Randomized Phase III Study Comparing Paclitaxel–Bleomycin, Etoposide, and Cisplatin (BEP) to Standard BEP in Intermediate-Prognosis Germ-Cell Cancer: Intergroup Study EORTC 30983
Authors:
- Ronald de WitRonald de Wit
- Iwona SkonecznaISIwona Skoneczna
- Gedske DaugaardGDGedske Daugaard
- Maria De SantisMSMaria De Santis
- August GarinAGAugust Garin
- Nina AassNANina Aass
- Alfred J. WitjesAWAlfred J. Witjes
- Peter AlbersPAPeter Albers
- Jeffery D. WhiteJWJeffery D. White
- José R. Germa-LluchJGJosé R. Germa-Lluch
- Sandrine MarreaudSMSandrine Marreaud
- Laurence ColletteLCLaurence Collette
Open Access
- 10 March 2012
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Vol. 30 (8) , 792-799
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the efficacy of four cycles of paclitaxel–bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (T-BEP) to four cycles of bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) in previously untreated patients with intermediate-prognosis germ-cell cancer (GCC). Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either T-BEP or standard BEP. Patients assigned to the T-BEP group received paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 in a 3-hour infusion. Patients who were administered T-BEP received primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis. The study was designed as a randomized open-label phase II/III study. To show a 10% improvement in 3-year progression-free survival (PFS), the study aimed to recruit 498 patients but closed with 337 patients as a result of slow accrual. Results: Accrual was from November 1998 to April 2009. A total of 169patients were administered BEP, and 168 patients were administered T-BEP. Thirteen patients in both arms were ineligible, mainly as a result of a good prognosis of GCC (eight patients administered BEP; six patients administered T-BEP) or a poor prognosis of GCC (one patient administered BEP; four patients administered T-BEP). PFS at 3 years (intent to treat) was 79.4% in the T-BEP group versus 71.1% in the BEP group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; CI, 0.47 to 1.13; P [log-rank test] = 0.153). PFS at 3 years in all eligible patients was 82.7% versus 70.1%, respectively (HR, 0.60; CI: 0.37 to 0.97) and was statistically significant (P = 0.03). Overall survival was not statistically different. Conclusion: T-BEP administered with G-CSF seems to be a safe and effective treatment regimen for patients with intermediate-prognosis GCC. However, the study recruited a smaller-than-planned number of patients and included 7.7% ineligible patients. The primary analysis of the trial could not demonstrate statistical superiority of T-BEP for PFS. When ineligible patients were excluded, the analysis of all eligible patients demonstrated a 12% superior 3-year PFS with T-BEP, which was statistically significant.Keywords
This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- A randomized phase III study comparing standard dose BEP with sequential high-dose cisplatin, etoposide, and ifosfamide (VIP) plus stem-cell support in males with poor-prognosis germ-cell cancer. An intergroup study of EORTC, GTCSG, and Grupo Germinal (EORTC 30974)Annals of Oncology, 2010
- Medical Treatment of Advanced Testicular CancerJAMA, 2008
- Phase III Randomized Trial of Conventional-Dose Chemotherapy With or Without High-Dose Chemotherapy and Autologous Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Rescue As First-Line Treatment for Patients With Poor-Prognosis Metastatic Germ Cell TumorsJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2007
- Management of intermediate-prognosis germ-cell cancer: Results of a phase I/II study of Taxol-BEPInternational Journal of Cancer, 1999
- Phase II study of paclitaxel in patients with relapsed or cisplatin-refractory testicular cancerAnnals of Oncology, 1996
- Phase II trial of paclitaxel shows antitumor activity in patients with previously treated germ cell tumors.Journal of Clinical Oncology, 1994
- Group sequential designs using a family of type I error probability spending functionsStatistics in Medicine, 1990
- Treatment of testicular cancer: a new and improved model.Journal of Clinical Oncology, 1990
- On the Use of Pocock and Simon's Method for Balancing Treatment Numbers over Prognostic Factors in the Controlled Clinical TrialBiometrics, 1976
- Sequential Treatment Assignment with Balancing for Prognostic Factors in the Controlled Clinical Trial1975