Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study I-CHM-113 standard review

Protecting children's hearing during cisplatin treatment

Sodium Thiosulfate for Protection from Cisplatin-Induced Hearing Loss.

Overview

Brock PR et al.. N Engl J Med 2018 · PMID 29924955 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1801109

Hearing loss fell from 63% to 33% with sodium thiosulfate, and survival stayed above 90%.

Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: high

Original publication

Plain-language summary

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?

Prevent cisplatin hearing loss

How was the study done?

Randomised trial

How many people, animals or samples were studied?

109 children with liver cancer

What was actually found?

Half as much hearing loss

How large was the observed effect?

RR 0.52; NNT about 3

What do the results mean in everyday life?

Hearing damage is common but can be reduced, while the cure rate stays high

What are the study's limitations?

Small, children only

What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

Supports the harm claim and shows mitigation

Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

High

What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

Does not show cisplatin should be avoided

Scientific in-depth review

1. Full reference

Authors
Brock PR et al.
Journal
N Engl J Med
Year
2018
Identifier
PMID 29924955 DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1801109
Verification
verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26 (PublicationType and CommentsCorrections checked); Crossref 2026-10-26
Retracted
no
Corrections
none
Extent checked
abstract only
Conflicts of interest and funding

Cancer Research UK and others.

2. Research question

Does sodium thiosulfate after cisplatin reduce hearing loss without compromising survival in children with hepatoblastoma?

3. Study design and population

Study design
Randomised controlled trial – Multicentre randomised phase III trial (SIOPEL 6)
Population

Children 1 month to 18 years with standard-risk hepatoblastoma

Country

International (SIOPEL)

Period

Median follow-up 52 months

Sample size

109 randomised; 101 assessed for hearing

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Standard-risk hepatoblastoma

4. Methods and endpoints

Exposure / intervention

Cisplatin plus sodium thiosulfate 6 h after cisplatin

Comparator

Cisplatin alone

Endpoints

Absolute hearing threshold (Brock grade); 3-year event-free and overall survival

Statistical methods

Relative risk; Kaplan-Meier

5. Actual results

Results

Hearing loss grade >=1: 18/55 (33%) with sodium thiosulfate vs 29/46 (63%) with cisplatin alone; RR 0.52 (0.33-0.81), P=0.002. 3-year EFS 82% vs 79%; 3-year OS 98% vs 92%.

Absolute risks

Absolute reduction in hearing loss 30 percentage points (NNT about 3)

Authors' conclusion

Sodium thiosulfate reduced cisplatin-induced hearing loss without jeopardising overall or event-free survival.

6. Strengths

  • Randomised
  • Objective audiometry
  • Survival outcomes

7. Weaknesses

  • Small; open-label
  • Paediatric hepatoblastoma only

8. Risk of bias

Orienting tool
RoB 2
Type of assessment
simplified assessment (abstract only)
Full formal assessment
no
Overall risk of bias
low
Rationale

Randomised with objective primary outcome.

9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation

RR and CI reproduced exactly from counts: 0.52 (0.33-0.81); ARR 30.3%, NNT 3.3 (stats/C-CHM-05.py).

10. Relevance to the specific claim

Confirms cisplatin hearing loss is common (63% of children) and called irreversible by the authors, and shows it can be reduced; also shows cisplatin-based treatment cures most of these children (3-year OS 92-98%).

11. Independent contrary findings

None.

12. Transferability to Germany and Europe

Applicable; sodium thiosulfate is approved in Europe for this use.

13. Overall methodological judgement

High-quality confirmation and a prevention option.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the sourceverified
Methodological qualityhigh
Risk of biaslow
Precision of resultsmoderate
Directnessdirect
Reproducibilityreplicated
Consistency with the overall evidenceconsistent
Regional transferabilityhigh
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)not applicable

14. Open questions

Use in adults.

15. Linked fact checks