MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414167005 · doi:10.1002/pbc.32033

Outcome of Children With Intermediate‐Risk Extracranial Malignant Germ Cell Tumors by Response Status at the End of Induction Chemotherapy: A Report From the Children's Oncology Group

2025· article· en· W4414167005 on OpenAlexaff
Adriana Fonseca, Doojduen Villaluna, Mark Krailo, Thomas A. Olson, Farzana Pashankar, Marcio H. Malogolowkin, James F. Amatruda, Deborah F. Billmire, Frederick J. Rescorla, Jonathan H. Ross, Bryan J. Dicken, Carlos Rodríguez‐Galindo, A. Lindsay Frazier, Furqan Shaikh

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTesticular diseases and treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenStollery Children's HospitalUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital Edmonton
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsGerm cell tumorsChemotherapyRegimenInduction chemotherapyPediatric oncologySalvage therapyChemotherapy regimen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In many pediatric malignant germ cell tumor (MGCT) protocols, patients who do not achieve a complete response (CR; normal tumor markers, no radiological/histological residual) after three cisplatin-etoposide-bleomycin (PEb) cycles receive two to three "consolidation" cycles of the same regimen. Evidence for this practice is limited, and historical outcomes for non‑CR patients remain poor. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients diagnosed with intermediate-risk MGCT, enrolled in AGCT0132, between 2003 and 2011. All patients received three cycles of PEb and underwent response assessment at the end of induction. Patients not in CR were prescribed three additional cycles of PEb as consolidation. We compared event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients who did and did not receive consolidation. RESULTS: Among 210 patients enrolled, two patients were excluded from analyses: one without complete information, and one had rapid progressive disease (PD) and did not complete induction therapy. Out of 208 patients, 193 had a CR after three cycles of induction chemotherapy, and their post-induction 4-year EFS and OS were 93% and 99%. Fifteen patients were not in CR at the end of the first three cycles. Twelve received consolidated chemotherapy as mandated per protocol, and their 4-year EFS and OS were 61% and 65%, respectively. Three patients were deemed to have progressive disease at the end of induction and received second-line therapy. CONCLUSION: Children with MGCTs who did not achieve CR after the first three cycles of chemotherapy had an inferior outcome compared to those with a CR, despite receiving additional cycles of PEb chemotherapy. We conclude that consolidation is of unclear benefit. We suggest that pediatric MGCT patients who fail to achieve a CR after standard induction chemotherapy may receive a salvage regimen with different agents rather than consolidation with more of the same chemotherapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicTesticular diseases and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207