Literature DB >> 2453619

A randomized trial of standard chemotherapy v a high-dose chemotherapy regimen in the treatment of poor prognosis nonseminomatous germ-cell tumors.

R F Ozols1, D C Ihde, W M Linehan, J Jacob, Y Ostchega, R C Young.   

Abstract

We performed a prospective randomized trial of a high-dose chemotherapy regimen v standard cisplatin-based chemotherapy in poor prognosis nonseminomatous germ-cell cancer patients. The high-dose regimen consisting of twice the standard dose of cisplatin (P), along with vinblastine (Ve), bleomycin (B), and the epipodophylotoxin etoposide (VP-16) (V) (PVeBV) was compared to the classic regimen with normal dose cisplatin, vinblastine, and bleomycin (PVeB). Eligibility criteria included large abdominal masses, liver metastases, multiple pulmonary metastases, brain metastases, marked elevations in serum tumor markers (alpha-fetoprotein greater than 1,000 ng/mL or the beta-subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin greater than 10,000 mIU), unfavorable histology (pure choriocarcinoma), or extragonadal germ-cell tumors. Fifty-two consecutive patients with poor prognostic features were randomized to receive either PVeBV or PVeB. The median follow-up is 4 years. Treatment with the high-dose regimen increased the complete remission rate (88% v 67%, P = .14) and was associated with a lower relapse rate (17% v 41%, P = .2). The median survival of patients receiving standard therapy was 30 months, while the median survival for patients receiving the high-dose regimen has not been reached. Actuarial 5-year survival for patients treated with the high-dose regimen is 78%, compared with 48% for patients receiving standard therapy (two-sided Mantel-Cox test = .06). Disease-free survival was also superior for patients randomized to PVeBV (P = .03). Sixty-eight percent of patients (23 of 34) randomized to PVeBV are alive and continuously disease-free, compared with 33% (six of 18) for PVeB (P = .02). The major difference in toxicity between the high-dose regimen and standard therapy was the severity of myelosuppression and the incidence of severe hearing loss. Ninety-one percent of patients treated with PVeBV had a WBC count less than 1,000/microL, compared with 50% of patients receiving PVeB (P less than .05). Hearing aids were recommended for 12 patients who received PVeBV and two who received PVeB. The increased effectiveness of the PVeBV regimen in poor prognosis germ-cell cancer patients may relate to the double-dose cisplatin, the addition of VP-16, or to a synergistic effect of these two drugs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1988        PMID: 2453619     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1988.6.6.1031

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  31 in total

Review 1.  Comparative tolerability of chemotherapy regimens for germ cell cancer.

Authors:  S Culine; J P Droz
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 2.  Advances in the treatment of testicular cancer.

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

Review 3.  The concept of dose intensification in the treatment of neoplastic disease.

Authors:  U B Wandl; N Niederle
Journal:  Infection       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 3.553

Review 4.  Cisplatin nephrotoxicity. A review.

Authors:  G Daugaard; U Abildgaard
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 3.333

5.  Improved prognosis of intracranial non-germinoma germ cell tumors with multimodality therapy.

Authors:  P L Robertson; R C DaRosso; J C Allen
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 4.130

6.  Cisplatin/etoposide/ifosfamide stepwise dose escalation with concomitant granulocyte/macrophage-colony-stimulating factor for patients with far-advanced testicular carcinoma.

Authors:  A Harstrick; H J Schmoll; C Bokemeyer; B Metzner; H J Illiger; W Berdel; H Ostermann; C Manegold; U Räth; W Siegert
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 4.553

7.  Abandoning "TAP" as treatment of metastatic endometrial cancer: a serious example of the consequences resulting from the failure to adequately define the question being addressed in a phase 3 trial.

Authors:  Maurie Markman
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 5.075

8.  Cost- and risk-benefit considerations in the management of clinical stage I nonseminomatous testicular tumors.

Authors:  J Baniel; B J Roth; R S Foster; J P Donohue
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 5.344

9.  Treatment of intracranial nongerminomatous germ-cell tumor by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell rescue.

Authors:  T Tada; T Takizawa; F Nakazato; S Kobayashi; K Koike; M Oguchi; E Ishii; Y Amano
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 4.130

10.  Alternating dose-dense chemotherapy in patients with high volume disseminated non-seminomatous germ cell tumours.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.