Clinical trial demonstrates 84.5% response rate in patients with relapsed germ-cell tumors, suggesting chemotherapeutic efficacy without bevacizumab benefit.
Purpose: Sequential high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) using carboplatin/etoposide (CE) with autologous stem-cell transplant can be curative in relapsed germ-cell tumors (GCT). However, outcomes are poor for multiply relapsed/refractory tumors. We studied gemcitabine/docetaxel/melphalan/carboplatin (GemDMC), which exploits DNA damage repair inhibition. We hypothesized that concurrent bevacizumab, targeting the high vascularity of GCT, would synergize with HDC. Methods: Trial eligibility included 2nd or later relapse or poor-risk 1st relapse, and adequate end-organ function. Treatment consisted of sequential bevacizumab-GemDMC (HDC cycle 1, C1) and bevacizumab-ifosfamide/carboplatin/etoposide (ICE) (C2), in 3 consecutive cohorts: bevacizumab/full-dose GemDMC (cohort 1), bevacizumab/reduced-dose GemDMC (cohort 2), and no bevacizumab/reduced-dose GemDMC (cohort 3). The trial was powered to distinguish a target 50% 2-year RFS rate from an expected <25%. We validated its results in an off-trial 4th cohort treated the same as cohort 3. Findings: We treated 165 male patients (65 trial, 100 cohort 4), after a median of 3 prior therapy lines; mostly cisplatin-refractory tumors at relapse (45% refractory, 23% absolutely refractory); 19% primary mediastinal tumors. Overall response rate: 84.5% (77% CR/PRm-). The treatment-related mortality rates in cohorts 1 to 4 were 13%, 8%, 4%, and 4%, respectively. Resection of residual lesions in 74 patients found no viable GCT in 76%. The 5-year RFS and overall survival rates were 57.1% and 58.3%, respectively, without differences between trial and cohort 4 patients, or between patients receiving bevacizumab (cohorts 1/2) or not (cohorts 3/4). Conclusions: Sequential GemDMC-(I)CE in multiply poor-risk relapsed GCT shows outcomes that exceed the anticipated results. Bevacizumab did not improve outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nieto et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: