OnCo

Sign in to keep your watchlist

Your watched pages live in this browser. Sign in with an email link and OnCo keeps the same list on every device you use. Only your email address and your watchlist are stored.

Adolescent and young adult cancers: the decisions you may face

5 treatment settings, 2 with more than one named option. Each section lays out the options the standard of care names, what each is for, the trials behind them with their recorded results, the side effects and cautions on record, and questions to ask. Built from the cancer page's standard-of-care rows; nothing here is advice for your case.

Other settings

Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, 15 to 39

Paediatric-inspired regimen with asparaginase (CALGB 10403 model) and blinatumomab consolidation for MRD-negative B-ALL (E1910); Ph-like screening at diagnosis.

The options, in plain words

An enzyme that starves leukaemia cells of an amino acid they cannot make; a mainstay of childhood ALL therapy for 50 years, with new versions solving allergy and supply problems.

A plant-derived chemotherapy from the Madagascar periwinkle that has been in almost every childhood leukaemia and lymphoma regimen since the 1960s.

Dexamethasone is a long-acting glucocorticoid steroid that kills lymphoid cancer cells directly, which is why it sits in nearly every myeloma regimen and in childhood leukaemia and lymphoma protocols. It is also the standard drug for preventing chemotherapy sickness and for brain swelling and spinal cord compression; high blood sugar, insomnia, muscle wasting and infection follow prolonged use.

The 1948 antifolate that produced the first chemotherapy remissions in childhood leukaemia and the first cure of a solid tumour; still essential in ALL, lymphoma, osteosarcoma and CNS lymphoma.

Blinatumomab was the first T-cell engager (2014), and is now given to children and adults with leukaemia even when in remission, because it improves survival.

Sequencing the unique genetic barcode of a patient's leukaemia to find one cancer cell in a million.

  • 10^-5 to 10^-6 sensitivity
  • Blood-based monitoring in many settings
The evidence behind it
  • Newly diagnosed Ph-negative B-ALL, age 30-70, in MRD-negative remission after induction: blinatumomab added to consolidation chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone
    Show survival figures (1)

    Averages across everyone diagnosed, often years ago. Your stage, subtype, age, fitness and the treatment you receive matter more than the average, and the numbers are improving quickly.

    • 3-year OS 85% vs 68%; HR 0.41.
    Overall survival at 3 years (MRD-negative cohort) (%): Blinatumomab + chemotherapy 85 (n=112) vs Chemotherapy 68 (n=112) · HR 0.41 · source
The main trade-offs on record
  • Fatal if given intrathecally: label all syringes.
  • High-dose methotrexate requires normal renal function, hydration, urine alkalinisation and leucovorin rescue with level monitoring.
Side effectAny gradeGrade 3+
Febrile neutropenia · Relapsed/refractory adult ALL31%28%
Infections · Relapsed/refractory adult ALL28%15%
Neurological toxicities · Relapsed/refractory adult ALL65%13%
Pyrexia · Relapsed/refractory adult ALL55%6%

Rates from the label or pivotal trial as recorded on the product page; each grade 3+ figure links to its source.

  • Requires a baseline sample to identify the clone
  • Persisting pre-leukaemic clones (CHIP) confound AML MRD
Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Between Asparaginase (pegaspargase, calaspargase pegol, Erwinia asparaginase), Vincristine, Dexamethasone and the other options, which do you recommend for me, and what about my case would make you choose differently?
    Why: Guidelines list several reasonable options; the choice turns on details of your tumour, your health and your priorities.
  2. What is each option trying to achieve: cure, long control, or relief of symptoms, and over what time?
    Why: The aim shapes how much side effect and disruption is worth accepting.
  3. How closely do I match the people in ECOG-ACRIN E1910, and does that change what the results mean for me?
    Why: Trial populations are selected; age, fitness, prior treatment and biomarkers all affect how far results carry.
  4. Which side effects of Blinatumomab are most likely for me, which are reversible, and which would make us stop?
    Why: The recorded rates below come from labels and trials; your own risk depends on dose, other medicines and your health.
  5. What happens if I delay, or decline this step for now? Is the decision reversible?
    Why: Some decisions can wait for a second opinion or a trial slot; others cannot. Knowing which is part of the choice.
  6. Does your recommendation follow the current guideline (NCI: Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer), and if it departs from it, why?
    Why: Departures from guidelines are sometimes right for an individual; they should be explained.
  7. For my situation (acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, 15 to 39), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: Paediatric-inspired regimen with asparaginase (CALGB 10403 model) and blinatumomab consolidation for MRD-negative B-ALL (E1910); Ph-like screening at diagnosis.
  8. Am I a candidate for Asparaginase (pegaspargase, calaspargase pegol, Erwinia asparaginase), Vincristine, Dexamethasone or related drugs, and what side effects should I expect?
    Why: Knowing the expected toxicities helps you plan work, family, and supportive care.
  9. How do the results of ECOG-ACRIN E1910 apply to someone like me?
    Why: Trial populations differ from individual patients; ask how closely you match.

