Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 May 7;5(5):CD009219.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009219.pub5.

Medical interventions for the prevention of platinum-induced hearing loss in children with cancer

Jorrit W van As  1 , Henk van den Berg, Elvira C van Dalen
Affiliations

Medical interventions for the prevention of platinum-induced hearing loss in children with cancer

Jorrit W van As et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Platinum-based therapy, including cisplatin, carboplatin, oxaliplatin or a combination of these, is used to treat a variety of paediatric malignancies. One of the most significant adverse effects is the occurrence of hearing loss or ototoxicity. In an effort to prevent this ototoxicity, different otoprotective medical interventions have been studied. This review is the third update of a previously published Cochrane Review.

Objectives: To assess the efficacy of medical interventions to prevent hearing loss and to determine possible effects of these interventions on antitumour efficacy, toxicities other than hearing loss and quality of life in children with cancer treated with platinum-based therapy as compared to placebo, no additional treatment or another protective medical intervention.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (PubMed) and Embase (Ovid) to 8 January 2019. We handsearched reference lists of relevant articles and assessed the conference proceedings of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology (2006 up to and including 2018), the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology (2007 up to and including 2018) and the International Conference on Long-Term Complications of Treatment of Children and Adolescents for Cancer (2010 up to and including 2015). We scanned ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP; apps.who.int/trialsearch) for ongoing trials (on 2 January 2019).

Selection criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) evaluating platinum-based therapy with an otoprotective medical intervention versus platinum-based therapy with placebo, no additional treatment or another protective medical intervention in children with cancer.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently performed the study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and GRADE assessment of included studies, including adverse effects. We performed analyses according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

Main results: We identified two RCTs and one CCT (total number of participants 149) evaluating the use of amifostine versus no additional treatment in the original version of the review; the updates identified no additional studies. Two studies included children with osteosarcoma, and the other study included children with hepatoblastoma. Children received cisplatin only or a combination of cisplatin and carboplatin, either intra-arterially or intravenously. Pooling of results of the included studies was not possible. From individual studies the effect of amifostine on symptomatic ototoxicity only (i.e. National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria version 2 (NCICTCv2) or modified Brock grade 2 or higher) and combined asymptomatic and symptomatic ototoxicity (i.e. NCICTCv2 or modified Brock grade 1 or higher) were uncertain (low-certainty evidence). Only one study including children with osteosarcoma treated with intra-arterial cisplatin provided information on tumour response, defined as the number of participants with a good or partial remission. The available-data analysis (data were missing for one participant), best-case scenario analysis and worst-case scenario analysis showed a difference in favour of amifostine, although the certainty of evidence for this effect was low. There was no information on survival for any of the included studies. Only one study, including children with osteosarcoma treated with intra-arterial cisplatin, provided data on the number of participants with adverse effects other than ototoxicity grade 3 or higher (on NCICTCv2 scale). There was low-certainty evidence that grade 3 or 4 vomiting was higher with amifostine (risk ratio (RR) 9.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.99 to 41.12). The effects on cardiotoxicity and renal toxicity grade 3 or 4 were uncertain (low-certainty evidence). None of the studies evaluated quality of life.In the recent update, we also identified one RCT including 109 children with localized hepatoblastoma evaluating the use of sodium thiosulfate versus no additional treatment. Children received intravenous cisplatin only (one child also received carboplatin). There was moderate-certainty evidence that both symptomatic ototoxicity only (i.e. Brock criteria grade 2 or higher) and combined asymptomatic and symptomatic ototoxicity (i.e. Brock criteria grade 1 or higher) was lower with sodium thiosulfate (combined asymptomatic and symptomatic ototoxicity: RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.81; symptomatic ototoxicity only: RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.83). The effect of sodium thiosulfate on tumour response (defined as number of participants with a complete or partial response at the end of treatment), overall survival (calculated from time of randomization to death or last follow-up), event-free survival (calculated from time of randomization until disease progression, disease relapse, second primary cancer, death, or last follow-up, whichever came first) and adverse effects other than hearing loss and tinnitus grade 3 or higher (according to National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria Adverse Effects version 3 (NCICTCAEv3) criteria) was uncertain (low-certainty evidence for all these outcomes). Quality of life was not assessed.We found no eligible studies for possible otoprotective medical interventions other than amifostine and sodium thiosulfate and for other types of malignancies.

Authors' conclusions: At the moment there is no evidence from individual studies in children with osteosarcoma or hepatoblastoma treated with different platinum analogues and dosage schedules that underscores the use of amifostine as an otoprotective intervention as compared to no additional treatment. Since pooling of results was not possible and the evidence was of low certainty, no definitive conclusions can be made. Since we found only one RCT evaluating the use of sodium thiosulfate in children with localized hepatoblastoma treated with cisplatin, no definitive conclusions on benefits and harms can be drawn. It should be noted that 'no evidence of effect', as identified in this review, is not the same as 'evidence of no effect'. We identified no eligible studies for other possible otoprotective medical interventions and other types of malignancies, so no conclusions can be made about their efficacy in preventing ototoxicity in children treated with platinum-based therapy. More high-quality research is needed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

JvA: none.

HvdB: none.

EvD: none.

Figures

1
1
Flow diagram of selection of studies.
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
3
3
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Amifostine versus no otoprotective intervention, outcome: 1.1 Ototoxicity according to NCICTCv2 criteria with intra‐arterial platinum (combined asymptomatic and symptomatic disease).
4
4
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Amifostine versus no otoprotective intervention, outcome: 1.4 Ototoxicity according to NCICTCv2 criteria with intra‐arterial platinum (symptomatic disease).
5
5
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Amifostine versus no otoprotective intervention, outcome: 1.2 Ototoxicity according to NCICTCv2 criteria with intravenous platinum (combined asymptomatic and symptomatic disease).
6
6
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Amifostine versus no otoprotective intervention, outcome: 1.5 Ototoxicity according to NCICTCv2 criteria with intravenous platinum (symptomatic disease).
7
7
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Amifostine versus no otoprotective intervention, outcome: 1.3 Ototoxicity according to modified Brock criteria (combined asymptomatic and symptomatic disease).
8
8
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Amifostine versus no otoprotective intervention, outcome: 1.6 Ototoxicity according to modified Brock criteria (symptomatic disease).
9
9
Forest plot of comparison: 2 Sodium thiosulfate versus no otoprotective intervention, outcome: 2.1 Ototoxicity according to Brock criteria with intravenous platinum (combined asymptomatic and symptomatic disease).
10
10
Forest plot of comparison: 2 Sodium thiosulfate versus no otoprotective intervention, outcome: 2.2 Ototoxicity according to Brock criteria with intravenous platinum (symptomatic disease).
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Amifostine versus no otoprotective intervention, Outcome 1 Ototoxicity according to NCICTCv2 criteria with intra‐arterial platinum (combined asymptomatic and symptomatic disease).
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Amifostine versus no otoprotective intervention, Outcome 2 Ototoxicity according to NCICTCv2 criteria with intravenous platinum (combined asymptomatic and symptomatic disease).
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Amifostine versus no otoprotective intervention, Outcome 3 Ototoxicity according to modified Brock criteria (combined asymptomatic and symptomatic disease).
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Amifostine versus no otoprotective intervention, Outcome 4 Ototoxicity according to NCICTCv2 criteria with intra‐arterial platinum (symptomatic disease).
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Amifostine versus no otoprotective intervention, Outcome 5 Ototoxicity according to NCICTCv2 criteria with intravenous platinum (symptomatic disease).
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Amifostine versus no otoprotective intervention, Outcome 6 Ototoxicity according to modified Brock criteria (symptomatic disease).
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Amifostine versus no otoprotective intervention, Outcome 7 Tumour response (good remission and partial remission).
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 Amifostine versus no otoprotective intervention, Outcome 8 Adverse effects other than ototoxicity (vomiting ≥ grade 3).
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Sodium thiosulfate versus no otoprotective intervention, Outcome 1 Ototoxicity according to Brock criteria with intravenous platinum (combined asymptomatic and symptomatic disease).
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Sodium thiosulfate versus no otoprotective intervention, Outcome 2 Ototoxicity according to Brock criteria with intravenous platinum (symptomatic disease).
