these challenges in AYAs may create opportunities to improve the cancer outcomes of this group.

Introduction

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer are considered a “high-risk” group. Epidemiologic studies based on US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result (SEER) data show that survival improvements for all cancers among AYAs (defined as 16- to 39-year-olds) have lagged behind younger and older cohorts.1  The prognosis for younger individuals with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is superior to the prognosis for AYAs, and the prognosis for older individuals with other malignancies, such as breast cancer, may be better than that for AYAs.2  AYAs with cancer are also considered “high risk” because of unique sociological challenges in this population, including delays in diagnosis, insurance barriers,3  low rates of clinical trial enrollment,4  problems with adherence to medications and care plans,5  and psychosocial considerations including growing independence, young children at home, and supportive care needs.6  Recognizing this, in 2006 the National Cancer Institute convened an Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology Program Review Group (AYAO PRG).7  More recently, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and LIVESTRONG launched an initiative called “Focus Under Forty,” an educational curriculum for physicians to raise awareness about these issues (www.university.asco.org/focusunder40).

Hematologic malignancies in AYAs

A recent period analysis of survival among AYAs with hematologic malignancies in the United States presents a mixed picture of success.8  Although 10-year relative survival estimates have increased for all diseases between 1981-1985 and 2001-2005, survival rates among AYAs with hematologic malignancies have not matched the levels achieved by children, with the exception of Hodgkin lymphoma. Additionally, survival rates for AYAs with AML and ALL appear to have essentially plateaued in the 1990s. In contrast, outcomes for children younger than 15 years of age with these diagnoses appear to have continued to exhibit slow and steady improvement throughout the most recent periods of examination.9,10  Geographic variations in AYA survival rates in a European study suggest that nonbiologic factors related to care delivery may have an important impact on outcome.11 

Organization of pediatric and adult health care delivery

In the United States and around the world, pediatric and adult health care systems have evolved separately. Dedicated children's hospitals in many urban areas provide inpatient and outpatient services that are not geographically proximate to services provided for adults. Separate training programs and subspecialty societies have emerged within adult and pediatric medicine. Typically, the transition between pediatric and adult health care occurs around the age of 18 years, mostly for historical rather than biologic reasons. This separation has created challenges for AYAs, in part because most of the attention within each of these specialties naturally focuses on the “average” patient near the median of the respective age distributions, rather than at the margins, where AYAs reside. This can lead to confusion regarding optimal treatment approaches for AYAs.

For some diseases, AYAs with “pediatric-like” cancers fare better when treated by pediatric oncologists, and those with “adult-like” malignancies have better outcomes with adult oncologists.12  In pediatric oncology, standards of care for specific malignancies are essentially defined by ongoing clinical trials. Although specific protocols may differ worldwide, the clear majority of younger patients with cancer are treated at pediatric institutions on studies.13  Sequential studies evolve from one another in an iterative manner. In contrast, most adults are treated off studies in community settings.14,15  Thus, standards of care in adult oncology are based on previous studies, published guidelines, or historical experience, rather than explicitly defined by ongoing studies.

Many pediatric protocols have upper age limits exclusive of the majority of the AYA population, and many AYAs receive care off trial in adult health care settings.16  It is not clear whether AYAs would benefit more from pediatric-like treatment approaches, inspired by protocols designed to maximize treatment intensity while minimizing long-term and late effects, or from adult standards of care, typically designed for a population with a median age that is significantly higher. The following sections will review pediatric and adult treatment patterns and implications for AYAs within the major hematologic malignancies.

Ph-negative ALL

Incidence

Using US SEER data, annual rates for new diagnoses of ALL in the United States vary from 2.1-7.7/100 000 in children up to age 15, 0.6-1.7/100 000 in AYAs, and 0.6-1.8/100 000 in adults over the age of 40.

Pediatric

Pediatric approaches for the treatment of Ph-negative (Ph) ALL originated in the late 1960s and early 1970s, with the development of the original Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster (BFM) backbone. This treatment incorporated multidrug induction chemotherapy, early risk stratification, delayed intensification, central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis, and prolonged maintenance therapy. Carefully planned sequential trials within pediatric cooperative groups and institutions around the world demonstrated that continuous improvement can be achieved through study, modification, addition, or subtraction of individual components of therapy as well as methodical ongoing enhancements of supportive care. Recently, 77 studies from 15 study groups were re-analyzed to update long-term outcomes for 52 891 pediatric patients treated between 1980 and 2007. Together, these data showed cure rates of at least 80% by the end of the 1990s, and it is estimated that 85%-90% of children diagnosed with Ph ALL today will be cured.17  Recent findings from controlled pediatric studies that have led to further improvements include the recognition of the prognostic importance of minimal residual disease (MRD) and its use in subsequent treatment stratification18 ; the value of stronger early intensification for higher-risk patients19,20 ; the suggestion that cranial irradiation can be safely omitted from standard therapy21 ; and the role of dexamethasone as a replacement for prednisone as part of initial treatment.22,23 

Adult

Because of the high success rates achieved in pediatric Ph ALL, adult protocols emulated certain pediatric features. Most regimens included vincristine, a corticosteroid, and an anthracycline, with subsequent cycles including various combinations of agents and doses. More variation existed across adult regimens than pediatric regimens, and the timing and doses of the individual components from induction through consolidation, intensification, and maintenance in the adult regimens were usually not subjected to the same type of scrutiny through sequential trial design as was the case in pediatric trials. The Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) ALL regimen used a 5-drug combination modified from regimens used in high-risk pediatric ALL, given in 5 courses of treatment across 24 months. The Group for Research on Adult Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (GRAALL) 2003 regimen used similar agents in remission induction, with distinctions for good early responders and poor early responders, and then included agents in subsequent cycles with different timing, routes, and dosages than in the CALGB protocol. The HyperCVAD regimen, developed and refined at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC), omitted asparaginase and used cycles of hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone alternating with high-dose methotrexate and high-dose cytarabine. This regimen also included CNS prophylaxis with intrathecal methotrexate and intrathecal cytarabine. In general, the adult protocols achieved encouraging complete response rates to induction therapy (upto 80%-90%), although longer-term disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates have remained in the 30%-50% range for many years.24-27 

AYAs

In the early 2000s, several retrospective studies compared the outcomes of AYAs treated on pediatric or adult protocols for Ph ALL, and found markedly different results (Table 1). In France, 15- to 20-year-olds treated on the pediatric FRALLE-93 trial had a higher 5-year event-free survival (EFS; 67%) than those treated on the adult LALA-94 (41%, P < .0001).28  Similar differences were observed in other countries including the United Kingdom,29  Italy,30  the Netherlands,31  Sweden,32  Finland,33  and the United States,34  where adolescents on the pediatric Children's Cancer Group (CCG) study had a 7-year EFS of 63% compared with a 7-year EFS of 34% for those treated on the adult CALGB trial (P < .001). Explanations for these findings included differences between the protocols (examples provided in Table 2),35  with the pediatric studies including higher doses of the nonmyelosuppressive agents (corticosteroids, vincristine, asparaginase), earlier and more intensive CNS therapy, greater use of MRD to guide risk stratification, somewhat different timing and type of postremission therapy, and sometimes longer duration of maintenance treatment. Recent results from AYAs treated on pediatric-like protocols have been promising. In Spain, 6-year EFS and OS for 18- to 30-year-olds using this approach are 61% and 69%, respectively.36  The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute has successfully treated adolescents with an intensive, pediatric-like protocol (78% 5-year EFS in 15- to 18-year-olds) and has expanded this approach to adults up to the age of 50.37  Representative data presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting in 2010 showed a 5-year EFS of 57% and 5-year OS of 67% for AYAs (15- to 29-year-olds) in France treated on pediatric protocols38 ; data from M. D. Anderson showed 2-year OS and DFS of 91% and 85%, respectively, for patients up to the age of 25 years, and 2-year OS and DFS of 55% and 61%, respectively, for patients aged 25-40 years treated with pediatric-like BFM therapy.39  The large US pediatric and adult cooperative groups have collaboratively devised and are conducting a phase 2 study that enrolls AYAs up to the age of 39 on a standard pediatric ALL regimen (approach summarized in Table 3). Thus, in AYAs with Ph ALL, it seems (so far) that outcomes can be improved by using pediatric protocols. Mature trial data are awaited to confirm this hypothesis.

Table 1

Retrospective data for AYAs treated on representative pediatric or adult ALL protocols

TrialPediatricAdult
FRALLE-93/LALA-9428 5-y EFS: 67% 5-y EFS: 41% 
CALGB/CCG34 7-y EFS: 63% 7-y EFS: 34% 
MRC ALL 97-99/UKALLXII-E299329 5-y EFS: 65% 5-y EFS: 49% 
GIMEMA/AIEOP30 2-y OS: 80% 2-y OS: 71% 
HOVON/DCOG31 5-y EFS: 71% 5-y EFS: 38% 
Adult ALL Grp/NOPHO-9232 5-y OS: 74% 5-y OS: 39% 
Finnish Leukemia/NOPHO33 5-y OS: 67% 5-y OS: 60% 
TrialPediatricAdult
FRALLE-93/LALA-9428 5-y EFS: 67% 5-y EFS: 41% 
CALGB/CCG34 7-y EFS: 63% 7-y EFS: 34% 
MRC ALL 97-99/UKALLXII-E299329 5-y EFS: 65% 5-y EFS: 49% 
GIMEMA/AIEOP30 2-y OS: 80% 2-y OS: 71% 
HOVON/DCOG31 5-y EFS: 71% 5-y EFS: 38% 
Adult ALL Grp/NOPHO-9232 5-y OS: 74% 5-y OS: 39% 
Finnish Leukemia/NOPHO33 5-y OS: 67% 5-y OS: 60% 

EFS indicates event-free survival; and OS, overall survival.

Table 2

Examples of historical differences between adult and pediatric ALL protocols

ComponentDifference
Non-myelosuppressive drugs (glucorticoids, vincristine, L-asparaginase) Greater amounts in pediatric protocols 
CNS prophylaxis Earlier and with greater frequency in pediatric protocols 
Long-term maintenance therapy Longer duration in pediatric protocols 
ComponentDifference
Non-myelosuppressive drugs (glucorticoids, vincristine, L-asparaginase) Greater amounts in pediatric protocols 
CNS prophylaxis Earlier and with greater frequency in pediatric protocols 
Long-term maintenance therapy Longer duration in pediatric protocols 

CNS indicates central nervous system.

Table 3

Treatment approach for CALGB 10403/ECOG C10403/SWOG C10403, an intergroup phase 2 clinical trial for adolescents and young adults with untreated acute lymphoblastic leukemia

