BACKGROUND: Most patients with metastatic germ-cell tumours are cured with chemotherapy. However, the optimum chemotherapy regimen is uncertain, and there is variation in international practice. We did a multicentre randomised trial to compare two standard chemotherapy regimens for men with good-prognosis germ-cell tumours. METHODS: Good prognosis was defined by modified Memorial Sloan-Kettering criteria. The first regimen (regimen A) was based on treatment recommendations from Indiana University and comprised three cycles of 20 mg/m2 cisplatin on days 1-5, 100 mg/m2 etoposide on days 1-5, and 30 kU bleomycin on days 1, 8, and 15, repeated every 21 days. The second regimen (regimen B) was based on the control regimen of a published randomised clinical trial and comprised four cycles of 100 mg/m2 cisplatin on day 1, 120 mg/m2 etoposide on days 1-3, and 30 kU bleomycin on day 1, repeated every 21 days. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS:166 patients were randomised, 83 to each regimen. The trial was stopped when the second planned interim analysis met predefined stopping rules. The median follow-up was 33 months. Overall survival was substantially better with regimen A (three vs 13 deaths, hazard ratio 0.22 [95% CI 0.06-0.77], p=0.008). This difference was due to deaths from cancer (one vs nine), and not deaths from treatment (two vs two) and remained significant after adjustment for other prognostic factors (0.25 [0.07-0.88], p=0.03). INTERPRETATION: In men with good-prognosis germ-cell tumours, the regimen developed at Indiana University is superior to the alternative regimen studied in this trial. The lower total dose and dose-intensity of bleomycin and the lower dose-intensity of etoposide in regimen B could be responsible for the worse outcome.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Most patients with metastatic germ-cell tumours are cured with chemotherapy. However, the optimum chemotherapy regimen is uncertain, and there is variation in international practice. We did a multicentre randomised trial to compare two standard chemotherapy regimens for men with good-prognosis germ-cell tumours. METHODS: Good prognosis was defined by modified Memorial Sloan-Kettering criteria. The first regimen (regimen A) was based on treatment recommendations from Indiana University and comprised three cycles of 20 mg/m2 cisplatin on days 1-5, 100 mg/m2 etoposide on days 1-5, and 30 kU bleomycin on days 1, 8, and 15, repeated every 21 days. The second regimen (regimen B) was based on the control regimen of a published randomised clinical trial and comprised four cycles of 100 mg/m2 cisplatin on day 1, 120 mg/m2 etoposide on days 1-3, and 30 kU bleomycin on day 1, repeated every 21 days. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: 166 patients were randomised, 83 to each regimen. The trial was stopped when the second planned interim analysis met predefined stopping rules. The median follow-up was 33 months. Overall survival was substantially better with regimen A (three vs 13 deaths, hazard ratio 0.22 [95% CI 0.06-0.77], p=0.008). This difference was due to deaths from cancer (one vs nine), and not deaths from treatment (two vs two) and remained significant after adjustment for other prognostic factors (0.25 [0.07-0.88], p=0.03). INTERPRETATION: In men with good-prognosis germ-cell tumours, the regimen developed at Indiana University is superior to the alternative regimen studied in this trial. The lower total dose and dose-intensity of bleomycin and the lower dose-intensity of etoposide in regimen B could be responsible for the worse outcome.
Authors: Hans-Georg Kopp; Markus Kuczyk; Johannes Classen; Arnulf Stenzl; Lothar Kanz; Frank Mayer; Michael Bamberg; Jörg Thomas Hartmann Journal: Drugs Date: 2006 Impact factor: 9.546
Authors: Lori Wood; Christian Kollmannsberger; Michael Jewett; Peter Chung; Sebastian Hotte; Martin O'Malley; Joan Sweet; Lynn Anson-Cartwright; Eric Winquist; Scott North; Scott Tyldesley; Jeremy Sturgeon; Mary Gospodarowicz; Roanne Segal; Tina Cheng; Peter Venner; Malcolm Moore; Peter Albers; Robert Huddart; Craig Nichols; Padraig Warde Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Shilajit D Kundu; Darren R Feldman; Brett S Carver; Amit Gupta; George J Bosl; Robert J Motzer; Dean F Bajorin; Joel Sheinfeld Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: I N Olver; P Grimison; M Chatfield; M R Stockler; G C Toner; V Gebski; R Harrup; C Underhill; G Kichenadasse; N Singhal; I D Davis; A Boland; A McDonald; D Thomson Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-12-30 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Mohammed Alotaibi; Shouki Bazarbashi; Sultan Alkhateeb; Ashraf Abusamra; Danny Rabah; Mubarak Almansour; Esam Murshid; Abdullah Alsharm; Imran Ahmad; Khalid Alghamdi; Ahmad Saadeddin; Abdullah Alghamdi Journal: Urol Ann Date: 2014-10