Radiotherapy versus single-dose carboplatin in adjuvant treatment of stage I seminoma: a randomised trial.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	Radiotherapy versus single-dose carboplatin in adjuvant treatment of stage I seminoma: a randomised trial.
Authors:	Oliver, R. T. D., Mason, M. D., Mead, G. M., von der Maase, H., Rustin, G. J. S., Joffe, J. K., de Wit, R., Aass, N., Coleman, R., Graham, J. D., Kirk, S. J., Stenning, S. P.
Source:	Lancet. 7/23/2005, Vol. 366 Issue 9482, p293-300. 8p. 1 Diagram, 2 Charts, 5 Graphs.
Subjects:	Tumor treatment, Radiotherapy, Drug therapy, Adjuvant treatment of cancer, Medical experimentation on humans, Clinical trials, Therapeutics research, Oncology research
Abstract:	Background Adjuvant radiotherapy is effective treatment for stage I seminoma, but is associated with a risk of late non-germ-cell cancer and cardiovascular events. After good results in initial studies with one injection of carboplatin, we undertook a large randomised trial to compare the approaches of radiotherapy with chemotherapy in seminoma treatment. Methods Between 1996 and 2001, 1477 patients from 70 hospitals in 14 countries were randomly assigned to receive radiotherapy (para-aortic strip or dog-leg field; n=904) or one injection of carboplatin (n=573; dose based on the formula 7×[glomerular filtration rate+25] mg), at two trial centres in the UK and Belgium. The primary outcome measure was the relapse-free rate, with the trial powered to exclude absolute differences in 2-year rates of more than 3%. Analysis was by intention to treat and per protocol. This trial has been assigned the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN27163214. Findings 885 and 560 patients received radiotherapy and carboplatin, respectively. With a median follow-up of 4 years (IQR 3·0-4·9), relapse-free survival rates for radiotherapy and carboplatin were similar (96·7% [95% CI 95·3-97·7] vs 97·7% [96·0-98·6] at 2 years; 95·9% [94·4-97·1] vs 94·8% [92·5-96·4] at 3 years, respectively; hazard ratio 1·28 [90% CI 0·85-1·93], p=0·32). At 2 years' follow-up, the absolute differences in relapse-free rates (radiotherapy-chemotherapy) were -1·0% (90% CI -2·5 to 0·5) by direct comparison of proportions, and 0·9% (-0·5 to 3·0) by a hazard-ratio-based approach. Patients given carboplatin were less lethargic and less likely to take time off work than those given radiotherapy. New, second primary testicular germ-cell tumours were reported in ten patients allocated irradiation (all after para-aortic strip field) and two allocated carboplatin (5-year event rate 1·96% [95% CI 1·0-3·8] vs 0·54% [0·1-2·1], p=0·04). One seminoma-related death occurred after radiotherapy and none after carboplatin. Interpretation This trial has shown the non-inferiority of carboplatin to radiotherapy in the treatment of stage I seminoma. Although the absence of disease-related deaths and preliminary data indicating fewer second primary testicular germ-cell tumours favour carboplatin use, these findings need to be confirmed beyond 4 years' follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of Lancet is the property of Lancet and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database:	Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection

Description
Abstract:	Background Adjuvant radiotherapy is effective treatment for stage I seminoma, but is associated with a risk of late non-germ-cell cancer and cardiovascular events. After good results in initial studies with one injection of carboplatin, we undertook a large randomised trial to compare the approaches of radiotherapy with chemotherapy in seminoma treatment. Methods Between 1996 and 2001, 1477 patients from 70 hospitals in 14 countries were randomly assigned to receive radiotherapy (para-aortic strip or dog-leg field; n=904) or one injection of carboplatin (n=573; dose based on the formula 7×[glomerular filtration rate+25] mg), at two trial centres in the UK and Belgium. The primary outcome measure was the relapse-free rate, with the trial powered to exclude absolute differences in 2-year rates of more than 3%. Analysis was by intention to treat and per protocol. This trial has been assigned the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN27163214. Findings 885 and 560 patients received radiotherapy and carboplatin, respectively. With a median follow-up of 4 years (IQR 3·0-4·9), relapse-free survival rates for radiotherapy and carboplatin were similar (96·7% [95% CI 95·3-97·7] vs 97·7% [96·0-98·6] at 2 years; 95·9% [94·4-97·1] vs 94·8% [92·5-96·4] at 3 years, respectively; hazard ratio 1·28 [90% CI 0·85-1·93], p=0·32). At 2 years' follow-up, the absolute differences in relapse-free rates (radiotherapy-chemotherapy) were -1·0% (90% CI -2·5 to 0·5) by direct comparison of proportions, and 0·9% (-0·5 to 3·0) by a hazard-ratio-based approach. Patients given carboplatin were less lethargic and less likely to take time off work than those given radiotherapy. New, second primary testicular germ-cell tumours were reported in ten patients allocated irradiation (all after para-aortic strip field) and two allocated carboplatin (5-year event rate 1·96% [95% CI 1·0-3·8] vs 0·54% [0·1-2·1], p=0·04). One seminoma-related death occurred after radiotherapy and none after carboplatin. Interpretation This trial has shown the non-inferiority of carboplatin to radiotherapy in the treatment of stage I seminoma. Although the absence of disease-related deaths and preliminary data indicating fewer second primary testicular germ-cell tumours favour carboplatin use, these findings need to be confirmed beyond 4 years' follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	01406736
DOI:	10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66984-X