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Sodium thiosulfate versus no otoprotective intervention, Outcome 3 Overall survival (Parmar's method was used to obtain the necessary data for the analysis).
2.4
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 Sodium thiosulfate versus no otoprotective intervention, Outcome 4 Event‐free survival (Parmar's method was used to obtain the necessary data for the analysis).
2.5
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2 Sodium thiosulfate versus no otoprotective intervention, Outcome 5 Tumour response (complete and partial remission).
2.6
2.6. Analysis
Comparison 2 Sodium thiosulfate versus no otoprotective intervention, Outcome 6 Adverse effects other than ototoxicity (grade 3 or 4).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Brock 2018 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Brock P, Childs M, Rajput K, Maibach R, Brugieres L, Roebuck D, et al. Two year results of a randomised phase iii trial for standard risk hepatoblastoma (SR‐HB) SIOPEL 6; cisplatin and sodium thiosulfate (STS) vs cisplatin alone (O‐110). Pediatric Blood and Cancer 2016:S33.
    1. Brock P, Pritchard J, Roebuck D, Dicks‐Mireaux C, Bellman S, Rajput K. Improving outcomes for children with hepatoblastoma, increasing the cure rate, reducing the toxicity of treatment and monitoring and preventing hearing loss: thirty years of international collaboration pioneered from GOSH. Archives of Disease in Childhood 2017;102 (Suppl 3):A5.
    1. Brock PR, Childs M, Rajput K, Maibach R, Roebuck D, Sullivan MJ, et al. Two‐year results of clinical efficacy of cisplatin in combination with sodium thiosulfate (STS) vs cisplatin alone in a randomized phase III trial for standard risk hepatoblastoma (SR‐HB): SIOPEL 6. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2016;34 (suppl 15).
    1. Brock PR, Maibach R, Childs M, Rajput K, Roebuck D, Sullivan MJ, et al. Sodium thiosulfate for protection from cisplatin‐induced hearing loss. New England Journal of Medicine 2018;378(25):2376‐85. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Maibach R, Childs M, Rajput K, Neuwelt EA, Roebuck D, Sullivan MJ, et al. SIOPEL 6: a multicenter open‐label randomized phase III trial of the efficacy of sodium thiosulphate (STS) in reducing ototoxicity in patients receiving cisplatin (Cis) monotherapy for standard‐risk hepatoblastoma (SR‐HB). Journal of Clinical Oncology 2014;5s:abstract TPS10094.
Gallegos‐Castorena 2007 {published data only}
    1. Gallegos‐Castorena S, Martínez‐Avalos A, Mohar‐Betancourt A, Guerrero‐Avendaño G, Zapata‐Tarrés M, Medina‐Sansón A. Toxicity prevention with amifostine in pediatric osteosarcoma patients treated with cisplatin and doxorubicin. Pediatric Hematology and Oncology 2007;24(6):403‐8. - PubMed
Katzenstein 2009 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Katzenstein HM, Chang KW, Krailo M, Chen Z, Finegold MJ, Rowland J, et al. Amifostine does not prevent platinum‐induced hearing loss associated with the treatment of children with hepatoblastoma: a report of the Intergroup Hepatoblastoma Study P9645 as a part of the Children's Oncology Group. Cancer 2009;115(24):5828‐35. - PMC - PubMed
Petrilli 2002 {published data only}
    1. Petrilli AS, Oliveira DT, Ginani VC, Kechichian R, Dishtchekenian A, Medeiros Roque Filho W, et al. Use of amifostine in the therapy of osteosarcoma in children and adolescents. Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology 2002;24(3):188‐91. - PubMed
    1. Petrilli AS, Camargo B, Filho VO, Bruniera P, Brunetto AL, Jesus‐Garcia R, et al. Results of the Brazilian Osteosarcoma Treatment Group Studies III and IV: prognostic factors and impact on survival. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2006;24(7):1161‐8. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Biswas 2017 {published data only}
    1. Biswas B, Ganguly S, Ghosh J, Batra A. Cisplatin‐induced hearing loss in children with cancer. National Medical Journal of India 2017;30(6):327‐8. - PubMed
Crabb 2017 {published data only}
    1. Crabb SJ, Martin K, Abab J, Ratcliffe I, Thornton R, Lineton B, et al. COAST (cisplatin ototoxicity attenuated by aspirin trial): a phase II double‐blind, randomised controlled trial to establish if aspirin reduces cisplatin induced hearing‐loss. European Journal of Cancer 2017;87:75‐83. - PMC - PubMed
Doolittle 2001 {published data only}
    1. Doolittle ND, Muldoon LL, Brummett RE, Tyson RM, Lacy C, Bubalo JS, et al. Delayed sodium thiosulfate as an otoprotectant against carboplatin‐induced hearing loss in patients with malignant brain tumors. Clinical Cancer Research 2001;7(3):493‐500. - PubMed
Elsendoorn 2001 {published data only}
    1. Elsendoorn TJ, Weijl NI, Mithoe S, Zwinderman AH, Dam F, Zwart FA, et al. Chemotherapy‐induced chromosomal damage in peripheral blood lymphocytes of cancer patients supplemented with antioxidants or placebo. Mutation Research 2001;498(1‐2):145‐58. - PubMed
