ArticlePediatric blood & cancer2025
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.
Article in Pediatric blood & cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCisplatin, 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.
methodsWe 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.
resultsAmong 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.
conclusionsTreatment with HDPEb did not improve outcomes for intermediate/poor-risk GCT patients compared to standard-dose PEb.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.