Department of Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN.
Department of Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN.
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2018 Apr;16(2):e307-e313. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2017.10.008. Epub 2017 Oct 16.
Patients with International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG) good-risk testicular cancer might receive either 4 cycles of etoposide and cisplatin (EP × 4) or 3 cycles of bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP × 3). We sought to examine differences in survival after retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (PC-RPLND) between patients who received EP × 4 compared with BEP × 3.
The Indiana University Testis Cancer database was queried to identify IGCCCG good-risk PC-RPLND patients who received either EP × 4 or BEP × 3 induction chemotherapy. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Kaplan-Meier plots were generated for the EP × 4 and BEP × 3 groups and compared using the log rank test. Cox regression analysis was used to determine risk of mortality.
A total of 223 patients met inclusion criteria between 1985 and 2011. Induction chemotherapy consisted of EP × 4 in 45 (20%) patients and BEP × 3 in 178 (80%). Most patients (78%) received their chemotherapy at outside institutions and were subsequently referred for PC-RPLND. The location of treating institution did not influence outcomes significantly when similar chemotherapy regimens were compared in this good-risk cohort. The 10-year OS for the EP × 4 and BEP × 3 groups were 91% and 98%, respectively (log rank P < .01). The adjusted risk of death in the EP × 4 group showed a nonsignificant trend of 3 times greater compared with the BEP × 3 group (hazard ratio, 3.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-12.0; P = .10).
The regimen of BEP × 3 resulted in a trend toward improved survival, however, this did not reach statistical significance. The location of treating institution seems less important in this risk group of patients.
国际生殖细胞瘤协作组(IGCCCG)低危睾丸癌患者可接受 4 周期依托泊苷和顺铂(EP×4)或 3 周期博来霉素、依托泊苷和顺铂(BEP×3)治疗。我们旨在研究接受 EP×4 与 BEP×3 诱导化疗后行腹膜后淋巴结清扫术(PC-RPLND)的患者生存差异。
印第安纳大学睾丸癌数据库中检索 IGCCCG 低危 PC-RPLND 患者,他们接受 EP×4 或 BEP×3 诱导化疗。主要结局为总生存期(OS)。生成 EP×4 和 BEP×3 组的 Kaplan-Meier 图,并使用对数秩检验进行比较。Cox 回归分析用于确定死亡率风险。
共有 223 例患者符合 1985 年至 2011 年的纳入标准。45 例(20%)患者接受 EP×4 诱导化疗,178 例(80%)患者接受 BEP×3 诱导化疗。大多数患者(78%)在外部机构接受化疗,随后转诊行 PC-RPLND。在这个低危队列中,当比较相似的化疗方案时,治疗机构的位置并没有显著影响结果。EP×4 和 BEP×3 组的 10 年 OS 分别为 91%和 98%(对数秩 P<.01)。EP×4 组死亡风险的调整风险显示出与 BEP×3 组相比无显著趋势增加 3 倍(危险比,3.1;95%置信区间,0.8-12.0;P=.10)。
BEP×3 方案的生存结果呈改善趋势,但未达到统计学意义。在这个低危患者组中,治疗机构的位置似乎不那么重要。