Fouladi 2008 {published data only}
    1. Fouladi M, Chintagumpala M, Ashley D, Kellie S, Gururangan S, Hassall T, et al. Amifostine protects against cisplatin‐induced ototoxicity in children with average‐risk medulloblastoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2008;26(22):3749‐55. - PMC - PubMed
Geoerger 2005 {published data only}
    1. Geoerger B, Vassal G, Doz F, O'Quigley J, Wartelle M, Watson AJ, et al. Dose finding and O6‐alkylguanine‐DNA alkyltransferase study of cisplatin combined with temozolomide in paediatric solid malignancies. British Journal of Cancer 2005;93(5):529‐37. - PMC - PubMed
Grau 1996 {published data only}
    1. Grau JJ, Estape J, Cuchi MA, Firvida JL, Blanch JL, Ascaso C. Calcium supplementation and ototoxicity in patients receiving cisplatin. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1996;42(2):233‐5. - PMC - PubMed
Gurney 2014 {published data only}
    1. Gurney JG, Bass JK, Onar‐Thomas A, Huang J, Chintagumpala M, Bouffet E, et al. Evaluation of amifostine for protection against cisplatin‐induced serious hearing loss in children treated for average‐risk or high‐risk medulloblastoma. Neuro‐Oncology 2014;16(6):848‐55. - PMC - PubMed
Killock 2018 {published data only}
    1. Killock D. Sodium thiosulfate halves the risk of cisplatin‐induced hearing loss. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 2018;15(9):533. - PubMed
Kingston 1986 {published data only}
    1. Kingston JE, Abramovich S, Billings RJ. Assessment of the effect of chemotherapy and radiotherapy on the auditory function of children with cancer. Clinical Otolaryngology and Allied Sciences 1986;11:403‐9. - PubMed
Knight 2008 {published data only}
    1. Knight K. Hearing loss in pediatric cancer survivors treated with cisplatin. Oncology (Williston Park) 2008;22(4 Suppl Nurse Edition):35‐7. - PubMed
Ladenstein 2010 {published data only}
    1. Ladenstein R, Valteau CD, Brock P, Yaniv I, Castel V, Laureys G, et al. Randomized trial of prophylactic granulocyte colony‐stimulating factor during rapid COJEC induction in pediatric patients with high‐risk neuroblastoma: the European HR‐NBL1/SIOPEN study. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2010;28:3516‐24. - PubMed
Mahoney 1982 {published data only}
    1. Mahoney DH, Weaver T, Steuber CP, Starling KA. Cis‐platinum (CDDP) ototoxicity in pediatric patients. Proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 1982:26.
Mahoney 1983 {published data only}
    1. Mahoney DH Jr, Weaver T, Steuber CP, Starling KA. Ototoxicity with cisplatin therapy. Journal of Pediatrics 1983;103(6):1006‐7. - PubMed
Marina 2005 {published data only}
    1. Marina N, Chang KW, Malogolowkin M, London WB, Frazier AL, Womer RB, et al. Amifostine does not protect against the ototoxicity of high‐dose cisplatin combined with etoposide and bleomycin in pediatric germ‐cell tumors: a Children's Oncology Group study. Cancer 2005;104(4):841‐7. - PubMed
McHaney 1983 {published data only}
    1. McHaney VA, Thibadoux G, Hayes FA, Green AA. Hearing loss in children receiving cisplatin chemotherapy. Journal of Pediatrics 1983;102(2):314‐7. - PubMed
Meyer 2009 {published data only}
    1. Meyer AK, Young NM. Auditory late effects of chemotherapy. Cancer Treatment and Research 2009;150:195‐213. - PubMed
Piel 1974 {published data only}
    1. Piel IJ, Meyer D, Perlia CP, Wolfe VI. Effects of cis‐diamminedichloroplatinum (NSC‐119875) on hearing function in man. Cancer Chemotherapy Reports 1974;58(6):871‐5. - PubMed
Sarafraz 2018 {published data only}
    1. Sarafraz Z, Ahmadi A, Daneshi A. Transtympanic Injections of N‐acetylcysteine and dexamethasone for prevention of cisplatin‐induced ototoxicity: double blind randomized clinical trial. International Tinnitus Journal 2018;22(1):40‐5. - PubMed
Skinner 2006 {published data only}
    1. Skinner R. Preventing platinum‐induced ototoxicity in children – is there a potential role for sodium thiosulfate?. Pediatric Blood and Cancer 2006;47(2):120‐2. - PubMed
Spunt 2007 {published data only}
    1. Spunt SL, Freeman BB III, Billups CA, McPherson V, Khan RB, Pratt CB, et al. Phase I clinical trial of oxaliplatin in children and adolescents with refractory solid tumors. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2007;25(16):2274‐80. - PubMed
Sullivan 2009 {published data only}
    1. Sullivan MJ. Hepatoblastoma, cisplatin, and ototoxicity: good news on deaf ears. Cancer 2009;115(24):5623‐6. - PubMed
Weijl 2004 {published data only}
    1. Weijl NI, Elsendoorn TJ, Lentjes EG, Hopman GD, Wipkink‐Bakker A, Zwinderman AH, et al. Supplementation with antioxidant micronutrients and chemotherapy‐induced toxicity in cancer patients treated with cisplatin‐based chemotherapy: a randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study. European Journal of Cancer 2004;40(11):1713‐23. - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

Fox 2018 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Fox E, Levin K, Zhu Y, Segers B, Balamuth N, Womer R, et al. Pantoprazole, an inhibitor of the organic cation transporter 2, does not ameliorate cisplatin‐related ototoxicity or nephrotoxicity in children and adolescents with newly diagnosed osteosarcoma treated with methotrexate, doxorubicin, and cisplatin. Oncologist 2018;23(7):1‐5. - PMC - PubMed
Freyer 2017 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Freyer DR. Erratum for "Effects of sodium thiosulfate versus observation on development of cisplatin‐induced hearing loss in children with cancer (ACCL0431): a multicentre, randomised, controlled, open‐label, phase 3 trial [Lancet Oncology 2017]". Lancet Oncology 2017;18(6):e301. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Freyer DR. The effects of sodium thiosulfate (STS) on cisplatin‐induced hearing loss: a report from the Children's Oncology Group. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2014;5s:abstract 10017.
    1. Freyer DR, Chen L, Krailo MD, Knight K, Villaluna D, Bliss B, et al. Effects of sodium thiosulfate versus observation on development of cisplatin‐induced hearing loss in children with cancer (ACCL0431): a multicentre, randomised, controlled, open‐label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncology 2017;18(1):63‐74. - PMC - PubMed
NCT02997189 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. NCT02997189. Study of OTO‐104 in subjects at risk from cisplatin‐induced hearing loss (NCT02997189). clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02997189 (first received 19 December 2016).

