PURPOSE: To examine the significance of 90 biomarkers for predicting metastatic status in non-seminomatous germ cell tumors (NSGCT). By predicting metastatic status, it may be possible to eliminate unnecessary therapeutic or diagnostic efforts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We investigated 552 males who were diagnosed with non-metastatic (n = 273) and metastatic (n = 279) NSGCT between 2000 and 2011. The sample included cancers of different histologies: embryonal cell carcinoma (n = 131), teratoma (n = 55), and mixed histology (n = 366). We collected and analyzed more than 90 parameters via logistic regression: demographic characteristics, medical history, histopathological parameters, and levels of tumor markers and hormones. RESULTS: Testis histology (p = 0.004), clinical symptoms (p = 0.0005), tumor length (p = 0.005), infiltration of the rete testis (p = 0.008), invasion of lymphatic (pL1) and blood vessels (pV1) (p < 0.0001), and levels of enzymes such as LDH, βHCG, AFP, and FSH (p values as small as <0.0001) were associated with metastatic status. With one model, we identified 14 out of 76 (18.4 %) metastatic NSGCT cases with 93-100 % certainty (positive predictive value) at 99 % specificity by the peripheral blood levels of LDH (day of operation) in combination with FSH measurements (1 day after operation). A second model included pV, tumor length, and FSH (1 day after operation). It identified 25 out of 90 (27.8 %) non-metastatic NSGCT with approximately 90 % certainty (negative predictive value) at 94-98 % sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: No single parameter was able to discriminate metastatic from non-metastatic NSGCT, but combinations of parameters in two predictive models accurately identified the metastatic status in 23 % of the cases in our sample.
PURPOSE: To examine the significance of 90 biomarkers for predicting metastatic status in non-seminomatous germ cell tumors (NSGCT). By predicting metastatic status, it may be possible to eliminate unnecessary therapeutic or diagnostic efforts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We investigated 552 males who were diagnosed with non-metastatic (n = 273) and metastatic (n = 279) NSGCT between 2000 and 2011. The sample included cancers of different histologies: embryonal cell carcinoma (n = 131), teratoma (n = 55), and mixed histology (n = 366). We collected and analyzed more than 90 parameters via logistic regression: demographic characteristics, medical history, histopathological parameters, and levels of tumor markers and hormones. RESULTS: Testis histology (p = 0.004), clinical symptoms (p = 0.0005), tumor length (p = 0.005), infiltration of the rete testis (p = 0.008), invasion of lymphatic (pL1) and blood vessels (pV1) (p < 0.0001), and levels of enzymes such as LDH, βHCG, AFP, and FSH (p values as small as <0.0001) were associated with metastatic status. With one model, we identified 14 out of 76 (18.4 %) metastatic NSGCT cases with 93-100 % certainty (positive predictive value) at 99 % specificity by the peripheral blood levels of LDH (day of operation) in combination with FSH measurements (1 day after operation). A second model included pV, tumor length, and FSH (1 day after operation). It identified 25 out of 90 (27.8 %) non-metastatic NSGCT with approximately 90 % certainty (negative predictive value) at 94-98 % sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: No single parameter was able to discriminate metastatic from non-metastatic NSGCT, but combinations of parameters in two predictive models accurately identified the metastatic status in 23 % of the cases in our sample.
Authors: P Albers; R Siener; M Hartmann; S Weinknecht; H Schulze; U Rebmann; M Kuczyk; W deRiese; V Loy; E Bierhoff; C Wittekind Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 1999-12-10 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Alexandra W van den Belt-Dusebout; Janine Nuver; Ronald de Wit; Jourik A Gietema; Wim W ten Bokkel Huinink; Patrick T R Rodrigus; Erik C Schimmel; Berthe M P Aleman; Flora E van Leeuwen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-01-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: P Warde; M K Gospodarowicz; D Banerjee; T Panzarella; L Sugar; C N Catton; J F Sturgeon; M Moore; M A Jewett Journal: J Urol Date: 1997-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: C G Ruf; N Khalili-Harbi; S Sachs; H Isbarn; W Wagner; C Matthies; V Meineke; M Fisch; F K Chun; M Abend Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-04-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Susanne Krege; Jörg Beyer; Rainer Souchon; Peter Albers; Walter Albrecht; Ferran Algaba; Michael Bamberg; István Bodrogi; Carsten Bokemeyer; Eva Cavallin-Ståhl; Johannes Classen; Christoph Clemm; Gabriella Cohn-Cedermark; Stéphane Culine; Gedske Daugaard; Pieter H M De Mulder; Maria De Santis; Maike de Wit; Ronald de Wit; Hans Günter Derigs; Klaus-Peter Dieckmann; Annette Dieing; Jean-Pierre Droz; Martin Fenner; Karim Fizazi; Aude Flechon; Sophie D Fosså; Xavier Garcia del Muro; Thomas Gauler; Lajos Geczi; Arthur Gerl; Jose Ramon Germa-Lluch; Silke Gillessen; Jörg T Hartmann; Michael Hartmann; Axel Heidenreich; Wolfgang Hoeltl; Alan Horwich; Robert Huddart; Michael Jewett; Johnathan Joffe; William G Jones; László Kisbenedek; Olbjørn Klepp; Sabine Kliesch; Kai Uwe Koehrmann; Christian Kollmannsberger; Markus Kuczyk; Pilar Laguna; Oscar Leiva Galvis; Volker Loy; Malcolm D Mason; Graham M Mead; Rolf Mueller; Craig Nichols; Nicola Nicolai; Tim Oliver; Dalibor Ondrus; Gosse O N Oosterhof; Luis Paz Ares; Giorgio Pizzocaro; Jörg Pont; Tobias Pottek; Tom Powles; Oliver Rick; Giovanni Rosti; Roberto Salvioni; Jutta Scheiderbauer; Hans-Ulrich Schmelz; Heinz Schmidberger; Hans-Joachim Schmoll; Mark Schrader; Felix Sedlmayer; Niels E Skakkebaek; Aslam Sohaib; Sergei Tjulandin; Padraig Warde; Stefan Weinknecht; Lothar Weissbach; Christian Wittekind; Eva Winter; Lori Wood; Hans von der Maase Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-12-26 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: R T D Oliver; J Ong; J Shamash; R Ravi; V Nagund; P Harper; M J Ostrowski; B Sizer; J Levay; A Robinson; D E Neal; M Williams Journal: Urology Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 2.649