ArticleResearch and reports in urology2026
Salvage Therapy for Relapsed/Refractory Testicular Germ Cell Tumors: King Faisal Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh Experience.
Article in Research and reports in urology, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Optimal salvage treatment for relapsed/refractory germ cell tumors in men remains controversial. The options include conventional-dose chemotherapy (CDCT) and high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (HDCT-ASCT). There is currently a lack of data from the Middle East on this topic. This study presents the largest single-institution experience in the region. Methods: We retrospectively examined patients aged 14 years or older, treated at King Faisal Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, between 2010 and 2022. Patients previously received first-line, cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The treatment consisted of either CDCT or HDCT-ASCT. The primary endpoints were event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: Study included 46 patients, of whom 24 and 22 received CDCT and HDCT-ASCT, respectively. Using the IPFSG prognostic model as per local institutional practice, patients in the very low, low, and intermediate risk groups received CDCT. In the 24-patient CDCT group, 16 (66%) were high/very high risk, and only 2 (8%) demonstrated primary refractoriness. Contrarily, of the 22 patients who received HDCT-ASCT, 20 (91%) were classified as high/very high risk, and 17 (77%) were primary refractory to first-line treatment. The HDCT-ASCT cohort was heavily weighted toward high/very high risk. HDCT-ASCT group (59%) had a higher complete remission rate than the CDCT group (59% vs 41%). With a median follow-up of 35 months, the 3-year OS was 60% in the CDCT group and 53% in the HDCT-ASCT group, whereas the 3-year EFS rates were 54% and 43%, respectively. Discussion: Results indicated that HDCT-ASCT achieved a superior response rate compared with CDCT, despite an adverse prognostic profile and numerically comparable survival outcomes with the lower-risk cohort treated with CDCT. These findings suggest that the selection of higher-risk patients for a more intensive therapy is an effective strategy. However, direct comparison is limited by the retrospective nature.
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.