Metastatic seminoma treated with either single agent carboplatin or cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy: a pooled analysis of two randomised trials
2004

Comparing Carboplatin and Cisplatin for Metastatic Seminoma

Sample size: 361 publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Bokemeyer C, Kollmannsberger C, Stenning S, Hartmann J T, Horwich A, Clemm C, Gerl A, Meisner C, Rückerl C-P, Schmoll H-J, Kanz L, Oliver T

Primary Institution: University of Tuebingen

Hypothesis

Is carboplatin single agent therapy as effective as cisplatin-based combination therapy for metastatic seminoma?

Conclusion

Carboplatin single agent therapy is inferior to cisplatin-based combinations in terms of progression-free survival for patients with metastatic seminoma.

Supporting Evidence

  • Carboplatin treatment resulted in a 72% progression-free survival rate compared to 92% for cisplatin.
  • Relapses occurred in 29% of carboplatin patients versus 9% in cisplatin patients.
  • Overall survival was 90% for carboplatin and 94% for cisplatin, but this difference was not statistically significant.

Takeaway

This study looked at two treatments for a type of cancer called metastatic seminoma. It found that one treatment, carboplatin, is not as good as another treatment, cisplatin, for helping patients stay healthy.

Methodology

The study pooled individual patient data from two randomized trials comparing carboplatin single agent therapy with cisplatin-based combinations.

Potential Biases

Both trials had limited patient numbers, which may affect the reliability of the findings.

Limitations

The British trial was closed early due to poor accrual, and the German trial's final results have not been fully published.

Participant Demographics

Patients included were primarily male with advanced seminoma, median ages of 37 and 39 for carboplatin and cisplatin groups, respectively.

Statistical Information

P-Value

p<0.001

Confidence Interval

95% CI: 63–80%

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1038/sj.bjc.6602020

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication