Background: to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a physical activity program (PAP) in children and adolescents with cancer. Methods: children and adolescents with cancer were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the six-month PAP (intervention group) or to the control group. The first evaluation was performed at the end of the PAP (T0 + 6 mo). At T0 + 6 mo, both groups received the six-month PAP with a second evaluation at T0 + 12 mo. The primary outcome was the evolution of exercise capacity measured using the six-minute walk test (6 MWT) at T0 + 6 mo. Secondary outcomes included PAP safety and changes in other physical functions, self-esteem, and quality-of-life parameters. Results: The trial involved 80 children and adolescents (age range 5.0–18.4 years), of whom 41 were assigned to the interventional group and 39 to the control group. Underlying malignancies were leukemia (39%) and a broad range of solid tumors (61%). No adverse events occurred. At T0 + 6 mo, the evolution of the 6 MWT distance (±SEM) was improved in the intervention group vs. the control group (86 ± 12 m vs. 32 ± 6 m, p < 0.001). Several other physical parameters were significantly improved in the intervention group. Global self-esteem and parent-reported quality-of-life were significantly increased in the intervention group. Analysis at T0 + 12 mo showed persistence of the benefits in the intervention group on exercise capacity evolution (115 ± 18 m vs. 49 ± 11 m, p = 0.004) and on most physical and QoL parameters. Conclusion: In children and adolescents with cancer, a physical activity program is safe, improves exercise capacity, and may have physical and psychological benefits.

Precision oncology requires tumor molecular profiling to identify actionable targets. Tumor biopsies are considered as the gold standard, but their indications are limited by the burden of procedures in children. Blood-derived liquid biopsy (LB) is a potential alternative that is not yet documented in real-world settings, especially in pediatric oncology. We performed a retrospective analysis of children and teenagers with a relapsing or refractory disease, upon whom LB was performed using the Foundation One® liquid CDx from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2021 in a single center. Forty-five patients (27 boys) were included, with a median age of 9 years of age (range: 1.5–17 years old). Underlying malignancies were neuroblastoma (12 patients), bone sarcoma (12), soft tissue sarcoma (9), brain tumors (7), and miscellaneous tumors (5). Forty-three patients had metastatic disease. Six patients had more than one biopsy because of a failure in first LB. Median time to obtain results was 13 days. Overall, analysis was successful for 33/45 patients. Eight patients did not present any molecular abnormalities. Molecular alterations were identified in 25 samples with a mean of 2.1 alterations per sample. The most common alterations concerned TP53 (7 pts), EWS-FLI1 (5), ALK (3), MYC (3), and CREBBP (2). TMB was low in all cases. Six patients received treatment based on the results from LB analysis and all were treated off-trial. Three additional patients were included in early phase clinical trials. Mean duration of treatment was 85 days, with one patient with stable disease after eight months. Molecular profiling using Foundation One® Liquid CDx was feasible in pediatric patients with high-risk solid tumors and lead to identification of targetable mutations in a subset of patients.

(1) Background: Children and young adults with cancer are poorly represented in COVID-19 vaccination studies, and long-term protection conferred by vaccination is not known. (2) Objectives: 1. To determine the adverse effects associated with BNT162B2 vaccination in children and young adults with cancer. 2. To assess its efficacy in stimulating immunological response and in preventing severe COVID-19 disease. (3) Methods: Retrospective single-center study evaluating patients aged 8 to 22 years, with cancer, who underwent vaccination from January 2021 to June 2022. ELISA serologies and serum neutralization were collected monthly from the first injection. Serologies below 26 were considered negative, while those above 264 BAU/mL were considered positive and indicative of protection. Antibodies titers were considered positive above 20. Data on adverse events and infections were collected. (4) Results: 38 patients were included (M/F = 1.7, median age 16 years), of whom 63% had a localized tumor and 76% were undergoing treatment at the time of the first vaccination. Two or three vaccine injections were administered in 90% of patients. Adverse events were mainly systemic and not severe, except for seven grade 3 toxicities. Four cancer-related deaths were reported. Median serology was negative the month following the first vaccination and became protective during the third month. At 3 and 12 months, median serology was 1778 and 6437 BAU/mL, respectively. Serum neutralization was positive in 97% of the patients. COVID-19 infection occurred despite vaccination in 18%; all were mild forms. (5) Conclusions: In children and young adults with cancer, vaccination was well tolerated and conferred effective serum neutralization. COVID-19 infections were mild, and vaccine seroconversion persisted after 12 months in most patients. The value of additional vaccination should be further established.

Background: The need for new therapies to improve survival and outcomes in pediatric oncology along with the lack of approval and accessible clinical trials has led to “out‐of‐trial” use of innovative therapies. We conducted a retrospective analysis of requests for innovative anticancer therapy in Canadian pediatric oncology tertiary centers for patients less than 30 years old between 2013 and 2020.Methods: Innovative therapies were defined as cancer‐directed drugs used (a) off‐label, (b) unlicensed drugs being used outside the context of a clinical trial, or (c) approved drugs with limited evidence in pediatrics. We excluded cytotoxic chemotherapy, cellular products, and cytokines.Results: We retrieved data on 352 innovative therapy drug requests. Underlying diagnosis was primary CNS tumor 31%; extracranial solid tumor 37%, leukemia/lymphoma 22%, LCH 2%, and plexiform neurofibroma 6%. RAS/MAP kinase pathway inhibitors were the most frequently requested innovative therapies in 28% of all requests followed by multi‐targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (17%), inhibitors of the PIK3CA‐mTOR‐AKT pathway (8%), immune checkpoints inhibitors (8%), and antibody drug conjugates (8%). In 112 out of 352 requests, innovative therapies were used in combination with another anticancer agent. 48% of requests were motivated by the presence of an actionable molecular target. Compassionate access accounted for 52% of all requests while public insurance was used in 27%. Mechanisms of funding varied between provinces.Conclusion: This real‐world data collection illustrates an increasing use of “out‐of‐trial” innovative therapies in pediatric oncology. This new field of practice warrants further studies to understand the impact on patient trajectory and equity in access to innovative therapies.

Innovative therapeutic approaches are needed to alleviate the burden of life-limiting, rare, and chronic conditions affecting children, adolescents, and young adults (CAYA). This includes a need for improved access to both clinical research and to non-approved or off-label therapies, together with, ultimately, more therapies achieving regulatory approval in Canada. The single patient study (SPS), also known as an open label individual patient (OLIP) study, was introduced by Health Canada to open access to non-marketed drugs where a clinical trial is not readily available, but the drug is considered too investigational to be managed on a standard Special Access Program. SPS is designed for patients who have a serious or life-threatening condition and have exhausted available treatment options. Our report summarizes this relatively new development in the Canadian regulatory environment and highlights the opportunities and challenges as identified by regulators, pharmaceutical representatives, academic researchers, and patient/parent advocates.