Additional references

Bertolini 2004
    1. Bertolini P, Lassalle M, Mercier G, Raquin MA, Izzi G, Corradini N, et al. Platinum compound‐related ototoxicity in children: long‐term follow‐up reveals continuous worsening of hearing loss. Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology 2004;26(10):649‐55. - PubMed
Brock 1991
    1. Brock PR, Bellman SC, Yeomans EC, Pinkerton CR, Pritchard J. Cisplatin ototoxicity in children: a practical grading system. Medical and Pediatric Oncology 1991;19(4):295‐300. - PubMed
Clemens 2019
    1. Clemens E, Heuvel‐Eibrink MM, Mulder RL, Kremer LC, Hudson MM, Skinner R, et al. Recommendations for ototoxicity surveillance for survivors of childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer: a report from the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group in collaboration with the PanCare consortium. Lancet Oncology 2019;20(1):e29‐e41. - PMC - PubMed
Dean 2008
    1. Dean JB, Hayashi SS, Albert CM, King AA, Karzon R, Hayashi RJ. Hearing loss in pediatric oncology patients receiving carboplatin‐containing regimens. Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology 2008;30(2):130‐4. - PubMed
Eloxatin SPC
    1. Eloxatin SPC. Eloxatin summary of product characteristics. www.sanofi‐aventis.co.uk/products/Eloxatin_SPC.pdf (assessed 2 March 2010).
Freyer 2009
    1. Freyer DR, Sung L, Reaman GH. Prevention of hearing loss in children receiving cisplatin chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2009;27(2):317‐8. - PubMed
Gallagher 1979
    1. Gallagher KL, Jones JK. Furosemide‐induced ototoxicity. Annals of Internal Medicine 1979;91(1):744‐5. - PubMed
Gietema 2000
    1. Gietema JA, Meinardi MT, Messerschmidt J, Gelevert T, Alt F, Uges DR, et al. Circulating plasma platinum more than 10 years after cisplatin treatment for testicular cancer. Lancet 2000;355(9209):1075‐6. - PubMed
GRADEpro [Computer program]
    1. McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime). GRADEprofiler 3.6.1. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime), 2011.
GRADEpro GDT [Computer program]
    1. McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime). GRADEpro GDT. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime), 2015.
GraphPad [Computer program]
    1. GraphPad Software. GraphPad. San Diego (CA): GraphPad Software, 2018.
Gregg 2004
    1. Gregg RB, Wiorek LS, Arvedson JC. Pediatric audiology: a review. Pediatrics in Review 2004;25(7):224‐33. - PubMed
Grewal 2010
    1. Grewal S, Merchant T, Reymond R, McInerney M, Hodge C, Shearer P. Auditory late effects of childhood cancer therapy: a report from the Children's Oncology Group. Pediatrics 2010;125(4):e938‐50. - PMC - PubMed
Gurney 2007
    1. Gurney JG, Tersak JM, Ness KK, Landier W, Matthay KK, Schmidt ML, Children's Oncology Group. Hearing loss, quality of life, and academic problems in long‐term neuroblastoma survivors: a report from the Children's Oncology Group. Pediatrics 2007;120(5):e1229‐36. - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Jenney 2005
    1. Jenney ME. Late effects of cancer treatment and current protective measures. In: Voûte PA, Barett A, Stevens MC, Caron HN editor(s). Cancer in Children. 5th Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005:123‐37.
Knight 2005
    1. Knight KR, Kraemer DF, Neuwelt EA. Ototoxicity in children receiving platinum chemotherapy: underestimating a commonly occurring toxicity that may influence academic and social development. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2005;23(34):8588‐96. - PubMed
Lachin 2000
    1. Lachin JM. Statistical considerations in the intent‐to‐treat principle. Controlled Clinical Trials 2000;21:167‐89. - PubMed
Leclercq 2013
    1. Leclercq E, Leeflang MM, Dalen EC, Kremer LC. Validation of search filters for identifying pediatric studies in PubMed. Journal of Pediatrics 2013;162(3):629‐34. - PubMed
Li 2004
    1. Li Y, Womer RB, Silber JH. Predicting cisplatin ototoxicity in children: the influence of age and the cumulative dose. European Journal of Cancer 2004;40(16):2445‐51. - PubMed
Module CCG
    1. Kremer LC, Leclercq E, Noorman JK, Jellema P, Dalen EC. Cochrane Childhood Cancer. childhoodcancer.cochrane.org/ (accessed prior to 2 May 2019).
NCICTC v2
    1. National Cancer Institute. National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria version 2. ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/ctc.htm (accessed prior to 2 May 2019).
Parmar 1998
    1. Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta‐analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 1998;17:2815‐34. - PubMed
Reddel 1982
    1. Reddel RR, Kefford RF, Grant JM, Coates AS, Fox RM, Tattersall MH. Ototoxicity in patients receiving cisplatin: importance of dose and method of drug administration. Cancer Treatment Reports 1982;66(1):19‐23. - PubMed
Review Manager 2014 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Ross 2009
    1. Ross CJ, Katzov‐Eckert H, Dubé MP, Brooks B, Rassekh SR, Barhdadi A, et al. Genetic variants in TPMT and COMT are associated with hearing loss in children receiving cisplatin chemotherapy. Nature Genetics 2009;41(12):1345‐9. - PubMed
Rybak 2007
    1. Rybak LP, Whitworth CA, Mukherjea D, Ramkumar V. Mechanisms of cisplatin‐induced ototoxicity and prevention. Hearing Research 2007;226(1‐2):157‐67. - PubMed
Rybak 2009
    1. Rybak LP, Mukherjea D, Jajoo S, Ramkumar V. Cisplatin ototoxicity and protection: clinical and experimental studies. Tohoku Journal of Experimental Medicine 2009;219(3):177‐86. - PMC - PubMed
Schell 1989
    1. Schell MJ, McHaney VA, Green AA, Kun LE, Hayes FA, Horowitz M, et al. Hearing loss in children and young adults receiving cisplatin with or without prior cranial irradiation. Journal of Clinical Oncology 1989;7(6):754‐60. - PubMed
Skinner 2004
    1. Skinner R. Best practice in assessing ototoxicity in children with cancer. European Journal of Cancer 2004;40(16):2352‐4. - PubMed
Van As 2014a
    1. As JW, Berg H, Dalen EC. Different infusion durations for preventing platinum‐induced hearing loss in children with cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 6. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010885.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Van As 2016a
    1. As JW, Berg H, Dalen EC. Platinum‐induced hearing loss after treatment for childhood cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 8. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010181.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Van As 2016b
    1. As JW, Berg H, Dalen EC. Different infusion durations for preventing platinum‐induced hearing loss in children with cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 8. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010885.pub3] - DOI - PubMed
Van As 2018
    1. As JW, Berg H, Dalen EC. Different infusion durations for preventing platinum‐induced hearing loss in children with cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 7. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010885.pub4] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Veal 2001
    1. Veal GJ, Dias C, Price L, Parry A, Errington J, Hale J, et al. Influence of cellular factors and pharmacokinetics on the formation of platinum‐DNA adducts in leukocytes of children receiving cisplatin therapy. Clinical Cancer Research 2001;7(8):2205‐12. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Van As 2011
    1. As JW, Berg H, Dalen EC. Medical interventions for the prevention of platinum‐induced hearing loss in children with cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 7. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009219] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Van As 2012
    1. As JW, Berg H, Dalen EC. Medical interventions for the prevention of platinum‐induced hearing loss in children with cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 5. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009219.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Van As 2014b
    1. As JW, Berg H, Dalen EC. Medical interventions for the prevention of platinum‐induced hearing loss in children with cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 7. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009219.pub3] - DOI - PubMed
Van As 2016c
    1. As JW, Berg H, Dalen EC. Medical interventions for the prevention of platinum‐induced hearing loss in children with cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 9. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009219.pub4] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources