OBJECTIVES: The IGCCCG classification has identified three prognostic groups of patients with metastatic germ-cell tumors. 'Poor prognosis' is based on primary tumor localization, the presence of visceral metastases, and/or high tumor-marker levels. The overall survival rate of these patients is about 45%-55%. The present analysis attempts to identify subsets of patients with a more or less favorable outcome among the 'poor-prognosis' group. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively explored prognostic subgroups in 332 patients with 'IGCCCG' poor-risk GCT using the classification-and-regression-tree model (CART). The following variables were included: primary tumor localization, presence of visceral or lung metastases, presence of an abdominal tumor, number of metastatic sites, serum levels of beta-HCG, AFP and LDH. All patients had been treated with cisplatin-etoposide-based chemotherapy within controlled clinical trials between 1984 and 1997. PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS: gonadal/retroperitoneal (G/R) primary tumor 260 patients (78%), mediastinal primary tumor 72 patients (22%), visceral metastases 205 patients (62%) including 33 patients with CNS metastases, lung metastases 247 patients (74%), abdominal tumor 241 patients (72%), elevated AFP, beta-HCG or LDH levels 235 (71%), 253 (76%) and 275 (83%) of patients, respectively. Patients with primary mediastinal disease plus lung metastases exhibited the worst two-year PFS (28%), whereas patients with a primary G/R tumor and without visceral metastases showed the highest chance of two-year PFS (75%). The latter group of patients without visceral metastases and with a primary G/R tumor also had the most favourable two-year OS (84%). In contrast, patients with a primary mediastinal tumor and visceral metastases displayed the worst two-year OS (49%). CONCLUSIONS: Different prognostic subsets of patients can be identified among the group of 'poor-prognosis' GCT patients. The CART analysis model results in a hierarchy of prognostic factors which may allow to more precisely estimate the individual patient's prognosis. Identifying subgroups of 'very poor-prognosis' among 'poor-prognosis' patients may allow to test for new treatment strategies in selected subgroups.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The IGCCCG classification has identified three prognostic groups of patients with metastatic germ-cell tumors. 'Poor prognosis' is based on primary tumor localization, the presence of visceral metastases, and/or high tumor-marker levels. The overall survival rate of these patients is about 45%-55%. The present analysis attempts to identify subsets of patients with a more or less favorable outcome among the 'poor-prognosis' group. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively explored prognostic subgroups in 332 patients with 'IGCCCG' poor-risk GCT using the classification-and-regression-tree model (CART). The following variables were included: primary tumor localization, presence of visceral or lung metastases, presence of an abdominal tumor, number of metastatic sites, serum levels of beta-HCG, AFP and LDH. All patients had been treated with cisplatin-etoposide-based chemotherapy within controlled clinical trials between 1984 and 1997. PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS: gonadal/retroperitoneal (G/R) primary tumor 260 patients (78%), mediastinal primary tumor 72 patients (22%), visceral metastases 205 patients (62%) including 33 patients with CNS metastases, lung metastases 247 patients (74%), abdominal tumor 241 patients (72%), elevated AFP, beta-HCG or LDH levels 235 (71%), 253 (76%) and 275 (83%) of patients, respectively. Patients with primary mediastinal disease plus lung metastases exhibited the worst two-year PFS (28%), whereas patients with a primary G/R tumor and without visceral metastases showed the highest chance of two-year PFS (75%). The latter group of patients without visceral metastases and with a primary G/R tumor also had the most favourable two-year OS (84%). In contrast, patients with a primary mediastinal tumor and visceral metastases displayed the worst two-year OS (49%). CONCLUSIONS: Different prognostic subsets of patients can be identified among the group of 'poor-prognosis' GCT patients. The CART analysis model results in a hierarchy of prognostic factors which may allow to more precisely estimate the individual patient's prognosis. Identifying subgroups of 'very poor-prognosis' among 'poor-prognosis' patients may allow to test for new treatment strategies in selected subgroups.
Authors: Aditya Bagrodia; Byron H Lee; William Lee; Eugene K Cha; John P Sfakianos; Gopa Iyer; Eugene J Pietzak; Sizhi Paul Gao; Emily C Zabor; Irina Ostrovnaya; Samuel D Kaffenberger; Aijazuddin Syed; Maria E Arcila; Raju S Chaganti; Ritika Kundra; Jana Eng; Joseph Hreiki; Vladimir Vacic; Kanika Arora; Dayna M Oschwald; Michael F Berger; Dean F Bajorin; Manjit S Bains; Nikolaus Schultz; Victor E Reuter; Joel Sheinfeld; George J Bosl; Hikmat A Al-Ahmadie; David B Solit; Darren R Feldman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Stefanie Schmidt; Carsten Bokemeyer; Christian Winter; Friedemann Zengerling; Jonas Busch; Julia Heinzelbecker; David Pfister; Christian Ruf; Julia Lackner; Peter Albers; Sabine Kliesch Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Jiaqi Zhang; Yeye Chen; Lei Liu; Mengxin Zhou; Cheng Huang; Chao Guo; Shanqing Li Journal: Cancer Manag Res Date: 2021-11-13 Impact factor: 3.989
Authors: Darren R Feldman; James Hu; Tanya B Dorff; Kristina Lim; Sujata Patil; Kaitlin M Woo; Maryann Carousso; Amanda Hughes; Joel Sheinfeld; Manjit Bains; Siamak Daneshmand; Charlene Ketchens; Dean F Bajorin; George J Bosl; David I Quinn; Robert J Motzer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-05-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: K Fizazi; D M Prow; K-A Do; X Wang; L Finn; J Kim; D Daliani; C N Papandreou; S-M Tu; R E Millikan; L C Pagliaro; C J Logothetis; R J Amato Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2002-05-20 Impact factor: 7.640