Poor-Prognosis Germ Cell Tumours


Chemotherapy

Classification system

Number of patients

Favourable response rates (%)

Progression-free survival (%)

Conclusion

First author

BEP × 4

Indiana University

159

73

61

Double-dose cisplatin not superior and more toxic

Nichols

v
  
BEP200 × 4

68

63

BEP × 4

Indiana University

299

60

57

Substitution of ifosfamide for bleomycin not superior and more toxic

Nichols

v
  
VIP × 4

63

56

BEP × 4

EORTC

250

76

NR

Alternating regimen not superior and more toxic

de Wit

v
  
BEP/PVeB × 4

72

NR

BEP × 4/EP × 2

MRC/EORTC

380

57

55

Dose-dense alternating regimen not superior and more toxic

Kaye

v
  
BOP/VIP-B

54

53

BEP × 4

Institut Gustave Roussy

190

61

47

Alternating regimen not superior and more toxic

Culine

v
  
CISCA/VeB

54

37

P200VeBE × ¾

Institut Gustave Roussy

115

75

54

High-dose chemotherapy not superior and more toxic

Droz

v
  
P200VeBE × 2 + P200EC

67

47

BEP × 4

IGCCCG

219

55

48

High-dose chemotherapy not superior and more toxic

Motzer

v
  
BEP × 3 + CaEC

56

52

BEP × 4

IGCCCG

137

33

45

High-dose chemotherapy not superior and more toxic

Daugaard

v
  
VIP × 1 + HD-VIP × 3

45

58

BEP × 4

IGCCCG

263

30

48

Personalised chemotherapy improves PFS in patients with unfavourable tumour marker decline after 1 BEP

Fizazi

v
  
BEP × 1 + T-BEP-Ox × 2 + BIP × 2 in patients with unfavourable tumour marker decline

40

59


B bleomycin, E or V etoposide, P cisplatin (100 mg/m2/cycle), P200 cisplatin (200 mg/m2/cycle), I ifosfamide, Ve vinblastine, O vincristine, C cyclophosphamide, A doxorubicin, Ca carboplatin, MRC Medical Research Council, EORTC European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, IGCCCG International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group, NR not reported





6.3 Tumour Marker Decline Is a Prognostic Factor in Poor-Risk GCT


Investigators have studied whether a slow decline in hCG and AFP during chemotherapy could single out patients likely to fail conventional therapy [7, 1214]. A subgroup of patients with poor-prognosis NSGCT with a better outcome was identified based on a tumour marker decline assessed 3 weeks after the start of chemotherapy [14]. Baseline and days 18–21 tumour marker values are introduced into a logarithmic formula, which defines a favourable and an unfavourable decline pattern in serum tumour markers. A decline is defined as favourable only if both AFP and hCG declines are considered favourable by the formula. The calculator tool is available online at http://​www.​gustaveroussy.​fr/​calculation-tumor/​NSGCT.​html. Using this method, patients with an unfavourable decrease and those with a favourable decrease had a 3-year PFS rate of 46 and 73 % (p = 0.01) and an overall survival (OS) rate of 59 % and 81 % (p = 0.02), respectively [14]. These data were prospectively confirmed in a separate set: 48 % [95 %CI: 38; 59 %] versus 70 % [95 %CI: 57–81 %] for 3-year PFS (p = 0.01) and 65 % [95 %CI: 55–75 %] versus 84 % [95 %CI: 71–92 %] for OS (p = 0.02) in patients with poor-risk NSGCT and an unfavourable and a favourable decline, respectively [15].

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Nov 17, 2016 | Posted by in ONCOLOGY | Comments Off on Poor-Prognosis Germ Cell Tumours

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access