Mette Saksø Mortensen1, Jakob Lauritsen2, Maria Gry Gundgaard3, Mads Agerbæk4, Niels Vilstrup Holm5, Ib Jarle Christensen6, Hans von der Maase2, Gedske Daugaard2. 1. Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: mette.saksoe.mortensen@regionh.dk. 2. Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 5. Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 6. Finsen Laboratory, Rigshospitalet, and Biotech Research and Innovation Centre, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen Biocenter, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasing concerns about late effects after adjuvant treatment for stage I seminoma have made surveillance an attractive alternative. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the surveillance strategy in a nationwide cohort study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective, population-based study of Danish patients diagnosed with stage I seminoma between 1984 and 2008 and followed for 5 yr (n=1954). Patient data were linked with national registries on November 30, 2012, to obtain information on late relapse, vital status, and cause of death. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Disease-specific survival (DSS), overall survival, relapse rates, time to relapse, detection of relapse, and prognostic factors for relapse were described for the cohort. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to determine survival probabilities. A Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariate analysis of prognostic factors. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Median follow-up time was 15.1 yr. In total, 369 patients relapsed after a median 13.7 mo. DSS after 15 yr was 99.3%. Tumor size was a significant factor for relapse. Either vascular invasion or invasion of epididymis was significant if the other factor was excluded from analysis. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and the number of missing values in analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In the world's largest study of stage I seminoma patients, we found surveillance to be a safe alternative to adjuvant therapies. Tumor size was a significant factor for relapse, together with either invasion of epididymis or vascular invasion. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this nationwide study, we looked at the outcomes of patients with stage I seminoma followed for 5 yr. We found that surveillance is a safe alternative to adjuvant treatment.
BACKGROUND: Increasing concerns about late effects after adjuvant treatment for stage I seminoma have made surveillance an attractive alternative. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the surveillance strategy in a nationwide cohort study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective, population-based study of Danish patients diagnosed with stage I seminoma between 1984 and 2008 and followed for 5 yr (n=1954). Patient data were linked with national registries on November 30, 2012, to obtain information on late relapse, vital status, and cause of death. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Disease-specific survival (DSS), overall survival, relapse rates, time to relapse, detection of relapse, and prognostic factors for relapse were described for the cohort. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to determine survival probabilities. A Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariate analysis of prognostic factors. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Median follow-up time was 15.1 yr. In total, 369 patients relapsed after a median 13.7 mo. DSS after 15 yr was 99.3%. Tumor size was a significant factor for relapse. Either vascular invasion or invasion of epididymis was significant if the other factor was excluded from analysis. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and the number of missing values in analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In the world's largest study of stage I seminomapatients, we found surveillance to be a safe alternative to adjuvant therapies. Tumor size was a significant factor for relapse, together with either invasion of epididymis or vascular invasion. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this nationwide study, we looked at the outcomes of patients with stage I seminoma followed for 5 yr. We found that surveillance is a safe alternative to adjuvant treatment.
Authors: Mounsif Azizi; Ahmet M Aydin; Salim K Cheriyan; Charles C Peyton; Matthew Montanarella; Scott M Gilbert; Wade J Sexton Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2020-01
Authors: Daniel M Berney; Ferran Algaba; Mahul Amin; Brett Delahunt; Eva Compérat; Jonathan I Epstein; Peter Humphrey; Mohammed Idrees; Antonio Lopez-Beltran; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Gregor Mikuz; Rodolfo Montironi; Esther Oliva; John Srigley; Victor E Reuter; Kiril Trpkov; Thomas M Ulbright; Murali Varma; Clare Verrill; Robert H Young; Ming Zhou; Lars Egevad Journal: Histopathology Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: Hester Lieng; Padraig Warde; Philippe Bedard; Robert J Hamilton; Aaron R Hansen; Michael A S Jewett; Martin O'malley; Joan Sweet; Peter Chung Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Liang Cheng; Peter Albers; Daniel M Berney; Darren R Feldman; Gedske Daugaard; Timothy Gilligan; Leendert H J Looijenga Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2018-10-05 Impact factor: 52.329