Long-Term Survival of Good-Risk Germ Cell Tumor Patients After Postchemotherapy Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection: A Comparison of BEP × 3 vs. EP × 4 and Treating Institution
Date
Language
Embargo Lift Date
Department
Committee Members
Degree
Degree Year
Department
Grantor
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Found At
Abstract
Background
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.
Patients and Methods
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.
Results
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).
Conclusion
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.