Outcomes of relapsed/refractory extracranial germ cell tumors treated on conventional salvage chemotherapy without stem cell rescue: Experience from a tertiary cancer center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Data on the outcome and prognostic indicators in extracranial relapsed/refractory germ cell tumors (rel/ref-GCTs) in children are limited to a few studies. This study looks at remission rates and outcomes of rel/ref-GCTs treated with conventional salvage chemotherapy (SC) regimens without stem cell rescue at a single center in the developing world. METHODS: Patients treated at our center from January 2009 to December 2018 were included. Risk at primary presentation was stratified as all completely excised teratomas and stage I gonadal tumors being low risk (LR); stage IV ovarian, stage III-IV extragonadal GCTs as high risk (HR), and the remaining as intermediate risk (IR). SC regimens were: vinblastine-ifosfamide-cisplatin/carboplatin or paclitaxel-ifosfamide-cisplatin/carboplatin, or cisplatin/carboplatin-etoposide-bleomycin. Local therapy was either surgery and/or radiotherapy. RESULTS: The analyzable cohort comprised 50 patients (44 = rel-GCTs; 6 = ref-GCTs) with a median age of 3.8 years and male:female ratio of 1.27:1. Primary location was ovary in 16 (32%), testicular in 10 (20%), and extragonadal in the rest (48%). Local, metastatic, and combined progression was noted in 28 (56%), 14 (28%), and eight (16%) patients, respectively, at a median time of 8.5 months. At a median follow-up of 60 months, the 5-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) of the entire cohort (n = 50) were 42.4% and 50.0%, respectively. In patients previously exposed to platinum analogs (n = 38), 5-year-EFS and OS were 27.7% and 31.7%, respectively. Local relapses did better when compared to metastatic and combined relapses (5-year EFS: 64% vs. 23% vs. 0%; p = .009). LR and IR tumors did better compared to HR (5-year EFS: 81.5% vs. 49.3% vs. 6.5%; p = .002). Patients with normalization of tumor markers after two cycles had a superior EFS (57.6% vs. 0%; p < .001). Relapsed tumors fared better than primary refractory GCTs (5-year EFS: 48.6% vs. 0%; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Primary refractory GCTs, extragonadal rel-GCTs, and rel/ref-GCTs with a poor biochemical response did poorly with conventional SC and need alternative treatment strategies. The rel/ref-testicular GCTs had the best chance of salvage despite a second recurrence (5-year EFS and OS: 28.60% and 42.90%, respectively).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".