ComponentDurationAgents and days administered
Remission induction (extended remission induction also given to some patients, depending on D29 BMBx) 4 wk Intrathecal Ara-C (D1) 
  Intrathecal MTX (D8, 29) 
  Prednisone (D1-28) 
  Vincristine (D1,8,15,22) 
  Daunorubicin (D1,8,15,22) 
  Peg-asparaginase (D4) 
Remission consolidation 8 wk Intrathecal MTX (D1,8,15,22) 
  Cyclophosphamide (D1,29) 
  Ara-C (D1-4,8-11,29-32,36-39) 
  6-MP (D1-14, 29-42) 
  Vincristine (D15,22,43,50) 
  Peg-asparaginase (D15,43) 
Interim maintenance 8 wk Intrathecal MTX (D1,31) 
  Vincristine (D1,11,21,31,41) 
  Methotrexate (D1,11,21,31,41) 
  PEG-asparaginase (D2,22) 
Delayed intensification 8 wk Intrathecal MTX (D1,29,36) 
  Dexamethasone (D1-7,15-21) 
  Doxorubicin (D1,8,15) 
  Peg-asparaginase (D4,43) 
  Cyclophosphamide (D29) 
  Ara-C (D29-32,36-39) 
  6-TG (D29-42) 
Maintenance Repeated 12-wk courses Intrathecal MTX (D15, and D29 of first 4 courses of maintenance) 
 Total duration of maintenance: Vincristine (D1,29,57) 
     2 y from IM for females Dexamethasone (D1-5,29-33, 57-61) 
     3 y from IM for males 6-MP (D1-84) 
  Methotrexate (D8,15,22,29,36,43,50,57,64,71,78; held on D29 of first 4 courses of maintenance when IT is given) 
ComponentDurationAgents and days administered
Remission induction (extended remission induction also given to some patients, depending on D29 BMBx) 4 wk Intrathecal Ara-C (D1) 
  Intrathecal MTX (D8, 29) 
  Prednisone (D1-28) 
  Vincristine (D1,8,15,22) 
  Daunorubicin (D1,8,15,22) 
  Peg-asparaginase (D4) 
Remission consolidation 8 wk Intrathecal MTX (D1,8,15,22) 
  Cyclophosphamide (D1,29) 
  Ara-C (D1-4,8-11,29-32,36-39) 
  6-MP (D1-14, 29-42) 
  Vincristine (D15,22,43,50) 
  Peg-asparaginase (D15,43) 
Interim maintenance 8 wk Intrathecal MTX (D1,31) 
  Vincristine (D1,11,21,31,41) 
  Methotrexate (D1,11,21,31,41) 
  PEG-asparaginase (D2,22) 
Delayed intensification 8 wk Intrathecal MTX (D1,29,36) 
  Dexamethasone (D1-7,15-21) 
  Doxorubicin (D1,8,15) 
  Peg-asparaginase (D4,43) 
  Cyclophosphamide (D29) 
  Ara-C (D29-32,36-39) 
  6-TG (D29-42) 
Maintenance Repeated 12-wk courses Intrathecal MTX (D15, and D29 of first 4 courses of maintenance) 
 Total duration of maintenance: Vincristine (D1,29,57) 
     2 y from IM for females Dexamethasone (D1-5,29-33, 57-61) 
     3 y from IM for males 6-MP (D1-84) 
  Methotrexate (D8,15,22,29,36,43,50,57,64,71,78; held on D29 of first 4 courses of maintenance when IT is given) 

D indicates day; BMBx, bone marrow biopsy; IM, induction maintenance; and IT, interathecal.

Recommendations

There are no prospective studies that demonstrate that an adult-like or pediatric-like therapeutic approach is superior for AYAs with Philadelphia chromosome–negative ALL. However, multiple retrospective studies suggest that a pediatric-like approach may be superior in this patient population, and several cohort studies are beginning to demonstrate the feasibility of this approach. In general, because of the complexity of ALL treatment protocols and the importance of adherence to therapy, we recommend that AYAs with Ph ALL are treated in centers with significant experience in this disease. We also recommend that, if possible, AYAs with Ph ALL are enrolled onto prospective studies investigating pediatric-like approaches. Important unresolved issues needing study in the future include the role of stem cell transplantation in AYAs with Ph ALL who are in remission following pediatric-like therapy, and the preferred treatment approach for AYAs with Ph+ ALL.

Acute myeloid leukemia

Incidence

Using US SEER data, annual rates for new diagnoses of AML in the United States vary from 0.4-1.5/100 000 in children up to age 15, 0.9-1.3/100 000 in AYAs, and 1.6-23.2/100 000 in adults over the age of 40.

Pediatric

Pediatric AML trials in large institutions and cooperative groups have evolved sequentially in a manner similar to pediatric ALL trials. Although outcomes with AML have been worse, results have improved with time, with increasing success rates largely attributed to intensification of therapy and improvements in supportive care.40  Contemporary pediatric approaches (Table 2) often include 2 planned courses of induction chemotherapy, such as intensively timed IdaDCTER as used in CCG-2961,41  or the current Children's Oncology Group (COG) strategy (as in AAML0531)42  involving a later course of second induction timed by MRD-based risk. Postremission therapy typically includes at least 2 additional courses of intensive multi-agent treatment involving high-dose cytarabine. CNS prophylaxis is often used, although there is debate about its efficacy. Transplantation is typically reserved only for high-risk patients. In the CCG-2961 study, improvements in supportive care throughout the trial reduced treatment-related mortality from 18% at the beginning to 9% by the end. Complete remission, 5-year OS, and 5-year EFS for patients under the age of 21 were 88%, 52%, and 42%, respectively, with similar results internationally (including 5-year OS estimates 60% in several cases).43  More recently, in the Japanese AML 99 trial, patients under the age of 18 were risk-stratified to receive either one or two 2-week multi-agent induction courses and triple intrathecal therapy, followed by 5 or 6 consolidative courses using an etoposide and cytarabine backbone in addition to other agents. Reported results include a 5-year OS of 76% and 5-year EFS of 62%.44  At St Jude's and collaborative institutions, 232 patients up to the age of 21 were enrolled on the multicenter AML02 study. This included 2 courses of intensive 3- or 4-drug induction timed by MRD-based risk stratification, followed by 3 courses of cytarabine-based consolidation that also included cladribine, etoposide, L-asparaginase, or mitoxantrone, depending on the cycle. All patients received CNS prophylaxis. Reported 3-year OS and EFS were 71% and 63%, respectively.45 

Adult

Most adult patients with AML are not treated on clinical trials. Approaches to treatment off trial are derived from studies published years ago, and further established as standards of care by consensus recommendations.46  “Younger” patients (in adults, usually defined as 18-60 years of age) who can tolerate intensive treatment are usually offered one course of induction chemotherapy (“7 + 3”) consisting of 3 days of an anthracycline and 7 days of continuous cytarabine (100-200 mg/m2).47,48  The addition of high-dose cytarabine to induction typically increases toxicity without improving complete remission (CR) rates.49  There have been no convincing improvements demonstrated by adding additional cytotoxic agents (such as 6-thioguanine). The benefit of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor priming is uncertain, with at least one study showing a disease-free survival benefit for favorable-risk patients.50  Postremission therapy typically consists of up to 4 courses of consolidative single-agent cytarabine, with a landmark CALGB study showing a dose effect favoring monthly high-dose ARA-C (HiDAC) in patients under the age of 60.51  Multi-agent chemotherapy has not been demonstrated to add significant improvement to cytarabine alone.52  CNS prophylaxis is usually not a part of adult protocols. Multiple studies have demonstrated the strong influence of pretreatment cytogenetics on outcomes with standard therapy.53,54  Allogeneic transplantation is often offered to patients with poor-risk cytogenetic features, with a recent meta-analysis also suggesting a benefit for intermediate risk patients in first complete remission (CR).55  CR rates in younger adults are in the range of 60%-80% with 5-year OS between 30%-50%. Interestingly, among clinical trial protocols internationally, there is significant heterogeneity in the treatment intensities offered to adults. The German AML cooperative group treats all enrolled adults with a double-induction strategy,56  and a pilot study by this group using sequential dose-dense S-HAM with pegfilgrastim reported a 2-year OS of 69%-75% for patients with intermediate or favorable karyotypes.57  Similarly, the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) offers the same clinical trial backbone, which includes double induction and intensive consolidation, to all patients up to the age of 60, although patients over the age of 40 on a recent MRC trial demonstrated increased toxicity to more intensive therapy.58  In general, there appears to be a renewed interest in increasing the intensity of standard adult induction chemotherapy, as shown by a recent Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) study in which daunorubicin 90 mg/m2 was superior to 45 mg/m2 in adults under the age of 60.59 

AYAs

Unlike in ALL, there are few retrospective studies looking at the outcomes for AYAs treated on pediatric versus adult protocols. Side-by-side comparisons of representative differences in adult59  and pediatric42  AML strategies are shown in Tables 45. One initial effort comparing AYA outcomes on adult (CALGB and SWOG) versus pediatric (COG) studies was presented at the ASH annual meeting in 2010.60  In this retrospective study, which encompassed trials from 1986 to 2008, overall survival was noted to be significantly higher for the COG cohort than for the CALGB/SWOG cohort (45 + 6% vs 36 + 7%, P < .001). However, the COG AYA cohort (17.2 years) was younger than the CALGB (20.1 years) and SWOG (19.8 years) cohorts, which may have influenced these results. A separate study looked at patients under the age of 30 treated on the German AML-BFM 93/98, AMLCG 92/99, and AML SD HD 93/98A trials.61  Here, there were no differences in results from the pediatric and adult protocols for patients of similar ages, although the protocols were not that dissimilar. A third study, looking at outcomes from 2 institutions, found no difference in outcomes in patients up to the age of 21 treated on pediatric versus adult services, although these data spanned several years and included a variety of institutional protocols.62  There are no retrospective or prospective comparisons of AYAs treated with standard adult-like 7 + 3 induction and cytarabine consolidation versus intensive, pediatric-like strategies such as the St Jude AML02 study. Although treatment intensification appears to preferentially benefit younger patients with favorable prognostic features, the answer to whether AYAs with favorable cytogenetics fare better with pediatric-like rather than standard adult-like treatment remains unknown. Also unknown is whether intensive therapy in AYAs with intermediate-risk AML might render allogeneic HCT in first complete remission unnecessary.

Table 4

Generalizations regarding pediatric and adult AML treatment approaches

ComponentPediatricAdult
Induction cycles 
CNS prophylaxis Yes No 
Consolidation Multi-agent (example in Table 5Single-agent cytarabine 
Allogeneic transplant High-risk cytogenetic features Intermediate- and high-risk cytogenetic features 
ComponentPediatricAdult
Induction cycles 
CNS prophylaxis Yes No 
Consolidation Multi-agent (example in Table 5Single-agent cytarabine 
Allogeneic transplant High-risk cytogenetic features Intermediate- and high-risk cytogenetic features 

CNS indicates central nervous system.

Table 5

Treatment approaches on “standard arm” of recent phase 3 US AML protocols

ComponentAAML0531 (COG)42E1900 (ECOG)59
Induction Induction I:
    IT cytarabine
    Cytarabine 100 mg/m2 D1-10
    Daunorubicin 50 mg/m2 D1,3,5
    Etoposide 100 mg/m2 D1-5
    Induction II (timed):
    IT cytarabine
    Cytarabine 100 mg/m2 D1-8
    Daunorubicin 50 mg/m2 D1,3,5
    Etoposide 100 mg/m2 D1-5 
Induction:
    Cytarabine 100 mg/m2 D1-7
    Daunorubicin 45 mg/m2 D1-3 
Consolidation Intensification I:
    IT cytarabine
    Cytarabine 1 g/m2 Q 12 h D1-5
    Etoposide 150 mg/m2 D1-5
    Intensification II:
    IT cytarabine
    Cytarabine 1 g/m2 Q 12 h D1-4
    Mitoxantrone 12 mg/m2 D3-6
    Intensification III:
    Cytarabine 3 g/m2 Q 12 h D1,2,8,9
    L-asparaginase 6000 IU/m2 D2,9 
Cycle I:
    Cytarabine 3 g/m2 Q 12 h D1,3,5
    Cycle II:
    Cytarabine 3 g/m2 Q 12 h D1,3,5
    Autologous stem cell transplantation 
Allogeneic transplant High- or intermediate-risk (cytogenetics other than inv16 or 8;21, or FLT3 ITD-AR > 0.4, or > 15% marrow blasts after induction I) and HLA-matched sibling available; alternative donors permitted for high-risk patients High- or intermediate-risk (unfavorable or intermediate cytogenetics, WBCs at diagnosis > 100 000) and HLA-matched sibling available 
ComponentAAML0531 (COG)42E1900 (ECOG)59
Induction Induction I:
    IT cytarabine
    Cytarabine 100 mg/m2 D1-10
    Daunorubicin 50 mg/m2 D1,3,5
    Etoposide 100 mg/m2 D1-5
    Induction II (timed):
    IT cytarabine
    Cytarabine 100 mg/m2 D1-8
    Daunorubicin 50 mg/m2 D1,3,5
    Etoposide 100 mg/m2 D1-5 
Induction:
    Cytarabine 100 mg/m2 D1-7
    Daunorubicin 45 mg/m2 D1-3 
Consolidation Intensification I:
    IT cytarabine
    Cytarabine 1 g/m2 Q 12 h D1-5
    Etoposide 150 mg/m2 D1-5
    Intensification II:
    IT cytarabine
    Cytarabine 1 g/m2 Q 12 h D1-4
    Mitoxantrone 12 mg/m2 D3-6
    Intensification III:
    Cytarabine 3 g/m2 Q 12 h D1,2,8,9
    L-asparaginase 6000 IU/m2 D2,9 
Cycle I:
    Cytarabine 3 g/m2 Q 12 h D1,3,5
    Cycle II:
    Cytarabine 3 g/m2 Q 12 h D1,3,5
    Autologous stem cell transplantation 
Allogeneic transplant High- or intermediate-risk (cytogenetics other than inv16 or 8;21, or FLT3 ITD-AR > 0.4, or > 15% marrow blasts after induction I) and HLA-matched sibling available; alternative donors permitted for high-risk patients High- or intermediate-risk (unfavorable or intermediate cytogenetics, WBCs at diagnosis > 100 000) and HLA-matched sibling available 

COG indicates Children's Oncology Group; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; IT, intrathecal; D, day; Q, every; and WBCs, white blood cells.

