The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Randomized trial of etoposide and cisplatin versus etoposide and carboplatin in patients with good-risk germ cell tumors: a multiinstitutional study.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This multicenter, randomized phase III clinical trial evaluated the efficacy of etoposide plus carboplatin (EC) versus etoposide plus cisplatin (EP) in good-risk germ cell tumor (GCT) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between October 1986 and December 1990, 270 patients with good-risk GCTs were randomized to receive four cycles of either EP or EC. The etoposide dose in all patients was 100 mg/m2 on days 1 through 5. EP patients received cisplatin at 20 mg/m2 on days 1 through 5 and therapy was recycled at 21-day intervals. For EC patients, the carboplatin dose was 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of each cycle and the EC recycling interval was 28 days. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-five patients were assessable: 131 patients treated with EC and 134 treated with EP. One hundred fifteen of 131 assessable patients (88%) treated with EC achieved a complete response (CR) versus 121 of 134 patients (90%) treated with EP (P = .32). Sixteen patients (12%) treated with EC relapsed from CR versus four patients (3%) treated with EP. Therefore, 32 patients (24%) who received carboplatin experienced an event (incomplete response [IR] or relapse) compared with 17 of 134 patients (13%) who received cisplatin (P = .02). At a median follow-up of 22.4 months, event-free and relapse-free survival were inferior for patients treated with EC (P = .02 and P = .005, respectively). No difference in overall survival was evident (P = .52). CONCLUSION: Two-drug therapy with EC using this dose and schedule was inferior to therapy with EP. Cisplatin remains as the standard platinum analog in the treatment of patients with good-risk GCTs. Carboplatin should be restricted to investigational trials in GCT.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Bosl, G. J., & Motzer, R. J. (1997) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199707243370406 · Cited by 891
Self-citationMarullo, R., Werner, E., Degtyareva, N., Moore, B., Altavilla, G., Ramalingam, S. S., & Doetsch, P. W. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081162 · Cited by 777
Review of the Comparative Pharmacology and Clinical Activity of Cisplatin and Carboplatin
Go, R. S., & Adjei, A. A. (1999) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.1999.17.1.409 · Cited by 697
Horwich, A., Shipley, J., & Huddart, R. (2006) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68305-0 · Cited by 398
Carboplatin versus cisplatin in solid tumors: An analysis of the literature
Lokich, J., & Anderson, N. (1998) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1023/a:1008215213739 · Cited by 304
Metadata
- Authors
- Bajorin, D. F., Sarosdy, M. F., Pfister, D. G., Mazumdar, M., Motzer, R. J., Scher, H. I., Geller, N. L., Fair, W. R., Herr, H., & Sogani, P.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 1993-04
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 598-606
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W1849826284
- Cited by
- 354
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 21.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Randomized trial of etoposide and cisplatin versus etoposide and carboplatin in patients with good-risk germ cell tumors: a multiinstitutional study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1993.11.4.598
- The paper
- Bajorin, D. F., Sarosdy, M. F., Pfister, D. G., Mazumdar, M., Motzer, R. J., Scher, H. I., Geller, N. L., Fair, W. R., Herr, H., & Sogani, P. (1993). Randomized trial of etoposide and cisplatin versus etoposide and carboplatin in patients with good-risk germ cell tumors: a multiinstitutional study. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1993.11.4.598
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.