Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 273

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Conventional-Dose Versus High-Dose Chemotherapy As First Salvage Treatment in Male Patients With Metastatic Germ Cell Tumors: Evidence From a Large International Database

Lorch, Anja, Bascoul-Mollevi, Caroline, Kramar, Andrew, Einhorn, Lawrence, Necchi, Andrea, Massard, Christophe, De Giorgi, Ugo, Fléchon, Aude, Margolin, Kim, Lotz, Jean-Pierre, Germà-Lluch, Jose Ramon, Powles, Thomas, Kollmannsberger, Christian, Beyer, Jörg·2011·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Conventional-dose chemotherapy (CDCT) and high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) may both be successfully used as salvage treatment for patients with metastatic germ cell tumors (GCTs) who experience progression with first-line treatment. Patients and Methods: Data on 1,984 patients with GCTs who experienced progression after at least three cisplatin-based cycles and were treated with either cisplatin-based CDCT or carboplatin-based HDCT chemotherapy were collected from 38 centers or groups worldwide. Of 1,984 patients, 1,594 (80%) were eligible, and among the eligible patients, 1,435 (90%) could reliably be classified into one of the following five prognostic categories based on prior prognostic classification: very low (n = 76), low (n = 257), intermediate (n = 646), high (n = 351), and very high risk (n = 105). Within each of the five categories, the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after CDCT and HDCT were compared using the Cox model adjusted for significant distributional differences between important variables. Results: Overall, 773 patients received CDCT, and 821 patients received HDCT. Both treatment modalities were used with similar frequencies within each prognostic category. The hazard ratio for PFS was 0.44 (95% CI, 0.39 to 0.51) stratified on prognostic category, and the hazard ratio for OS was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.56 to 0.75), favoring HDCT. These results were consistent within each prognostic category except among low-risk patients, for whom similar OS was observed between the two treatment groups. Conclusion: This retrospective analysis suggests a benefit from HDCT given as intensification of first salvage treatment in male patients with GCTs and emphasizes the need for another prospective randomized trial comparing CDCT to HDCT in this patient population.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2010.32.6678

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 273

Metadata

Authors
Lorch, A., Bascoul-Mollevi, C., Kramar, A., Einhorn, L., Necchi, A., Massard, C., De Giorgi, U., Fléchon, A., Margolin, K., Lotz, J.-P., Germà-Lluch, J. R., Powles, T., Kollmannsberger, C., & Beyer, J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2011-06-01
Volume
29
Issue
16
Pages
2178-2184
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2158112007
Cited by
273
References
0
FWCI
20.19
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: Conventional-Dose Versus High-Dose Chemotherapy As First Salvage Treatment in Male Patients With Metastatic Germ Cell Tumors: Evidence From a Large International Database. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2010.32.6678
The paper
Lorch, A., Bascoul-Mollevi, C., Kramar, A., Einhorn, L., Necchi, A., Massard, C., De Giorgi, U., Fléchon, A., Margolin, K., Lotz, J.-P., Germà-Lluch, J. R., Powles, T., Kollmannsberger, C., & Beyer, J. (2011). Conventional-Dose Versus High-Dose Chemotherapy As First Salvage Treatment in Male Patients With Metastatic Germ Cell Tumors: Evidence From a Large International Database. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2010.32.6678

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.