Survival and New Prognosticators in Metastatic Seminoma: Results From the IGCCCG-Update Consortium
Phase observationalN = 2,451
- Population
- Men with metastatic seminoma treated 1990-2013
- Design
- Pooled clinical-trial and registry data from 30 institutions or collaborative groups in Australia, Europe and North America; men with metastatic seminoma treated with cisplatin- and etoposide-based first-line chemotherapy 1990-2013, endpoints measured from day 1 of treatment, with an independent validation set of 764 patients. Arms are prognostic strata, not randomised treatments; roles are schematic.
- Primary endpoint
- PFS, OS
- Arms
- Good prognosis (control): Cisplatin- and etoposide-based first-line chemotherapy
- Intermediate prognosis (experimental): Cisplatin- and etoposide-based first-line chemotherapy
- Good prognosis, LDH at or below 2.5x ULN (control): Cisplatin- and etoposide-based first-line chemotherapy
- Good prognosis, LDH above 2.5x ULN (experimental): Cisplatin- and etoposide-based first-line chemotherapy
- People
- Beyer J, senior author International Germ Cell Cancer Classification Update Consortium, International Germ Cell Cancer Classification Update Consortium
Δ 60-month OS−7 pointsΔ 60-month PFS−10 pointsΔ 36-month PFS−12 pointsΔ 36-month OS−5 points
Show the numbers
| Endpoint | Analysis | Intermediate prognosis / Good prognosis, LDH above 2.5x ULN | Good prognosis / Good prognosis, LDH at or below 2.5x ULN | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OSAll 2,451 men (pooled trial and registry data) | finalBeyer 2021 | 88% at 5 y (80–93%) | 95% at 5 y (94–96%) | Original IGCCCG values quoted in the abstract: 5-year OS 86% (good) and 72% (intermediate); the abstract gives no intervals for them. |
| PFSAll 2,451 men (pooled trial and registry data) | finalBeyer 2021 | 79% at 5 y (70–85%) | 89% at 5 y (87–90%) | Original IGCCCG values quoted in the abstract: 5-year PFS 82% (good) and 67% (intermediate). |
| PFSGood-prognosis patients, split by LDH at 2.5x the upper limit of normal | exploratoryBeyer 2021 | 80% at 3 y (75–84%) | 92% at 3 y (90–94%) | Prognostic-factor analysis, not a treatment comparison. |
| OSGood-prognosis patients, split by LDH at 2.5x the upper limit of normal | exploratoryBeyer 2021 | 92% at 3 y (88–95%) | 97% at 3 y (96–98%) | Prognostic-factor analysis, not a treatment comparison. |
| Endpoint | Analysis | Intermediate prognosis / Good prognosis, LDH above 2.5x ULN | Good prognosis / Good prognosis, LDH at or below 2.5x ULN | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OSAll 2,451 men (pooled trial and registry data) | finalBeyer 2021 | 88% at 5 y (80–93%) | 95% at 5 y (94–96%) | Original IGCCCG values quoted in the abstract: 5-year OS 86% (good) and 72% (intermediate); the abstract gives no intervals for them. |
| PFSAll 2,451 men (pooled trial and registry data) | finalBeyer 2021 | 79% at 5 y (70–85%) | 89% at 5 y (87–90%) | Original IGCCCG values quoted in the abstract: 5-year PFS 82% (good) and 67% (intermediate). |
| PFSGood-prognosis patients, split by LDH at 2.5x the upper limit of normal | exploratoryBeyer 2021 | 80% at 3 y (75–84%) | 92% at 3 y (90–94%) | Prognostic-factor analysis, not a treatment comparison. |
| OSGood-prognosis patients, split by LDH at 2.5x the upper limit of normal | exploratoryBeyer 2021 | 92% at 3 y (88–95%) | 97% at 3 y (96–98%) | Prognostic-factor analysis, not a treatment comparison. |