BACKGROUND: In an attempt to reduce the toxicity of chemotherapy in good-risk testicular cancer patients the two drug combinations, cisplatin plus etoposide (EP) and carboplatin plus etoposide (EC), have been compared. METHODS: Good risk was defined according to the MSKCC and IU criteria. 39 Patients have been treated withEP (cisplatin 20 mg/m2 i.v. and etoposide 100 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1 to 5), and 23 patients received EC (carboplatin 350 mg/m2 on day 1 and etoposide 100 mg/m2 on days 1 to 5). Four cycles of chemotherapy were given at 21- and 28-day intervals, respectively, with delays of up to 7 days in instances of leukocyte counts less than 3.0 x 10(9)/l or platelet counts less than 100 x 10(9)/l. RESULTS: In the EP group 34 (87%) of 39 patients achieved CR (26 with chemotherapy alone, 8 with additional surgery). After a median follow-up of 26 (12-58) months 3 (9%) patients relapsed from CR. Currently 38 patients are alive, and 37 (94%) are NED. In the EC group 20 (87%) of 23 patients achieved CR (15 with chemotherapy alone and 5 with additional surgery). After a median follow-up of 45 (26-57) months 6 (30%) patients relapsed from CR. Currently 19 patients are alive and 17 (74%) are NED. There was no difference in survival between the two groups (p = 0.13), but in the EC group the relapse rate was higher (p = 0.052) and the proportion of patients with NED was lower (p = 0.03) in comparison with EP. Toxicity in both groups was mild and similar, but 3 EP-treated patients presented hair loss. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that carboplatin-etoposide combination therapy is inferior to cisplatin-etoposide in patients with good-risk germ cell tumors.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: In an attempt to reduce the toxicity of chemotherapy in good-risk testicular cancerpatients the two drug combinations, cisplatin plus etoposide (EP) and carboplatin plus etoposide (EC), have been compared. METHODS: Good risk was defined according to the MSKCC and IU criteria. 39 Patients have been treated with EP (cisplatin 20 mg/m2 i.v. and etoposide 100 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1 to 5), and 23 patients received EC (carboplatin 350 mg/m2 on day 1 and etoposide 100 mg/m2 on days 1 to 5). Four cycles of chemotherapy were given at 21- and 28-day intervals, respectively, with delays of up to 7 days in instances of leukocyte counts less than 3.0 x 10(9)/l or platelet counts less than 100 x 10(9)/l. RESULTS: In the EP group 34 (87%) of 39 patients achieved CR (26 with chemotherapy alone, 8 with additional surgery). After a median follow-up of 26 (12-58) months 3 (9%) patients relapsed from CR. Currently 38 patients are alive, and 37 (94%) are NED. In the EC group 20 (87%) of 23 patients achieved CR (15 with chemotherapy alone and 5 with additional surgery). After a median follow-up of 45 (26-57) months 6 (30%) patients relapsed from CR. Currently 19 patients are alive and 17 (74%) are NED. There was no difference in survival between the two groups (p = 0.13), but in the EC group the relapse rate was higher (p = 0.052) and the proportion of patients with NED was lower (p = 0.03) in comparison with EP. Toxicity in both groups was mild and similar, but 3 EP-treated patients presented hair loss. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that carboplatin-etoposide combination therapy is inferior to cisplatin-etoposide in patients with good-risk germ cell tumors.
Authors: Katarina Rejlekova; Katarina Kalavska; Marek Makovnik; Nikola Hapakova; Michal Chovanec; Valentina De Angelis; Jana Obertova; Patrik Palacka; Zuzana Sycova-Mila; Jozef Mardiak; Michal Mego Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 5.738