Metastatic seminoma treated with either single agent carboplatin or cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy: a pooled analysis of two randomised trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To study the role of single agent carboplatin chemotherapy in patients with metastatic seminoma based on the data from two randomised trials. In subgroup analyses in patients with different disease characteristics, the outcome treated with either single agent carboplatin or cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy was compared. Individual patient data from two randomised European trials involving patients with metastatic seminoma were gathered. The primary endpoint for all analyses was progression-free survival. The source data of 361 patients, 184 treated with cisplatin-based combinations and 177 treated with carboplatin single agent therapy, were entered into the analysis. Patient characteristics were comparable among the cisplatin-based and the carboplatin single agent treated patient groups with lymph nodes and lungs being the most frequent metastatic sites in 92 and 8% of patients, respectively. Overall, patients treated with single agent carboplatin had an inferior 5-year overall (89 and 94%; P=0.09) and progression-free survival rate (72 and 92%; P< 0.0001) compared with patients receiving cisplatin-based combinations. For all investigated subgroups (based on age, prior radiation therapy, metastatic sites), carboplatin single agent therapy was found to be inferior to cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy. In conclusion, carboplatin single agent therapy cannot be recommended as standard treatment for any patient subgroup with advanced metastatic seminoma and cisplatin-based combination regimens remain the standard of care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".