Add these to your appointment list, or take the full question set for this cancer.

Other settings

Before any gonadotoxic treatment

One path named

Fertility preservation referral (sperm banking, oocyte or embryo cryopreservation, ovarian tissue) as a default step.

The path, in plain words

Protecting the ability to have children before cancer treatment that damages eggs, sperm or the womb: sperm and egg or embryo freezing, ovarian tissue freezing, ovarian shielding and, for some breast cancers, temporary ovarian suppression.

  • Established live-birth outcomes for sperm, oocyte, embryo and ovarian tissue
  • Random-start protocols avoid treatment delay
  • POSITIVE trial reassures about pregnancy after breast cancer
The evidence behind it

No trial record is attached to this row yet. The trials tab lists what is recruiting and the landmark trials for this cancer.

The main trade-offs on record
  • Cost and insurance coverage (mandated in only some US states)
  • Prepubertal boys have only experimental options
  • Referral gaps, especially in men, adolescents and LMICs
Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Is Oncofertility and fertility preservation the only reasonable path for me, or is there a trial, a different sequence or a wait-and-see option?
    Why: A single standard does not mean a single choice; timing and trials are decisions too.
  2. What is each option trying to achieve: cure, long control, or relief of symptoms, and over what time?
    Why: The aim shapes how much side effect and disruption is worth accepting.
  3. What happens if I delay, or decline this step for now? Is the decision reversible?
    Why: Some decisions can wait for a second opinion or a trial slot; others cannot. Knowing which is part of the choice.
  4. Does your recommendation follow the current guideline (NCI: Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer), and if it departs from it, why?
    Why: Departures from guidelines are sometimes right for an individual; they should be explained.
  5. For my situation (before any gonadotoxic treatment), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: Fertility preservation referral (sperm banking, oocyte or embryo cryopreservation, ovarian tissue) as a default step.

Add these to your appointment list, or take the full question set for this cancer.

Other settings

Psychosocial and financial

One path named

Age-specific units or teams, distress screening, education and employment support, financial navigation.

The path, in plain words

Psycho-oncology recognises and treats the anxiety, depression, fear of recurrence and existential distress that affect a third of people with cancer, using screening, psychotherapy adapted to cancer, and medication.

  • Screening is cheap and mandated by accreditation
  • Multiple manualised, trial-proven therapies
  • Collaborative care improves depression outcomes more than usual care
The evidence behind it

No trial record is attached to this row yet. The trials tab lists what is recruiting and the landmark trials for this cancer.

The main trade-offs on record
  • Screening without a referral pathway does not help
  • Workforce and reimbursement gaps
  • Little evidence in LMICs and minority populations
Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Is Psycho-oncology and distress screening the only reasonable path for me, or is there a trial, a different sequence or a wait-and-see option?
    Why: A single standard does not mean a single choice; timing and trials are decisions too.
  2. What is each option trying to achieve: cure, long control, or relief of symptoms, and over what time?
    Why: The aim shapes how much side effect and disruption is worth accepting.
  3. What happens if I delay, or decline this step for now? Is the decision reversible?
    Why: Some decisions can wait for a second opinion or a trial slot; others cannot. Knowing which is part of the choice.
  4. Does your recommendation follow the current guideline (NCI: Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer), and if it departs from it, why?
    Why: Departures from guidelines are sometimes right for an individual; they should be explained.
  5. For my situation (psychosocial and financial), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: Age-specific units or teams, distress screening, education and employment support, financial navigation.

Add these to your appointment list, or take the full question set for this cancer.

Special situations

Survivorship

2 options

Treatment summary and risk-based follow-up for cardiac, second-cancer, endocrine and fertility late effects over decades.

The options, in plain words

Organised follow-up for the 18 million US and 50+ million global cancer survivors: watching for recurrence and second cancers, managing long-term side effects such as heart damage, infertility, neuropathy and fatigue, and helping people return to work and life.

  • Evidence-based screening prevents or detects late effects (e.g. breast MRI after chest radiation)
  • Nurse-led and primary-care models are as safe as specialist follow-up for low-risk survivors
  • Childhood survivor guidelines are mature and international (IGHG)
Cardio-oncologyEstablished

Cardio-oncology builds heart risk assessment, monitoring and prevention into cancer care so patients can finish curative treatment without trading cancer for heart failure. It targets anthracycline and trastuzumab damage, checkpoint-inhibitor myocarditis and radiation heart disease using echocardiography, troponin tests and protective drugs; specialist clinics are concentrated in large centres.

  • Enables completion of curative therapy
The evidence behind it
  • Retrospective cohort with prospective follow-up of five-year survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed 1970-1999 at 31 North American centres, with sibling controls
    Show survival figures (1)

    Averages across everyone diagnosed, often years ago. Your stage, subtype, age, fitness and the treatment you receive matter more than the average, and the numbers are improving quickly.

    • 15-year all-cause mortality among five-year survivors fell from 12.4% (early 1970s) to 6.0% (1990s) as treatment exposures were reduced.
    15-year cumulative all-cause mortality by treatment era (%): Diagnosed early 1970s 12.4 vs Diagnosed 1990s 6 · source
The main trade-offs on record
  • Care plans alone do not change outcomes
  • Fragmentation between oncology and primary care
  • Adult late-effects guidelines less developed than paediatric
  • Workforce and access
Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Between Survivorship care and late-effects surveillance and Cardio-oncology, which do you recommend for me, and what about my case would make you choose differently?
    Why: Guidelines list several reasonable options; the choice turns on details of your tumour, your health and your priorities.
  2. What is each option trying to achieve: cure, long control, or relief of symptoms, and over what time?
    Why: The aim shapes how much side effect and disruption is worth accepting.
  3. How closely do I match the people in Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS), and does that change what the results mean for me?
    Why: Trial populations are selected; age, fitness, prior treatment and biomarkers all affect how far results carry.
  4. What happens if I delay, or decline this step for now? Is the decision reversible?
    Why: Some decisions can wait for a second opinion or a trial slot; others cannot. Knowing which is part of the choice.
  5. Does your recommendation follow the current guideline (NCI: Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer), and if it departs from it, why?
    Why: Departures from guidelines are sometimes right for an individual; they should be explained.
  6. For my situation (survivorship), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: Treatment summary and risk-based follow-up for cardiac, second-cancer, endocrine and fertility late effects over decades.
  7. How do the results of Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS) apply to someone like me?
    Why: Trial populations differ from individual patients; ask how closely you match.

Add these to your appointment list, or take the full question set for this cancer.

Other settings

Hereditary risk

One path named

Germline testing in young-onset breast, colorectal, sarcoma and other cancers, with cascade testing of relatives.

The path, in plain words

A test of the DNA you were born with, to find inherited risk genes such as BRCA or Lynch syndrome.

  • Actionable for patient and relatives
  • Cheap
The evidence behind it

No trial record is attached to this row yet. The trials tab lists what is recruiting and the landmark trials for this cancer.

The main trade-offs on record
  • VUS burden
  • Uptake and counselling capacity
Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Is Germline (hereditary) testing the only reasonable path for me, or is there a trial, a different sequence or a wait-and-see option?
    Why: A single standard does not mean a single choice; timing and trials are decisions too.
  2. What is each option trying to achieve: cure, long control, or relief of symptoms, and over what time?
    Why: The aim shapes how much side effect and disruption is worth accepting.
  3. What happens if I delay, or decline this step for now? Is the decision reversible?
    Why: Some decisions can wait for a second opinion or a trial slot; others cannot. Knowing which is part of the choice.
  4. Does your recommendation follow the current guideline (NCI: Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer), and if it departs from it, why?
    Why: Departures from guidelines are sometimes right for an individual; they should be explained.
  5. For my situation (hereditary risk), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: Germline testing in young-onset breast, colorectal, sarcoma and other cancers, with cascade testing of relatives.

Add these to your appointment list, or take the full question set for this cancer.

How to read this page. Options and results come from OnCo records with their sources; the settings are the standard-of-care rows on the cancer page, and the lines of therapy are on the sequencing grid. Where a setting names one path, the choice is usually about timing, trials and where to be treated: see expert centres. OnCo is orientation, not medical advice.