Standard‐Dose Versus High‐Dose Cisplatin for Intermediate/Poor‐Risk Extracranial Malignant Germ Cell Tumors: Re‐Analysis of Pediatric Oncology Group 9049 and Children's Cancer Group 8882 Trial Using Updated MaGIC Risk Stratification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cisplatin, etoposide, and bleomycin (PEb) have been the standard of care for patients with germ cell tumors (GCT). In the 1990s, an intergroup trial (POG9049/CCG8882) randomized patients with high-risk GCT, as defined by the 1990 criteria, to high-dose (HDPEb) versus standard-dose PEb. HDPEb resulted in improved event-free survival (EFS), but no difference in overall survival (OS), thus standard-dose PEb has remained the standard of care. Subsequently, the Malignant Germ Cell International Consortium (MaGIC) updated the risk stratification for pediatric and adolescent patients with GCT. Currently, patients are categorized as intermediate or poor risk if they are ≥11 years of age with Stage IV ovarian GCT, or testicular, mediastinal, or retroperitoneal GCT with intermediate or poor prognosis using the International Germ Cell Consensus Classification criteria. METHODS: We re-analyzed data from the POG9049/CCG8882 trial using the updated MaGIC risk stratification to determine whether HDPEb improved outcomes over PEb in patients with intermediate/poor-risk GCTs. RESULTS: Among 299 patients in the trial, 57 patients (48 males, nine females) met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. There were no statistically significant differences in 5-year EFS (0.72 vs. 0.70, p-value = 0.82) or OS (0.76 vs. 0.74, p-value = 0.91) among patients treated with HDPEb versus PEb, respectively. Also, of note patients with mediastinal primaries had significantly worse 5-year EFS (0.51 vs. 0.83, p-value = 0.0062) and OS (0.49 vs. 0.89, p-value = 0.0013) compared to other sites, with no difference in outcome between HDPEb and PEb. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with HDPEb did not improve outcomes for intermediate/poor-risk GCT patients compared to standard-dose PEb.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".