Special cases: FLT3 ITD+ AML and M3 AML (APL).

The above discussion has addressed general treatment approaches for non-M3 AML, but 2 cases of particular contemporary interest deserve special mention. In both of these situations, several separate adult and pediatric trials are ongoing to define the roles of targeted therapies. The first involves “cytogenetically normal” AML with mutations identified in the FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) gene.63  Activating internal-tandem duplication (ITD) mutations have been associated with particularly poor prognosis, and European LeukemiaNet recommendations include allogeneic stem cell transplantation in first remission for patients with FLT3 ITD mutations.46  In recent years, however, several FLT3-tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been developed, and these are currently being tested in clinical trials. Data are emerging from combined chemotherapy/TKI phase 1/2 trials, and at least 6 phase 2/3 studies are ongoing in older and younger patient populations.63  There are no published data yet that prove the superiority of this approach to allogeneic stem cell transplantation in first complete remission for this poor-prognosis group. A second case that merits brief discussion is acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL).64  Unlike other subtypes of AML, complete remission rates are often greater than 90% with cure rates of almost 80%, an achievement made possible by the advent of all-trans-retinoic acid (ATRA) for this disease. Nonetheless, several treatment questions remain, including the role of arsenic trioxide (ATO) in induction or consolidation, the number of agents required in addition to ATRA for induction, and the value of extended ATRA maintenance. Some of these questions are being addressed in adult versus pediatric settings, such as the recently completed adult North American Intergroup trial that supports the value of using ATO in early consolidation.65 

Recommendations

There are no prospective studies or mature retrospective studies to guide the choice of a pediatric-like versus adult-like treatment approach for AYAs with newly diagnosed AML. We strongly recommend that, whenever possible, AYAs with AML are treated on protocols or referred to centers that have protocols available for which they are eligible. We also advocate for specific study of the issue of treatment tolerance in AYAs and whether pediatric or adult approaches are superior for this patient population. Off study, there are no current data to suggest that any approach beyond standard “7 + 3” induction therapy, cytarabine-based consolidation, and allogeneic stem cell transplantation for poor-cytogenetic-risk patients is preferred for AYAs with non-M3 AML. In the case of FLT3 ITD+ AML, patients who are willing to undergo transplantation and have an available donor should at least be offered transplantation as a treatment strategy until or unless FLT3 TKI–containing chemotherapy is proven by ongoing studies to be an acceptable up-front alternative. Regarding APL, we believe that questions regarding appropriate induction, consolidation, and maintenance strategies should be studied similarly in both pediatric and adult clinical trials, and that patients should be referred for enrollment onto these trials whenever possible.

Hodgkin lymphoma

Incidence

Using US SEER data, annual rates for new diagnoses of Hodgkin lymphoma in the United States vary from 0.1-1.2/100 000 in children up to age 15, 2.9-4.3/100 000 in AYAs, and 2.4-4.5/100 000 in adults over the age of 40.

Pediatric

Between 85% and 95% of patients up to the age of 45 with new diagnoses of Hodgkin lymphoma are cured,66  including 93% to 98% of children. Protocols include several different variations of multi-agent chemotherapy with or without radiation, with examples and doses provided in Table 6. Pediatric studies are now focused on early risk stratification and tailored treatment strategies to minimize late effects. The COPP/ABV regimen reduces total cumulative doses of alkylators (risk of t-MDS), doxorubicin (risk of cardiac damage), and bleomycin (risk of pulmonary toxicity).67  The Stanford V regimen68  includes only 12 weeks of treatment followed by low-dose involved-field radiation. The ABVE-PC regimen omits dacarbazine (from ABVD) in favor of etoposide in an effort to decrease the risk for male infertility. Low-dose involved-field radiation therapy is used judiciously, and some groups are attempting to omit radiation altogether. In the POG-9425 study,69  216 patients under the age of 22 with intermediate- or high-risk Hodgkin lymphoma were treated with 3 courses of ABVE-PC every 21 days, an approach that exceeded the dose densities for doxorubicin and vincristine used in escalated BEACOPP70  but entailed lower cumulative doses of drugs than many regimens. Rapid early responders then received 21 Gy to involved regions, and slow early responders received 2 additional ABVE-PC cycles before radiation. Five-year OS for the entire cohort was 95% with 5-year EFS of 84%. Ongoing COG studies continue response-adapted treatment and attempt to eliminate radiation therapy in rapid early responders with less than high-risk disease. The German GPOH-HD 2003 uses FDG-PET to stratify early response and direct additional therapy, using an OEPA71  (vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, doxorubicin) backbone for males and OPPA (procarbazine instead of etoposide) for females; in a previous study using this chemotherapy backbone, 5-year OS and EFS were 98% and 91%, respectively.72  The use of radiation therapy is significantly restricted in the GPOH-HD 2003 trial.

Table 6

Treatment approaches in ongoing US Cooperative Group protocols for advanced Hodgkin lymphoma

ComponentAHOD0831 (COG)S0816 (SWOG)
Initial therapy ABVE-PC × 2 (21-day cycles)
    Doxorubicin 25 mg/m2 D1,2
    Bleomycin 5 U/m2 D1, 10 U/m2 D8
    Vincristine 1.4 mg/m2 D1,8
    Etoposide 125 mg/m2 D1-3
    Prednisone 20 mg/m2 BID D1-7
    Cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 D1,2
    G-CSF 5 μg/kg daily (starting D4) 
ABVD × 2 (28-day cycles)
    Doxorubicin 25 mg/m2 D1,15
    Bleomycin 10 U/m2 D1,15
    Vinblastine 6 mg/m2 D1,15
    Dacarbazine 375 mg/m2 D1,15 
Interim assessment PET/CT PET/CT 
Consolidation Rapid early responders:
    ABVE-PC × 2
    Slow early responders:
    Ifos/vino × 2 (below), then ABVE-PC × 2
    Ifosfamide 3000 mg/m2 D1-4
    Mesna 3000 mg/m2 D1-4, to 12 h after ifos
    Vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 D1,5
    G-CSF 5 μg/kg daily (starting D6) 
PET-negative:
    ABVD × 4
    PET-positive:
    BEACOPP(escalated) × 6
    Bleomycin 10 U/m2 D8
    Etoposide 200 mg/m2 D1-3
    Doxorubicin 35 mg/m2 D1
    Cyclophosphamide 1250 mg/m2 D1
    Vincristine 1.4 mg/m2 D8
    Procarbazine 100 mg/m2 D1-7
    Prednisone 40 mg/m2 D1-14
    G-CSF 300 μg D8→count recovery 
Radiation therapy Risk-adapted radiation therapy (21 Gy) targeting regions of initial bulk disease or nonbulk disease with slow response No 
ComponentAHOD0831 (COG)S0816 (SWOG)
Initial therapy ABVE-PC × 2 (21-day cycles)
    Doxorubicin 25 mg/m2 D1,2
    Bleomycin 5 U/m2 D1, 10 U/m2 D8
    Vincristine 1.4 mg/m2 D1,8
    Etoposide 125 mg/m2 D1-3
    Prednisone 20 mg/m2 BID D1-7
    Cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 D1,2
    G-CSF 5 μg/kg daily (starting D4) 
ABVD × 2 (28-day cycles)
    Doxorubicin 25 mg/m2 D1,15
    Bleomycin 10 U/m2 D1,15
    Vinblastine 6 mg/m2 D1,15
    Dacarbazine 375 mg/m2 D1,15 
Interim assessment PET/CT PET/CT 
Consolidation Rapid early responders:
    ABVE-PC × 2
    Slow early responders:
    Ifos/vino × 2 (below), then ABVE-PC × 2
    Ifosfamide 3000 mg/m2 D1-4
    Mesna 3000 mg/m2 D1-4, to 12 h after ifos
    Vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 D1,5
    G-CSF 5 μg/kg daily (starting D6) 
PET-negative:
    ABVD × 4
    PET-positive:
    BEACOPP(escalated) × 6
    Bleomycin 10 U/m2 D8
    Etoposide 200 mg/m2 D1-3
    Doxorubicin 35 mg/m2 D1
    Cyclophosphamide 1250 mg/m2 D1
    Vincristine 1.4 mg/m2 D8
    Procarbazine 100 mg/m2 D1-7
    Prednisone 40 mg/m2 D1-14
    G-CSF 300 μg D8→count recovery 
Radiation therapy Risk-adapted radiation therapy (21 Gy) targeting regions of initial bulk disease or nonbulk disease with slow response No 

COG indicates Children's Oncology Group; SWOG, Southwest Oncology Group; D, day; BID, twice daily; PET-CT, positron emission tomography–computed tomography; G-CSF, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.

Adult

Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines suggest that for adult patients with early favorable Hodgkin lymphoma, standard treatment includes either ABVD alone or either ABVD or Stanford V with involved-field radiation therapy. Ongoing clinical trials for early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma in the CALGB, the EORTC, and the UK NCRI Lymphoma Study Group all use an ABVD backbone followed by positron-emission tomography (PET) to define early response and guide further therapy, which can be ABVD alone or escalated BEACOPP followed by IFRT. The German Hodgkin Study Group offers escalated BEACOPP as initial therapy for early-stage high-risk patients, and has recently published data showing the high efficacy of a relatively low-intensity treatment (ABVD × 2 followed by low-dose IFRT) for early-stage favorable-risk patients.73  For advanced-stage disease, several studies are looking at BEACOPP-, ABVD-, or Stanford V–based approaches (an ongoing German Hodgkin Study Group [GHSG] study again uses escalated BEACOPP followed by response-based treatment stratification), and many strategies do not include radiation. As most patients are treated off trial, physician factors including practice type and experience may play a significant role in the choice of initial therapy for many adult patients with Hodgkin lymphoma.74 

AYAs

Table 6 provides examples of pediatric and adult trials for Hodgkin lymphoma that are being conducted in the United States. At least 2 retrospective studies have looked specifically at AYAs receiving care on adult protocols for Hodgkin lymphoma. One of these, from British Columbia, showed no difference in important presenting features between adolescents (16-21 years) and young adults (22-45 years), and reported encouraging 10-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates of 77%-80% with 10-year OS rates of 89%-91% for the entire cohort.75  A more recent, similar analysis looking at adult protocols in Germany reported 6-year PFS and OS estimates of 80% and 94% for adolescents (15-20 years), and 80% and 91% for adults (21-45 years), although regression analyses showed age to be a significant predictor for OS (P = .004) and secondary malignancies to be more common in young adults (P = .037).76  Together, these data show generally favorable outcomes for AYAs with Hodgkin lymphoma. Current adult and pediatric treatment protocols for Hodgkin lymphoma share many similarities, so comparing an “adult-like” with a “pediatric-like” approach may be less relevant in this disease. Nonetheless, among the different competing treatment regimens, it is not known whether ABVE-PC, ABVD, Stanford V, OEPA, OPPA, BEACOPP, or something else represents the optimal initial treatment for AYAs with Hodgkin lymphoma, or what is the most appropriate use of IFRT in this patient population. As overall survival rates are generally high, the determination of “optimal therapy” would likely be guided by late-effect profiles among the different possibilities, as well as the relative efficacies of these different regimens in patients with the highest risk presentations.

Recommendations

There are no data available to suggest that any one regimen is clearly superior for the current treatment of AYAs with Hodgkin lymphoma. Many pediatric and adult cooperative groups have open trials that are investigating risk-adapted therapy and treatment de-escalation (or escalation) for early favorable or unfavorable responses. We strongly recommend that AYAs with newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma are referred to and enrolled onto available studies. The accumulation of the resulting data will be critical to determining the optimal treatment regimen, based on responses and late-effect profile, for this patient population.

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma: diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and anaplastic large cell lymphoma

Incidence

Using US SEER data, annual rates for new diagnoses of NHL in the United States vary from 0.5-1.2/100 000 in children up to age 15, 1.8-7.2/100 000 in AYAs, and 10.5-116.4/100 000 in adults over the age of 40.

Pediatric

Non-Hodgkin lymphomas are uncommon in pediatric patients, accounting for approximately 7% of cancers in patients younger than 20 years. Among these, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) accounts for 10%-20% of pediatric NHL, with incidence increasing in the second decade of life. DLBCL has often been included with other types of more aggressive lymphomas in pediatric protocols, and rituximab has not typically been part of standard therapy. In the FAB/LMB96 trial, 145 patients with DLBCL were treated with a COP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone) prephase, followed by 2 inductions with COPADM (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, adriamycin, high-dose methotrexate, intrathecal methotrexate), 2 consolidation courses with cytarabine and high-dose methotrexate, and a randomization to a maintenance course or not. Poor initial responders received more intensive treatment. In this trial, the 4-year EFS for patients with DLBCL was 92.7%77  and the randomizations to less therapy did not appear to impact results. BFM trials that include DLBCL similarly utilize a cyclophosphamide, high-dose methotrexate, cytarabine, and intrathecal chemotherapy approach with high-dose intensity during the first month of treatment, and also further intensify therapy for poor early responders.78  Anaplastic large cell lymphomas (ALCLs) are also uncommon in pediatric patients, accounting for 13% of pediatric NHL,79  and a variety of lymphoma-like and even leukemia-like protocols have been utilized. The POG treated 86 patients with ALCL on a 12-month multi-agent lymphoma protocol using induction followed by APO maintenance as well as intrathecal therapy; 4-year EFS and OS for ALCL patients were 72% and 88%, respectively.80  A recently published study included 217 ALCL patients up to the age of 22 treated on a protocol based on NHL-BFM 90, using 6 courses of induction chemotherapy (agents included dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, intrathecal therapy, methotrexate, ifosfamide, cytarabine, and etoposide) with or without additional vinblastine; 2-year EFS and OS rates for the trial population were 71% and 94%, respectively.81 

Adult

A variety of prospective, randomized adult trials have compared repetitive CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) chemotherapy (usually 6 to 8 cycles given every 21 days) with several other anthracycline-based regimens in the treatment of DLBCL, with no other regimen showing clear improvements in remission rate or survival.82  More recently, rituximab has been shown to produce significant benefits when added to CHOP. In the MInT trial, 824 patients with DLBCL who were younger than 60 years of age were randomized to 6 cycles of CHOP-like chemotherapy with or without rituximab; 3-year EFS and OS in the rituximab arm were 79% and 93%, respectively.83  Strategies under clinical investigation include increasing dose density (as in comparing R-CHOP-14 with R-CHOP-21) or using infusional regimens (as in comparing dose-adjusted R-EPOCH with standard R-CHOP). Adult standard of care for newly diagnosed DLBCL typically includes 6-8 cycles of R-CHOP-21–like therapy, with shorter courses and the addition of radiotherapy as possibilities for earlier-stage and/or bulky disease. For anaplastic large cell lymphoma, most adults are treated with multi-agent regimens including an anthracycline, such as CHOP.

AYAs

Important biologic differences exist between pediatric and adult DLBCL and ALCL, with pediatric patients more likely to have GCB subtype DLBCL84  and ALK+ ALCL,85  both of which are favorable prognostic features in these diseases.86,87  A large SEER-based study showed inferior outcomes for young adults with NHL (ages 20-29) in comparison with children (ages 0-19),88  with 75% of young adults and 85% of children alive at 5 years from diagnosis. However, the biologic features and treatment details for these patients were not known. There are no data available to suggest whether AYA patients with DLBCL or ALCL would benefit more from pediatric-like approaches to the treatment of these diseases or from standard adult R-CHOP– or CHOP-based chemotherapy.

Recommendations

Currently, standard of care for AYAs with DLBCL or ALCL who are not eligible for pediatric or adult studies includes either R-CHOP–like therapy (for DLBCL) or CHOP-like therapy with or without early autologous stem cell transplantation (for ALCL, depending on ALK positivity). Although there are biologic differences between pediatric and adult DLBCL and ALCL, it is intriguing that approaches to therapy for these diseases are markedly different when comparing pediatric trial and adult off-trial treatment settings. Further study to explore the upper age limits for the feasibility of intensive pediatric-like approaches for these diseases could be very helpful for this patient population.

Challenges for cancer care delivery in AYAs

Even if the optimal treatment plans for AYAs were to be clearly defined, several issues in this patient population present barriers to achieving the success rates seen in younger patients with hematologic malignancies.

Biology

Hematologic malignancies in AYAs are more likely to have unfavorable biologic features than the same diseases in children. The percentage of ALL patients with Philadelphia chromosome positivity increases with age,89  and among Philadelphia chromosome–negative patients, there are more unfavorable cytogenetic features and fewer favorable mutations in AYA patients.90  For example, an analysis of karyotypic data collected from more than 4000 childhood and adult ALL patients entered onto UK ALL treatment trials90 showed that good risk abnormalities such as high hyperdiploidy and the t(12;21)(p13;q22) translocation were more commonly found among younger patients, whereas iAMP21 and IGH translocations were found more commonly in older children and adolescents. Additionally, older children and young adults appeared to be more likely to have unspecified chromosomal abnormalities. Data from the MRC UKALLXII/ECOG2993 study demonstrate that cytogenetic subgroups other than the Philadelphia chromosome continue to have prognostic import in adult ALL.91  Similar findings were demonstrated in an analysis of patients ages 15-65 on the SWOG-9400 study.92  In AML, multiple studies demonstrate the prognostic importance of pretreatment cytogenetics in both pediatric93  and adult53,94  cohorts. In an analysis of data from the German AML-BFM 93/98, AMLCG 92/99, and AMLDG HD93/98A studies, investigators found that favorable cytogenetic profiles (t(8;21) and inv(16)) were found more commonly in patients ages 2-13 (32%) than in adolescents (25%) and young adults (22%). On the other hand, complex karyotypes were found more commonly in young adults (8%) than in adolescents (5%) or younger children (3%). Even in the absence of known prognostic cytogenetic differences, the inferior outcomes of AYAs relative to children on similar protocols in this study suggested that unmeasured age-related biologic changes were also important factors.61  In a recent Hodgkin lymphoma retrospective analysis of adolescents and young adults (ages 21-45) treated on GHSG studies HD4 to HD9, the distribution of histologic subtypes included 49.8% nodular sclerosing, 12.8% mixed cellularity, 3.7% lymphocyte-predominant/lymphocyte-rich, and 0.7% lymphocyte-depleted. The distribution of histologic subtypes in adolescents appeared to mirror the overall group. In contrast, earlier studies in pediatric Hodgkin cohorts95  have shown a higher proportion of patients with mixed cellularity and lymphocyte-predominant histology; taken together, this suggests that the adolescents in the GHSG study may have had more biologic similarities to adults than children, and lends support to the concept of biologic age-related differences in this disease.76  As previously noted, proportions of GCB subtypes among DLBCL cases are higher in children. In an analysis of 63 pediatric patients (up to 18 years of age) on the NHL-BFM 90 and 95 trials,84  investigators classified 43 of 52 evaluable cases as belonging to a GCB subtype by immunohistochemistry. These investigators further noted that in comparison with their own data on adult DLBCL, pediatric DLBCLs were significantly more likely to belong to a GCB subtype than adult DLBCLs (P < .001). In an earlier series, it had been noted that pediatric DLBCLs were more likely to be of the centroblastic variant than adults (83% vs 75%), were more likely to be of a “monomorphic centroblastic variant” (63% vs 21%), and less likely to be of an immunoblastic variant (7% vs 15%).96  Finally, with regard to ALCL, Gascoyne et al looked at clinical and laboratory findings in 70 adults with systemic ALCL who were treated with curative intent.85  In this study, the median age of patients with ALK+ variants was significantly younger than for patients with ALK variants (30 vs 61 years, P < .002), and ALK positivity independently predicted for overall survival. These observations again suggest important biologic differences in younger versus older patients with non-Hodgkin lymphomas.

Toxicities of treatment

Ongoing AYA ALL protocols as well as the AML trial experience in European groups have demonstrated the feasibility of delivering highly intensive “pediatric-like” treatment to AYAs. Nonetheless, toxicities increase with age. Toxicities in AYAs may be related in part to age-related differences in body mass index, hormones, and other factors.97  In the pediatric AIEOP-ALL 95 trial, the incidence of osteonecrosis was significantly higher in the older part of the cohort, with a peak incidence of 7.4% (compared with 1.6% in the entire cohort)98 ; this effect was also seen in the ALL-BFM 9599  and other studies. Children older than 10 years were significantly more likely to experience thromboembolic events on DFCI ALL protocols (44%) than younger children (4%), although this was in part related to higher doses of steroids in high-risk patients.100  Age has also been shown to be an independent risk factor for tumor lysis during ALL induction (in one study, 43% of patients age > 10 experienced tumor lysis syndrome vs 23% overall),101  as well as diabetic ketoacidosis (out of 797 evaluable patients in one study, 4 of 6 who experienced this condition were > age 10)102  and hyperglycemia more generally.103  Children older than 16 years were more likely to experience microbiologically documented infections on the CCG-2961 AML trial (hazard ratio 3.32),104  and children older than 10 years had higher rates of fungal infection after either intensive consolidation or transplantation on CCG-2891 (incidence rate ratio 2.763).105  In the AML-BFM 93 and AML-BFM 98 trials, age older than 10 years was associated with higher treatment-related mortality between days 15 and 42 (10.6% in age > 10 vs 8.0% overall),106  and at St Jude, age was demonstrated to be a risk factor for AML treatment-related adverse events (4.3% increase per year of age in the recent era)62  as well as death during induction therapy and death in first remission in both ALL (5.8% cumulative incidence of death in patients age > 10 vs 1.6% in patients ages 1-9) and AML (12.4% cumulative incidence of death in patients age > 10 vs 2.3% in patients ages 1-9).107  Obesity is more common in AYAs than in younger children, and has been independently associated with treatment-related toxicity in AML.108  An analysis of COG data concluded that age should be used to define risk for pediatric malignancies in a manner dependent on the morbidity of the considered treatment.109  The association of age with toxicity in adults undergoing intensive treatment is well documented, with a representative analysis showing a clear relationship between AML induction-related serious adverse events or mortality with age older than 60 (in this study, 21% induction mortality in patients aged > 60 vs 10% in patients aged < 60).110  Nonetheless, highly intensive approaches in younger adults are feasible.111 

Access and site of care

AYAs can be seen by either pediatric or adult oncologists for initial treatment. A study from the Utah Cancer registry showed that 47% of older adolescents with leukemia and 71% with lymphoma did not see a pediatric oncologist, and of those treated by adult oncologists, 72% were treated outside of an academic center.16  In Georgia, 36% of patients between the ages of 15 and 19 were treated at a COG institution, and 5-year actuarial survival rates for ALL were higher than for those not treated at a COG institution (86% vs 53%, P < .05).112  Similar data from Ohio showed that 47% of cancer patients between the ages of 15 and 19 were treated at a pediatric center, 25% at adult academic centers, and 29% at community hospitals.113  A study from Canada showed that 30% of adolescents were seen at a pediatric center.114  Underinsurance and uninsurance have been significant problems for AYAs. In a US study of 270 AYAs, having public or no health insurance was associated with a 13-week delay in diagnosis relative to having private insurance.3  Differences in insurance were hypothesized to be partly responsible for the inferior outcomes of AYAs on CALGB versus CCG trials.115  Low socioeconomic status was associated with reduced OS and NHL-specific survival among AYAs in a California cancer registry study.116 

Transition to adult care setting

Different expectations are placed on AYAs within pediatric versus adult health care systems in terms of the “role” of the patient,117  an issue highlighted by the literature about “transition” from pediatric to adult health care for children with chronic diseases such as cystic fibrosis118  and congenital heart disease.119  A recent study of participants with sickle cell disease in the Dallas Newborn Cohort found that although most children (94%-98%) lived to become adults, transition to adult health care was associated with a higher risk of death.120  Within oncology, transition issues are most obvious for survivors of childhood cancer who move into adult health care settings.121  Nonetheless, because “successful” transition includes meeting the specific developmental needs of a young population, this has implications for the design and implementation of treatment settings for AYAs with active malignancies.122 

Access to clinical trials

Whether AYAs are seen in pediatric or adult settings, clinical trial enrollment for this population is lower than for younger or older patients.4,123  In Northern England, 92% of 0- to 14-year-olds with leukemia were enrolled onto a clinical trial, compared with 60% of patients between the ages of 15 and 24 years.124  Throughout England, overall accrual rates for all patients with new malignancies between 2005-2007 were 25% for 15- to 19-year-olds and 13% for 20- to 24-year-olds,125  with another study estimating an enrollment rate of 8% among 35- to 39-year-olds.126  A study at the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh and the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute showed that 26% of AYA patients with new cancer diagnoses at the pediatric center were enrolled on a trial,127  and 4% of those seen at the adult center were placed on trials.128  Throughout the United States, it is estimated that 2% of cancer patients between the ages of 20 and 29 enter trials.126  Hypotheses vary but could be because of lack of available clinical trials, reluctance of physicians to offer clinical trials to this group of patients, or higher rates of patient refusal.

Adherence to medications and treatment plans

Critical to the outcomes of AYAs with cancer is the ability of these patients to receive all medications and treatments prescribed, which is in part mediated by adherence.129  Empiric data suggests that AYA patients with ALL and Hodgkin lymphoma are suboptimally adherent to prescribed cancer therapy.130  It is estimated that up to 63% of AYAs with cancer may not fully adhere to treatment regimens.5  Nonadherence tends to be compounded in AYAs because of factors131  such as growing independence, transition away from parental involvement, financial problems, competing life obligations, and lack of social support. In diseases such as chronic myeloid leukemia (not specifically discussed in this review), treatment is daily and lifelong, and nonadherence rates are estimated to be as high as 33%.132  Adherence to tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy has been found to be associated with levels of molecular response in this disease.133  For AYAs with newly diagnosed CML, challenges with medication adherence over potentially many years of therapy might have important effects on survival.

Other psychosocial considerations

Psychosocial issues in AYAs with cancer134  can be because of family factors (including amount of parental involvement, or conversely raising a family with young children at home),135  psychological/emotional challenges (cognitive development, educational attainment, available coping strategies, psychological resiliency), and social concerns (peer relationships and support, romantic relationships, job and financial security). Distress and psychosocial challenges among AYAs may be poorly identified by treatment providers.136  Psychological issues during treatment impact adherence, as discussed previously, as well as the potential for posttraumatic stress during cancer survivorship.137  Young adults with chronic conditions are at least as likely as peers to engage in risky behaviors,138  which might also affect cancer treatment outcomes. AYAs with cancer are likely to report specific information and assistance needs (such as around diet and nutrition, fertility options, complementary and alternative therapies, and health insurance), which often go unmet.139  Fertility considerations are recognized as increasingly important in cancer patients140  and may impact choices of anticancer therapy or the use of fertility preservation techniques. In some instances in which therapy is continuous and ongoing, as in CML, AYAs may want to explore the possibility of interrupting or continuing treatment while becoming pregnant and having children. This remains a relatively understudied area.141 

Observations and future research

AYAs are a particularly high-risk group among patients diagnosed with cancer, and this review has addressed some of the issues associated with AYAs with hematologic malignancies. With these challenges come opportunities. Our observations about approaches that might be used to study and improve outcomes in the AYA population are summarized here and shown in Table 7.

Table 7

Strategies for future AYA research and care

ApproachGoals
Build a “rapid learning” environment for AYA cancers through retrospective individual patient data analysis Better understand impact of disease biology, treatment strategy, and site of care on AYA outcomes 
Open pediatric “standard-of-care” trials for AYAs Evaluate efficacy and toxicities of pediatric treatment approaches for AYAs 
Establish AYA “centers of excellence” Understand and address barriers to AYA enrollment onto clinical trials 
Implement patient navigators for AYAs Address psychosocial and adherence barriers to receipt of cancer care by AYAs 
ApproachGoals
Build a “rapid learning” environment for AYA cancers through retrospective individual patient data analysis Better understand impact of disease biology, treatment strategy, and site of care on AYA outcomes 
Open pediatric “standard-of-care” trials for AYAs Evaluate efficacy and toxicities of pediatric treatment approaches for AYAs 
Establish AYA “centers of excellence” Understand and address barriers to AYA enrollment onto clinical trials 
Implement patient navigators for AYAs Address psychosocial and adherence barriers to receipt of cancer care by AYAs 

1. Collect and analyze data to form hypotheses regarding optimal treatment strategies for AYAs and to guide treatment planning.

“Rapid learning cancer care,” the subject of a recent National Cancer Institute and Institute of Medicine workshop, is a concept characterized as the use of “real-time clinical data to drive the process of scientific discovery, which becomes a natural outgrowth of patient care.”142  By creating continuously updated repositories of patient-level AYA data on and off pediatric and adult trials, this type of approach could be used to ask and answer the following questions: What percentages of AYA patients receive which kinds of treatments for the major hematologic malignancies, and where? For patients matched for known prognostic factors, which approaches produce the best outcomes? What are the early toxicities and late-effect profiles for each treatment, and who appears to be at most risk for adverse events? Retrospective comparative analyses have largely driven current clinical trial treatment strategies for AYAs with Ph ALL, but robust data sets might facilitate similar comparisons and ideas for AYA-based trials in the other major diseases.

2. Open sequential clinical trials designed for AYAs.

Analogous to the US phase 2 intergroup trial for AYAs with Ph ALL, trials might be opened for AYAs with other major hematologic diseases. The AYA Ph ALL trials have demonstrated the feasibility of extending intensive pediatric-like treatment approaches to young adults, as have some European cooperative group trials in AML. By moving past the typical pediatric upper age limit toward “age-unrestricted” approaches, trialists may be able to more carefully explore the biologic age-based limits of treatment tolerance and toxicity. In contrast, for some diseases, intensive treatment strategies for AYAs may not be necessary to produce optimal results. Age-unrestricted trials for AYAs may also permit careful study of the late-effect profiles of the usual pediatric and adult approaches. These approaches do not necessarily have to utilize novel agents and require large amounts of external funding, but could be designed mainly to determine whether pediatric or adult “standard-of-care” approaches are more appropriate for younger adults. An alternate approach to adding AYAs onto pediatric trials would be to open trials specifically for AYAs that look at pediatric- vs adult-inspired standard treatment approaches.

3. Establish academic AYA centers of excellence to facilitate community referral and clinical trial enrollment.

Although several institutions have begun to develop AYA programs,122  the incentives for clinicians to refer from community practices will be stronger if AYA-directed trials are available and open at these centers. With such infrastructure in place, barriers to AYA clinical trial enrollment can be more meaningfully studied.

4. Implement patient navigators with AYA expertise.

AYAs confront several psychosocial barriers to full receipt of appropriate care, as described in this review. A patient navigator143  with AYA expertise might be trained to recognize and address these barriers144  (such as underinsurance, adherence, social support, and other issues) by connecting AYAs with strategies and resources. The internet connectedness and social networking tendencies of AYAs may provide a rich resource to further identify and understand psychosocial issues.145,146  By studying and recording the experiences of patient navigators working with this population, the effects of this support on clinical outcomes could be quantified and future approaches to psychosocial support in this population could be further optimized.

These observations are a starting point for strategies that might improve the outcomes of AYAs with hematologic malignancies. Although directed toward AYAs, these principles are applicable broadly to many patients receiving cancer care, such as learning from real-time data, comparing competing standard-of-care treatment approaches, and tailoring patient navigation to the needs of specific populations. AYAs with cancer represent an important opportunity to improve overall cancer care.

Authorship

Contribution: W.W. designed research, performed research, analyzed data, and wrote the paper; and S.J.L. designed research, interpreted data, and critically analyzed the manuscript.

Conflict-of-interest disclosure: The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Correspondence: William A. Wood, MD, MPH, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Physician Office Bldg, 170 Manning Dr, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; e-mail: wawood@med.unc.edu.

References

References
1
Bleyer
 
A
Young adult oncology: the patients and their survival challenges.
CA Cancer J Clin
2007
, vol. 
57
 
4
(pg. 
242
-
255
)
2
Anders
 
CK
Johnson
 
R
Litton
 
J
Phillips
 
M
Bleyer
 
A
Breast cancer before age 40 years.
Semin Oncol
2009
, vol. 
36
 
3
(pg. 
237
-
249
)
3
Martin
 
S
Ulrich
 
C
Munsell
 
M
Taylor
 
S
Lange
 
G
Bleyer
 
A
Delays in cancer diagnosis in underinsured young adults and older adolescents.
Oncologist
2007
, vol. 
12
 
7
(pg. 
816
-
824
)
4
Burke
 
M
Albritton
 
K
Marina
 
N
Challenges in the recruitment of adolescents and young adults to cancer clinical trials.
Cancer
2007
, vol. 
110
 
11
(pg. 
2385
-
2393
)
5
Kondryn
 
HJ
Edmondson
 
CL
Hill
 
J
Eden
 
TO
Treatment non-adherence in teenage and young adult patients with cancer.
Lancet Oncol
2011
, vol. 
12
 
1
(pg. 
100
-
108
)
6
Zebrack
 
B
Bleyer
 
A
Albritton
 
K
Medearis
 
S
Tang
 
J
Assessing the health care needs of adolescent and young adult cancer patients and survivors.
Cancer
2006
, vol. 
107
 
12
(pg. 
2915
-
2923
)
7
Thomas
 
DM
Albritton
 
KH
Ferrari
 
A
Adolescent and young adult oncology: an emerging field.
J Clin Oncol
2010
, vol. 
28
 
32
(pg. 
4781
-
4782
)
8
Pulte
 
D
Gondos
 
A
Brenner
 
H
Trends in survival after diagnosis with hematologic malignancy in adolescence or young adulthood in the United States, 1981-2005.
Cancer
2009
, vol. 
115
 
21
(pg. 
4973
-
4979
)
9
Pulte
 
D
Gondos
 
A
Brenner
 
H
Trends in 5- and 10-year survival after diagnosis with childhood hematologic malignancies in the United States, 1990-2004.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2008
, vol. 
100
 
18
(pg. 
1301
-
1309
)
10
Smith
 
M
Seibel
 
N
Altekruse
 
S
, et al. 
Outcomes for children and adolescents with cancer: challenges for the twenty-first century.
J Clin Oncol
2010
, vol. 
28
 
15
(pg. 
2625
-
2634
)
11
Gatta
 
G
Capocaccia
 
R
De Angelis
 
R
Stiller
 
C
Coebergh
 
JW
Cancer survival in European adolescents and young adults.
Eur J Cancer
2003
, vol. 
39
 
18
(pg. 
2600
-
2610
)
12
Bleyer
 
A
The Quid Pro Quo of pediatric versus adult services for older adolescent cancer patients.
Pediatr Blood Cancer
2010
, vol. 
54
 
2
(pg. 
238
-
241
)
13
Liu
 
L
Krailo
 
M
Reaman
 
GH
Bernstein
 
L
Childhood cancer patients' access to cooperative group cancer programs: a population-based study.
Cancer
2003
, vol. 
97
 
5
(pg. 
1339
-
1345
)
14
Go
 
RS
Frisby
 
KA
Lee
 
JA
, et al. 
Clinical trial accrual among new cancer patients at a community-based cancer center.
Cancer
2006
, vol. 
106
 
2
(pg. 
426
-
433
)
15
Lara
 
PN
Higdon
 
R
Lim
 
N
, et al. 
Prospective evaluation of cancer clinical trial accrual patterns: identifying potential barriers to enrollment.
J Clin Oncol
2001
, vol. 
19
 
6
(pg. 
1728
-
1733
)
16
Albritton
 
KH
Wiggins
 
CH
Nelson
 
HE
Weeks
 
JC
Site of oncologic specialty care for older adolescents in Utah.
J Clin Oncol
2007
, vol. 
25
 
29
(pg. 
4616
-
4621
)
17
Schrappe
 
M
Nachman
 
J
Hunger
 
S
, et al. 
Educational symposium on long-term results of large prospective clinical trials for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (1985-2000).
Leukemia
2010
, vol. 
24
 
2
(pg. 
253
-
254
)
18
Borowitz
 
MJ
Devidas
 
M
Hunger
 
SP
, et al. 
Clinical significance of minimal residual disease in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia and its relationship to other prognostic factors: a Children's Oncology Group study.
Blood
2008
, vol. 
111
 
12
(pg. 
5477
-
5485
)
19
Seibel
 
N
Steinherz
 
P
Sather
 
H
, et al. 
Early postinduction intensification therapy improves survival for children and adolescents with high-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a report from the Children's Oncology Group.
Blood
2008
, vol. 
111
 
5
(pg. 
2548
-
2555
)
20
Nachman
 
J
La
 
M
Hunger
 
S
, et al. 
Young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia have an excellent outcome with chemotherapy alone and benefit from intensive postinduction treatment: a report from the children's oncology group.
J Clin Oncol
2009
, vol. 
27
 
31
(pg. 
5189
-
5194
)
21
Pui
 
C
Campana
 
D
Pei
 
D
, et al. 
Treating childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia without cranial irradiation.
N Engl J Med
2009
, vol. 
360
 
26
(pg. 
2730
-
2741
)
22
Bostrom
 
BC
Sensel
 
MR
Sather
 
HN
, et al. 
Dexamethasone versus prednisone and daily oral versus weekly intravenous mercaptopurine for patients with standard-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a report from the Children's Cancer Group.
Blood
2003
, vol. 
101
 
10
(pg. 
3809
-
3817
)
23
Mitchell
 
CD
Richards
 
SM
Kinsey
 
SE
Lilleyman
 
J
Vora
 
A
Eden
 
TO
Benefit of dexamethasone compared with prednisolone for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: results of the UK Medical Research Council ALL97 randomized trial.
Br J Haematol
2005
, vol. 
129
 
6
(pg. 
734
-
745
)
24
Linker
 
C
Damon
 
L
Ries
 
C
Navarro
 
W
Intensified and shortened cyclical chemotherapy for adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
J Clin Oncol
2002
, vol. 
20
 
10
(pg. 
2464
-
2471
)
25
Kantarjian
 
H
Thomas
 
D
O'Brien
 
S
, et al. 
Long-term follow-up results of hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (Hyper-CVAD), a dose-intensive regimen, in adult acute lymphocytic leukemia.
Cancer
2004
, vol. 
101
 
12
(pg. 
2788
-
2801
)
26
Thomas
 
X
Boiron
 
JM
Huguet
 
F
, et al. 
Outcome of treatment in adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: analysis of the LALA-94 trial.
J Clin Oncol
2004
, vol. 
22
 
20
(pg. 
4075
-
4086
)
27
Larson
 
RA
The U.S. trials in adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Ann Hematol
2004
, vol. 
83
 
suppl 1
(pg. 
S127
-
S128
)
28
Boissel
 
N
Auclerc
 
M
Lhéritier
 
V
, et al. 
Should adolescents with acute lymphoblastic leukemia be treated as old children or young adults? Comparison of the French FRALLE-93 and LALA-94 trials.
J Clin Oncol
2003
, vol. 
21
 
5
(pg. 
774
-
780
)
29
Ramanujachar
 
R
Richards
 
S
Hann
 
I
, et al. 
Adolescents with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: outcome on UK national paediatric (ALL97) and adult (UKALLXII/E2993) trials.
Pediatr Blood Cancer
2007
, vol. 
48
 
3
(pg. 
254
-
261
)
30
Testi
 
AM
Valsecchi
 
MG
Conter
 
V
, et al. 
Difference in outcome of adolescents with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) enrolled in pediatric (AIEOP) and adult (GIMEMA) protocols.
Blood (ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts)
2004
, vol. 
104
 
11
 
Abstract 1954
31
de Bont
 
JM
van der Holt
 
B
Dekker
 
AW
van der Does-van den Berg
 
A
Sonneveld
 
P
Pieters
 
R
[Adolescents with acute lymphatic leukaemia achieve significantly better results when treated following Dutch paediatric oncology protocols than with adult protocols].
Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde
2005
, vol. 
149
 
8
(pg. 
400
-
406
)
32
Hallbook
 
H
Gustafsson
 
G
Smedmyr
 
B
Soderhall
 
S
Heyman
 
M
Treatment outcome in young adults and children >10 years of age with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in Sweden: a comparison between a pediatric protocol and an adult protocol.
Cancer
2006
, vol. 
107
 
7
(pg. 
1551
-
1561
)
33
Usvasalo
 
A
Raty
 
R
Knuutila
 
S
, et al. 
Acute lymphoblastic leukemia in adolescents and young adults in Finland.
Haematologica
2008
, vol. 
93
 
8
(pg. 
1161
-
1168
)
34
Stock
 
W
La
 
M
Sanford
 
B
, et al. 
What determines the outcomes for adolescents and young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated on cooperative group protocols? A comparison of Children's Cancer Group and Cancer and Leukemia Group B studies.
Blood
2008
, vol. 
112
 
5
(pg. 
1646
-
1654
)
35
Stock
 
W
Adolescents and young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program
2010
, vol. 
2010
 (pg. 
21
-
29
)
36
Ribera
 
JM
Oriol
 
A
Sanz
 
MA
, et al. 
Comparison of the results of the treatment of adolescents and young adults with standard-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia with the Programa Espanol de Tratamiento en Hematologia pediatric-based protocol ALL-96.
J Clin Oncol
2008
, vol. 
26
 
11
(pg. 
1843
-
1849
)
37
Barry
 
E
DeAngelo
 
DJ
Neuberg
 
D
, et al. 
Favorable outcome for adolescents with acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated on Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Consortium Protocols.
J Clin Oncol
2007
, vol. 
25
 
7
(pg. 
813
-
819
)
38
Cluzeau
 
T
Dhedin
 
N
Huguet
 
F
, et al. 
A pediatric treatment of Ph-negative Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is effective and safe in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) until 29 years of age.
Blood (ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts)
2010
, vol. 
116
 
21
 
Abstract 2125
39
Rytting
 
ME
Kantarjian
 
HM
Thomas
 
DA
, et al. 
Adolescent and young adult patients treated with modified augmented Berlin-Frankfurt-Muenster therapy.
Blood (ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts
2010
, vol. 
116
 
21
 
Abstract 3250
40
Woods
 
WG
Curing childhood acute myeloid leukemia (AML) at the half-way point: promises to keep and miles to go before we sleep.
Pediatr Blood Cancer
2006
, vol. 
46
 
5
(pg. 
565
-
569
)
41
Lange
 
BJ
Smith
 
FO
Feusner
 
J
, et al. 
Outcomes in CCG-2961, a children's oncology group phase 3 trial for untreated pediatric acute myeloid leukemia: a report from the children's oncology group.
Blood
2008
, vol. 
111
 
3
(pg. 
1044
-
1053
)
42
Gamis
 
AS
Alonzo
 
TA
Gerbing
 
RB
, et al. 
Remission rates in childhood acute myeloid leukemia (AML) utilizing a dose-intensive induction regimen with or without gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO): initial results from the Children's Oncology Group Phase III Trial, AAML0531.
Blood (ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts
2010
, vol. 
116
 
21
 
Abstract 182
43
Gibson
 
BE
Wheatley
 
K
Hann
 
IM
, et al. 
Treatment strategy and long-term results in paediatric patients treated in consecutive UK AML trials.
Leukemia
2005
, vol. 
19
 
12
(pg. 
2130
-
2138
)
44
Tsukimoto
 
I
Tawa
 
A
Horibe
 
K
, et al. 
Risk-stratified therapy and the intensive use of cytarabine improves the outcome in childhood acute myeloid leukemia: the AML99 trial from the Japanese Childhood AML Cooperative Study Group.
J Clin Oncol
2009
, vol. 
27
 
24
(pg. 
4007
-
4013
)
45
Rubnitz
 
JE
Inaba
 
H
Dahl
 
G
, et al. 
Minimal residual disease-directed therapy for childhood acute myeloid leukaemia: results of the AML02 multicentre trial.
Lancet Oncol
2010
, vol. 
11
 
6
(pg. 
543
-
552
)
46
Dohner
 
H
Estey
 
EH
Amadori
 
S
, et al. 
Diagnosis and management of acute myeloid leukemia in adults: recommendations from an international expert panel, on behalf of the European LeukemiaNet.
Blood
2010
, vol. 
115
 
3
(pg. 
453
-
474
)
47
Lowenberg
 
B
Griffin
 
JD
Tallman
 
MS
Acute myeloid leukemia and acute promyelocytic leukemia.
Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program
2003
(pg. 
82
-
101
)
48
Estey
 
E
Dohner
 
H
Acute myeloid leukaemia.
Lancet
2006
, vol. 
368
 
9550
(pg. 
1894
-
1907
)
49
Weick
 
JK
Kopecky
 
KJ
Appelbaum
 
FR
, et al. 
A randomized investigation of high-dose versus standard-dose cytosine arabinoside with daunorubicin in patients with previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia: a Southwest Oncology Group study.
Blood
1996
, vol. 
88
 
8
(pg. 
2841
-
2851
)
50
Lowenberg
 
B
van Putten
 
W
Theobald
 
M
, et al. 
Effect of priming with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on the outcome of chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia.
N Engl J Med
2003
, vol. 
349
 
8
(pg. 
743
-
752
)
51
Mayer
 
RJ
Davis
 
RB
Schiffer
 
CA
, et al. 
Intensive postremission chemotherapy in adults with acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer and Leukemia Group B.
N Engl J Med
1994
, vol. 
331
 
14
(pg. 
896
-
903
)
52
Moore
 
JO
George
 
SL
Dodge
 
RK
, et al. 
Sequential multiagent chemotherapy is not superior to high-dose cytarabine alone as postremission intensification therapy for acute myeloid leukemia in adults under 60 years of age: Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study 9222.
Blood
2005
, vol. 
105
 
9
(pg. 
3420
-
3427
)
53
Grimwade
 
D
Hills
 
RK
Moorman
 
AV
, et al. 
Refinement of cytogenetic classification in acute myeloid leukemia: determination of prognostic significance of rare recurring chromosomal abnormalities among 5876 younger adult patients treated in the United Kingdom Medical Research Council trials.
Blood
2010
, vol. 
116
 
3
(pg. 
354
-
365
)
54
Schlenk
 
RF
Dohner
 
K
Krauter
 
J
, et al. 
Mutations and treatment outcome in cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia.
N Engl J Med
2008
, vol. 
358
 
18
(pg. 
1909
-
1918
)
55
Koreth
 
J
Schlenk
 
R
Kopecky
 
KJ
, et al. 
Allogeneic stem cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia in first complete remission: systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective clinical trials.
JAMA
2009
, vol. 
301
 
22
(pg. 
2349
-
2361
)
56
Buchner
 
T
Berdel
 
WE
Haferlach
 
C
, et al. 
Age-related risk profile and chemotherapy dose response in acute myeloid leukemia: a study by the German Acute Myeloid Leukemia Cooperative Group.
J Clin Oncol
2009
, vol. 
27
 
1
(pg. 
61
-
69
)
57
Braess
 
J
Spiekermann
 
K
Staib
 
P
, et al. 
Dose-dense induction with sequential high-dose cytarabine and mitoxantone (S-HAM) and pegfilgrastim results in a high efficacy and a short duration of critical neutropenia in de novo acute myeloid leukemia: a pilot study of the AMLCG.
Blood
2009
, vol. 
113
 
17
(pg. 
3903
-
3910
)
58
Burnett
 
AK
Milligan
 
D
Goldstone
 
A
, et al. 
The impact of dose escalation and resistance modulation in older patients with acute myeloid leukaemia and high risk myelodysplastic syndrome: the results of the LRF AML14 trial.
Br J Haematol
2009
, vol. 
145
 
3
(pg. 
318
-
332
)
59
Fernandez
 
HF
Sun
 
Z
Yao
 
X
, et al. 
Anthracycline dose intensification in acute myeloid leukemia.
N Engl J Med
2009
, vol. 
361
 
13
(pg. 
1249
-
1259
)
60
Franklin
 
ARK
Alonzo
 
TA
Gerbing
 
RB
, et al. 
Outcome of Adolescents and Young Adults (AYAs) with Non-M3 Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Treated on Children's Oncology Group (COG) Trials Compared to Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) and Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) Trials.
Blood (ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts
2010
, vol. 
116
 
21
 
Abstract 183
61
Creutzig
 
U
Buchner
 
T
Sauerland
 
MC
, et al. 
Significance of age in acute myeloid leukemia patients younger than 30 years: a common analysis of the pediatric trials AML-BFM 93/98 and the adult trials AMLCG 92/99 and AMLSG HD93/98A.
Cancer
2008
, vol. 
112
 
3
(pg. 
562
-
571
)
62
Razzouk
 
BI
Estey
 
E
Pounds
 
S
, et al. 
Impact of age on outcome of pediatric acute myeloid leukemia: a report from 2 institutions.
Cancer
2006
, vol. 
106
 
11
(pg. 
2495
-
2502
)
63
Kindler
 
T
Lipka
 
DB
Fischer
 
T
FLT3 as a therapeutic target in AML: still challenging after all these years.
Blood
2010
, vol. 
116
 
24
(pg. 
5089
-
5102
)
64
Sanz
 
MA
Lo-Coco
 
F
Modern approaches to treating acute promyelocytic leukemia.
J Clin Oncol
2011
, vol. 
29
 
5
(pg. 
495
-
503
)
65
Powell
 
BL
Moser
 
B
Stock
 
W
, et al. 
Arsenic trioxide improves event-free and overall survival for adults with acute promyelocytic leukemia: North American Leukemia Intergroup Study C9710.
Blood
2010
, vol. 
116
 
19
(pg. 
3751
-
3757
)
66
Brenner
 
H
Gondos
 
A
Pulte
 
D
Ongoing improvement in long-term survival of patients with Hodgkin disease at all ages and recent catch-up of older patients.
Blood
2008
, vol. 
111
 
6
(pg. 
2977
-
2983
)
67
Nachman
 
J
Sposto
 
R
Herzog
 
P
, et al. 
Randomized comparison of low-dose involved-field radiotherapy and no radiotherapy for children with Hodgkin's disease who achieve a complete response to chemotherapy.
J Clin Oncol
2002
, vol. 
20
 
18
(pg. 
3765
-
3771
)
68
Horning
 
SJ
Hoppe
 
RT
Breslin
 
S
Bartlett
 
NL
Brown
 
BW
Rosenberg
 
SA
Stanford V and radiotherapy for locally extensive and advanced Hodgkin's disease: mature results of a prospective clinical trial.
J Clin Oncol
2002
, vol. 
20
 
3
(pg. 
630
-
637
)
69
Schwartz
 
C
Constine
 
L
Villaluna
 
D
, et al. 
A risk-adapted, response-based approach using ABVE-PC for children and adolescents with intermediate- and high-risk Hodgkin lymphoma: the results of P9425.
Blood
2009
, vol. 
114
 
10
(pg. 
2051
-
2059
)
70
Engert
 
A
Diehl
 
V
Franklin
 
J
, et al. 
Escalated-dose BEACOPP in the treatment of patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma: 10 years of follow-up of the GHSG HD9 study.
J Clin Oncol
2009
, vol. 
27
 
27
(pg. 
4548
-
4554
)
71
Ruhl
 
U
Albrecht
 
M
Dieckmann
 
K
, et al. 
Response-adapted radiotherapy in the treatment of pediatric Hodgkin's disease: an interim report at 5 years of the German GPOH-HD 95 trial.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
2001
, vol. 
51
 
5
(pg. 
1209
-
1218
)
72
Schellong
 
G
Pötter
 
R
Brämswig
 
J
, et al. 
High cure rates and reduced long-term toxicity in pediatric Hodgkin's disease: the German-Austrian multicenter trial DAL-HD-90. The German-Austrian Pediatric Hodgkin's Disease Study Group.
J Clin Oncol
1999
, vol. 
17
 
12
(pg. 
3736
-
3744
)
73
Engert
 
A
Plütschow
 
A
Eich
 
H
, et al. 
Reduced treatment intensity in patients with early-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma.
N Engl J Med
2010
, vol. 
363
 
7
(pg. 
640
-
652
)
74
Ng
 
AK
Li
 
S
Neuberg
 
D
Silver
 
B
Weeks
 
J
Mauch
 
P
Factors influencing treatment recommendations in early-stage Hodgkin's disease: a survey of physicians.
Ann Oncol
2004
, vol. 
15
 
2
(pg. 
261
-
269
)
75
Foltz
 
LM
Song
 
KW
Connors
 
JM
Hodgkin's lymphoma in adolescents.
J Clin Oncol
2006
, vol. 
24
 
16
(pg. 
2520
-
2526
)
76
Eichenauer
 
D
Bredenfeld
 
H
Haverkamp
 
H
, et al. 
Hodgkin's lymphoma in adolescents treated with adult protocols: a report from the German Hodgkin study group.
J Clin Oncol
2009
, vol. 
27
 
36
(pg. 
6079
-
6085
)
77
Patte
 
C
Auperin
 
A
Gerrard
 
M
, et al. 
Results of the randomized international FAB/LMB96 trial for intermediate risk B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma in children and adolescents: it is possible to reduce treatment for the early responding patients.
Blood
2007
, vol. 
109
 
7
(pg. 
2773
-
2780
)
78
Reiter
 
A
Schrappe
 
M
Tiemann
 
M
, et al. 
Improved treatment results in childhood B-cell neoplasms with tailored intensification of therapy: a report of the Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster Group Trial NHL-BFM 90.
Blood
1999
, vol. 
94
 
10
(pg. 
3294
-
3306
)
79
Drexler
 
HG
Gignac
 
SM
von Wasielewski
 
R
Werner
 
M
Dirks
 
WG
Pathobiology of NPM-ALK and variant fusion genes in anaplastic large cell lymphoma and other lymphomas.
Leukemia
2000
, vol. 
14
 
9
(pg. 
1533
-
1559
)
80
Laver
 
J
Kraveka
 
J
Hutchison
 
R
, et al. 
Advanced-stage large-cell lymphoma in children and adolescents: results of a randomized trial incorporating intermediate-dose methotrexate and high-dose cytarabine in the maintenance phase of the APO regimen: a Pediatric Oncology Group phase III trial.
J Clin Oncol
2005
, vol. 
23
 
3
(pg. 
541
-
547
)
81
Le Deley
 
M
Rosolen
 
A
Williams
 
D
, et al. 
Vinblastine in children and adolescents with high-risk anaplastic large-cell lymphoma: results of the randomized ALCL99-vinblastine trial.
J Clin Oncol
2010
, vol. 
28
 
25
(pg. 
3987
-
3993
)
82
Fisher
 
R
Gaynor
 
E
Dahlberg
 
S
, et al. 
Comparison of a standard regimen (CHOP) with three intensive chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
N Engl J Med
1993
, vol. 
328
 
14
(pg. 
1002
-
1006
)
83
Pfreundschuh
 
M
Trümper
 
L
Osterborg
 
A
, et al. 
CHOP-like chemotherapy plus rituximab versus CHOP-like chemotherapy alone in young patients with good-prognosis diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma: a randomised controlled trial by the MabThera International Trial (MInT) Group.
Lancet Oncol
2006
, vol. 
7
 
5
(pg. 
379
-
391
)
84
Oschlies
 
I
Klapper
 
W
Zimmermann
 
M
, et al. 
Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in pediatric patients belongs predominantly to the germinal-center type B-cell lymphomas: a clinicopathologic analysis of cases included in the German BFM (Berlin-Frankfurt-Munster) Multicenter Trial.
Blood
2006
, vol. 
107
 
10
(pg. 
4047
-
4052
)
85
Gascoyne
 
RD
Aoun
 
P
Wu
 
D
, et al. 
Prognostic significance of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) protein expression in adults with anaplastic large cell lymphoma.
Blood
1999
, vol. 
93
 
11
(pg. 
3913
-
3921
)
86
Rosenwald
 
A
Wright
 
G
Chan
 
WC
, et al. 
The use of molecular profiling to predict survival after chemotherapy for diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma.
N Engl J Med
2002
, vol. 
346
 
25
(pg. 
1937
-
1947
)
87
Savage
 
K
Harris
 
N
Vose
 
J
, et al. 
ALK- anaplastic large-cell lymphoma is clinically and immunophenotypically different from both ALK+ ALCL and peripheral T-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified: report from the International Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma Project.
Blood
2008
, vol. 
111
 
12
(pg. 
5496
-
5504
)
88
Tai
 
E
Pollack
 
L
Townsend
 
J
Li
 
J
Steele
 
C
Richardson
 
L
Differences in non-Hodgkin lymphoma survival between young adults and children.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med
2010
, vol. 
164
 
3
(pg. 
218
-
224
)
89
Ribera
 
J
Ortega
 
J
Oriol
 
A
, et al. 
Prognostic value of karyotypic analysis in children and adults with high-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia included in the PETHEMA ALL-93 trial.
Haematologica
2002
, vol. 
87
 
2
(pg. 
154
-
166
)
90
Harrison
 
CJ
Cytogenetics of paediatric and adolescent acute lymphoblastic leukaemia.
Br J Haematol
2009
, vol. 
144
 
2
(pg. 
147
-
156
)
91
Moorman
 
AV
Harrison
 
CJ
Buck
 
GA
, et al. 
Karyotype is an independent prognostic factor in adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL): analysis of cytogenetic data from patients treated on the Medical Research Council (MRC) UKALLXII/Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 2993 trial.
Blood
2007
, vol. 
109
 
8
(pg. 
3189
-
3197
)
92
Pullarkat
 
V
Slovak
 
ML
Kopecky
 
KJ
Forman
 
SJ
Appelbaum
 
FR
Impact of cytogenetics on the outcome of adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia: results of Southwest Oncology Group 9400 study.
Blood
2008
, vol. 
111
 
5
(pg. 
2563
-
2572
)
93
Harrison
 
CJ
Hills
 
RK
Moorman
 
AV
, et al. 
Cytogenetics of childhood acute myeloid leukemia: United Kingdom Medical Research Council Treatment trials AML 10 and 12.
J Clin Oncol
2010
, vol. 
28
 
16
(pg. 
2674
-
2681
)
94
Byrd
 
JC
Mrozek
 
K
Dodge
 
RK
, et al. 
Pretreatment cytogenetic abnormalities are predictive of induction success, cumulative incidence of relapse, and overall survival in adult patients with de novo acute myeloid leukemia: results from Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB 8461).
Blood
2002
, vol. 
100
 
13
(pg. 
4325
-
4336
)
95
Cleary
 
SF
Link
 
MP
Donaldson
 
SS
Hodgkin's disease in the very young.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
1994
, vol. 
28
 
1
(pg. 
77
-
83
)
96
Engelhard
 
M
Brittinger
 
G
Huhn
 
D
, et al. 
Subclassification of diffuse large B-cell lymphomas according to the Kiel classification: distinction of centroblastic and immunoblastic lymphomas is a significant prognostic risk factor.
Blood
1997
, vol. 
89
 
7
(pg. 
2291
-
2297
)
97
Veal
 
GJ
Hartford
 
CM
Stewart
 
CF
Clinical pharmacology in the adolescent oncology patient.
J Clin Oncol
2010
, vol. 
28
 
32
(pg. 
4790
-
4799
)
98
Arico
 
M
Boccalatte
 
MF
Silvestri
 
D
, et al. 
Osteonecrosis: an emerging complication of intensive chemotherapy for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Haematologica
2003
, vol. 
88
 
7
(pg. 
747
-
753
)
99
Burger
 
B
Beier
 
R
Zimmermann
 
M
Beck
 
JD
Reiter
 
A
Schrappe
 
M
Osteonecrosis: a treatment related toxicity in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL)–experiences from trial ALL-BFM 95.
Pediatr Blood Cancer
2005
, vol. 
44
 
3
(pg. 
220
-
225
)
100
Athale
 
U
Siciliano
 
S
Crowther
 
M
Barr
 
R
Chan
 
A
Thromboembolism in children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia treated on Dana-Farber Cancer Institute protocols: effect of age and risk stratification of disease.
Br J Haematol
2005
, vol. 
129
 
6
(pg. 
803
-
810
)
101
Truong
 
T
Beyene
 
J
Hitzler
 
J
, et al. 
Features at presentation predict children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia at low risk for tumor lysis syndrome.
Cancer
2007
, vol. 
110
 
8
(pg. 
1832
-
1839
)
102
Roberson
 
JR
Raju
 
S
Shelso
 
J
Pui
 
CH
Howard
 
SC
Diabetic ketoacidosis during therapy for pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Pediatr Blood Cancer
2008
, vol. 
50
 
6
(pg. 
1207
-
1212
)
103
Roberson
 
JR
Spraker
 
HL
Shelso
 
J
, et al. 
Clinical consequences of hyperglycemia during remission induction therapy for pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Leukemia
2009
, vol. 
23
 
2
(pg. 
245
-
250
)
104
Sung
 
L
Lange
 
B
Gerbing
 
R
Alonzo
 
T
Feusner
 
J
Microbiologically documented infections and infection-related mortality in children with acute myeloid leukemia.
Blood
2007
, vol. 
110
 
10
(pg. 
3532
-
3539
)
105
Sung
 
L
Gamis
 
A
Alonzo
 
TA
, et al. 
Infections and association with different intensity of chemotherapy in children with acute myeloid leukemia.
Cancer
2009
, vol. 
115
 
5
(pg. 
1100
-
1108
)
106
Creutzig
 
U
Zimmermann
 
M
Reinhardt
 
D
Dworzak
 
M
Stary
 
J
Lehrnbecher
 
T
Early deaths and treatment-related mortality in children undergoing therapy for acute myeloid leukemia: analysis of the multicenter clinical trials AML-BFM 93 and AML-BFM 98.
J Clin Oncol
2004
, vol. 
22
 
21
(pg. 
4384
-
4393
)
107
Rubnitz
 
J
Lensing
 
S
Zhou
 
Y
, et al. 
Death during induction therapy and first remission of acute leukemia in childhood: the St. Jude experience.
Cancer
2004
, vol. 
101
 
7
(pg. 
1677
-
1684
)
108
Lange
 
B
Gerbing
 
R
Feusner
 
J
, et al. 
Mortality in overweight and underweight children with acute myeloid leukemia.
JAMA
2005
, vol. 
293
 
2
(pg. 
203
-
211
)
109
Group CsO
Sposto
 
R
London
 
W
Alonzo
 
T
Criteria for optimizing prognostic risk groups in pediatric cancer: analysis of data from the Children's Oncology Group.
J Clin Oncol
2007
, vol. 
25
 
15
(pg. 
2070
-
2077
)
110
Atallah
 
E
Cortes
 
J
O'Brien
 
S
, et al. 
Establishment of baseline toxicity expectations with standard frontline chemotherapy in acute myelogenous leukemia.
Blood
2007
, vol. 
110
 
10
(pg. 
3547
-
3551
)
111
Rytting
 
M
Ravandi
 
F
Estey
 
E
, et al. 
Intensively timed combination chemotherapy for the induction of adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia: long-term follow-up of a phase 2 study.
Cancer
2010
, vol. 
116
 
22
(pg. 
5272
-
5278
)
112
Howell
 
DL
Ward
 
KC
Austin
 
HD
Young
 
JL
Woods
 
WG
Access to pediatric cancer care by age, race, and diagnosis, and outcomes of cancer treatment in pediatric and adolescent patients in the state of Georgia.
J Clin Oncol
2007
, vol. 
25
 
29
(pg. 
4610
-
4615
)
113
Yeager
 
ND
Hoshaw-Woodard
 
S
Ruymann
 
FB
Termuhlen
 
A
Patterns of care among adolescents with malignancy in Ohio.
J Pediatr Hematol Oncol
2006
, vol. 
28
 
1
(pg. 
17
-
22
)
114
Klein-Geltink
 
J
Shaw
 
AK
Morrison
 
HI
Barr
 
RD
Greenberg
 
ML
Use of paediatric versus adult oncology treatment centres by adolescents 15-19 years old: the Canadian Childhood Cancer Surveillance and Control Program.
Eur J Cancer
2005
, vol. 
41
 
3
(pg. 
404
-
410
)
115
Kantarjian
 
HM
O'Brien
 
S
Insurance policies in the United States may explain part of the outcome differences of adolescents and young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated on adult versus pediatric regimens.
Blood
2009
, vol. 
113
 
8
pg. 
1861
  
author reply 1862
116
Kent
 
EE
Morris
 
RA
Largent
 
JA
Ziogas
 
A
Sender
 
LS
Anton-Culver
 
H
Socioeconomic impacts on survival differ by race/ethnicity among adolescents and young adults with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
J Cancer Epidemiol
2010
, vol. 
2010
 pg. 
824691
 
117
Reiss
 
JG
Gibson
 
RW
Walker
 
LR
Health care transition: youth, family, and provider perspectives.
Pediatrics
2005
, vol. 
115
 
1
(pg. 
112
-
120
)
118
Anderson
 
DL
Flume
 
PA
Hardy
 
KK
Gray
 
S
Transition programs in cystic fibrosis centers: perceptions of patients.
Pediatr Pulmonol
2002
, vol. 
33
 
5
(pg. 
327
-
331
)
119
Reid
 
GJ
Irvine
 
MJ
McCrindle
 
BW
, et al. 
Prevalence and correlates of successful transfer from pediatric to adult health care among a cohort of young adults with complex congenital heart defects.
Pediatrics
2004
, vol. 
113
 
3 pt 1
(pg. 
e197
-
205
)
120
Quinn
 
CT
Rogers
 
ZR
McCavit
 
TL
Buchanan
 
GR
Improved survival of children and adolescents with sickle cell disease.
Blood
2010
, vol. 
115
 
17
(pg. 
3447
-
3452
)
121
Henderson
 
TO
Friedman
 
DL
Meadows
 
AT
Childhood cancer survivors: transition to adult-focused risk-based care.
Pediatrics
2010
, vol. 
126
 
1
(pg. 
129
-
136
)
122
Ferrari
 
A
Thomas
 
D
Franklin
 
AR
, et al. 
Starting an adolescent and young adult program: some success stories and some obstacles to overcome.
J Clin Oncol
2010
, vol. 
28
 
32
(pg. 
4850
-
4857
)
123
Bleyer
 
A
Budd
 
T
Montello
 
M
Adolescents and young adults with cancer: the scope of the problem and criticality of clinical trials.
Cancer
2006
, vol. 
107
 
7 suppl
(pg. 
1645
-
1655
)
124
Feltbower
 
RG
McNally
 
RJ
Kinsey
 
SE
, et al. 
Epidemiology of leukaemia and lymphoma in children and young adults from the north of England, 1990-2002.
Eur J Cancer
2009
, vol. 
45
 
3
(pg. 
420
-
427
)
125
Fern
 
L
Davies
 
S
Eden
 
T
, et al. 
Rates of inclusion of teenagers and young adults in England into National Cancer Research Network clinical trials: report from the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Teenage and Young Adult Clinical Studies Development Group.
Br J Cancer
2008
, vol. 
99
 
12
(pg. 
1967
-
1974
)
126
Fern
 
LA
Whelan
 
JS
Recruitment of adolescents and young adults to cancer clinical trials–international comparisons, barriers, and implications.
Semin Oncol
2010
, vol. 
37
 
2
(pg. 
e1
-
e8
)
127
Shaw
 
PH
Ritchey
 
AK
Different rates of clinical trial enrollment between adolescents and young adults aged 15 to 22 years old and children under 15 years old with cancer at a children's hospital.
J Pediatr Hematol Oncol
2007
, vol. 
29
 
12
(pg. 
811
-
814
)
128
Downs-Canner
 
S
Shaw
 
PH
A comparison of clinical trial enrollment between adolescent and young adult (AYA) oncology patients treated at affiliated adult and pediatric oncology centers.
J Pediatr Hematol Oncol
2009
, vol. 
31
 
12
(pg. 
927
-
929
)
129
Butow
 
P
Palmer
 
S
Pai
 
A
Goodenough
 
B
Luckett
 
T
King
 
M
Review of adherence-related issues in adolescents and young adults with cancer.
J Clin Oncol
2010
, vol. 
28
 
32
(pg. 
4800
-
4809
)
130
Kato
 
PM
Cole
 
SW
Bradlyn
 
AS
Pollock
 
BH
A video game improves behavioral outcomes in adolescents and young adults with cancer: a randomized trial.
Pediatrics
2008
, vol. 
122
 
2
(pg. 
e305
-
317
)
131
Windebank
 
KP
Spinetta
 
JJ
Do as I say or die: compliance in adolescents with cancer.
Pediatr Blood Cancer
2008
, vol. 
50
 
5 suppl
(pg. 
1099
-
1100
)
132
Noens
 
L
van Lierde
 
MA
De Bock
 
R
, et al. 
Prevalence, determinants, and outcomes of nonadherence to imatinib therapy in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia: the ADAGIO study.
Blood
2009
, vol. 
113
 
22
(pg. 
5401
-
5411
)
133
Marin
 
D
Bazeos
 
A
Mahon
 
FX
, et al. 
Adherence is the critical factor for achieving molecular responses in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia who achieve complete cytogenetic responses on imatinib.
J Clin Oncol
2010
, vol. 
28
 
14
(pg. 
2381
-
2388
)
134
Evan
 
EE
Zeltzer
 
LK
Psychosocial dimensions of cancer in adolescents and young adults.
Cancer
2006
, vol. 
107
 
7 suppl
(pg. 
1663
-
1671
)
135
Semple
 
CJ
McCance
 
T
Parents' experience of cancer who have young children: a literature review.
Cancer Nurs
2010
, vol. 
33
 
2
(pg. 
110
-
118
)
136
Hedstrom
 
M
Kreuger
 
A
Ljungman
 
G
Nygren
 
P
von Essen
 
L
Accuracy of assessment of distress, anxiety, and depression by physicians and nurses in adolescents recently diagnosed with cancer.
Pediatr Blood Cancer
2006
, vol. 
46
 
7
(pg. 
773
-
779
)
137
Kazak
 
AE
Derosa
 
BW
Schwartz
 
LA
, et al. 
Psychological outcomes and health beliefs in adolescent and young adult survivors of childhood cancer and controls.
J Clin Oncol
2010
, vol. 
28
 
12
(pg. 
2002
-
2007
)
138
Sawyer
 
SM
Drew
 
S
Yeo
 
MS
Britto
 
MT
Adolescents with a chronic condition: challenges living, challenges treating.
Lancet
2007
, vol. 
369
 
9571
(pg. 
1481
-
1489
)
139
Zebrack
 
B
Information and service needs for young adult cancer patients.
Support Care Cancer
2008
, vol. 
16
 
12
(pg. 
1353
-
1360
)
140
Lee
 
SJ
Schover
 
LR
Partridge
 
AH
, et al. 
American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on fertility preservation in cancer patients.
J Clin Oncol
2006
, vol. 
24
 
18
(pg. 
2917
-
2931
)
141
Ault
 
P
Kantarjian
 
H
O'Brien
 
S
, et al. 
Pregnancy among patients with chronic myeloid leukemia treated with imatinib.
J Clin Oncol
2006
, vol. 
24
 
7
(pg. 
1204
-
1208
)
142
Abernethy
 
AP
Etheredge
 
LM
Ganz
 
PA
, et al. 
Rapid-learning system for cancer care.
J Clin Oncol
2010
, vol. 
28
 
27
(pg. 
4268
-
4274
)
143
Freeman
 
HP
Patient navigation: a community centered approach to reducing cancer mortality.
J Cancer Educ
2006
, vol. 
21
 
1 suppl
(pg. 
S11
-
S14
)
144
Morgan
 
S
Davies
 
S
Palmer
 
S
Plaster
 
M
Sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll: caring for adolescents and young adults with cancer.
J Clin Oncol
2010
, vol. 
28
 
32
(pg. 
4825
-
4830
)
145
Briceno
 
AC
Gospodarowicz
 
M
Jadad
 
AR
Fighting cancer with the internet and social networking.
Lancet Oncol
2008
, vol. 
9
 
11
(pg. 
1037
-
1038
)
146
Treadgold
 
CL
Kuperberg
 
A
Been there, done that, wrote the blog: the choices and challenges of supporting adolescents and young adults with cancer.
J Clin Oncol
2010
, vol. 
28
 
32
(pg. 
4842
-
4849
)