ReviewOncology and therapy2025
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Management of Relapsed Germ Cell Tumours Following Cisplatin-Based Chemotherapy.
Review in Oncology and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSalvage treatment options after cisplatin-based chemotherapy for germ cell tumours (GCT) are either conventional-dose chemotherapy (CDCT) or high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT). However, the optimal sequencing of these strategies remains debated owing to limited comparative data guiding the choice of first-line salvage. Here, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of CDCT and HDCT, focusing on survival rates, objective response rate (ORR) and treatment-related deaths (TRD).
methodsThe protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024526637). Three databases were searched and reference lists were manually screened. Two reviewers independently screened articles and extracted data, with quality and bias assessed using Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools. Studies of patients with metastatic GCT who relapsed after cisplatin-based chemotherapy, whether receiving first-line salvage or subsequent lines of treatment, were included in the study. In the meta-analysis, 1-, 2- and 3-year survival rates and ORR were pooled using logit transformation, back-transformed to proportions and compared between CDCT and HDCT groups.
resultsOut of 2435 studies screened, 65 (5745 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Only nine studies reported International Prognostic Factor Study Group (IPFSG) scores. Median overall survival (OS) was 27 months for CDCT and 21 months for HDCT (p = 0.4035). The 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival rates were higher with CDCT (81.7%, 61.6%, 47.0%) compared with HDCT (70.0%, 57.4%, 39.1%), though not statistically significant. The pooled ORR was 53% with CDCT and 61% with HDCT. TRD were significantly lower with CDCT (3%) compared with HDCT (7.5%) (p = 0.0002). In subgroup analysis of studies evaluating second-line treatment, median OS was 23.9 months for CDCT and 19.4 months for HDCT.
conclusionsCDCT was associated with higher survival rates compared with HDCT, though the differences were not statistically significant. Larger prospective studies are needed to directly compare these strategies and guide personalised treatment selection in relapsed GCT.
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.