Ahmet Bilici1, Turkan Ozturk2, Esma Turkmen3, Hatice Odabas4, Sener Cihan5, Fatih Selcukbiricik6, Bulent Erdogan3, Zurat Urakci7, Nurten Kandemir8, Ibrahim Vedat Bayoglu9, Umut Demirci10, Ayse Ocak Duran11, Mehmet Ali Nahit Sendur12, Dilek Yavuzer13, Hakan Harputluoglu14, Halil Kavgaci2, Mahmut Gumus4. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Istanbul Medipol University, TEM Avrupa Otoyolu Goztepe Cikisi, No:1, Bagcilar, 34214, Istanbul, Turkey. ahmetknower@yahoo.com. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Dr. Lutfi Kirdar Kartal Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, Okmeydani Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. 6. Department of Medical Oncology, Sisli Etfal Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. 7. Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey. 8. Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara Onkoloji Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. 9. Department of Medical Oncology, Izmir Ataturk Education and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey. 10. Department of Medical Oncology, Ataturk Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. 11. Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey. 12. Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara Numune Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. 13. Department of Pathology, Dr. Lutfi Kirdar Kartal Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. 14. Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Inonu University, Malatya, Turkey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Approximately 75 % of patients with testicular seminoma present with stage I disease, and the probability of long-term survival approaches 100 %. However, the standard adjuvant treatment for stage I seminoma patients remains controversial, and there is no uniform consensus in the literature. The present study was performed to evaluate treatment preference and outcomes for men with stage I testicular seminoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 1997 to 2013, 282 patients with histologically confirmed stage IA and IB testicular seminoma who underwent orchiectomy were included. The outcomes of three management options and survivals were retrospectively analyzed. The prognostic significance of risk factors for relapse on survival was evaluated by univariate and multivariate analysis; in addition, the factors predicting relapse were also evaluated by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the 282 patients with stage I seminoma, 130 (46.1) received adjuvant radiotherapy (RT), 80 (28.4 %) were treated with adjuvant carboplatin, while the remaining 72 patients (25.5 %) underwent surveillance. At the time of analysis, the median follow-up period of 38.5 months; relapses were observed in 16 patients (22.3 %) on surveillance, in one patient (1.2 %) treated with adjuvant carboplatin and in ten patients (%7.7) who received adjuvant RT. The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate for patients who underwent surveillance was worse than those of patients treated with adjuvant carboplatin and RT (64.2 vs. 97.7 vs. 91.9 %, respectively; p < 0.001). However, the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate for patients on surveillance was similar compared with the adjuvant treatment groups (100 vs. 92.3 vs. 97.4 %, respectively; p = 0.44). Univariate analysis showed that only the treatment approach (surveillance vs. adjuvant carboplatin vs. adjuvant RT) for DFS (p < 0.001), invasion of the rete testis (p = 0.041) and the presence of relapse (p < 0.001) for OS were important prognostic indicators. Multivariate analysis indicated that the treatment strategy for DFS (p < 0.001, HR 0.34) was an independent prognostic factor. Furthermore, a logistic regression analysis showed that adjuvant treatment was found to be an independent factor for predicting relapse (p = 0.004, odds ratio: 0.39). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that adjuvant treatment with carboplatin or RT is associated with improved DFS compared with surveillance for men with stage I testicular seminoma after orchiectomy. Moreover, the treatment strategy is an important prognostic indicator for DFS and a predictive factor for relapse. Although adjuvant treatment, especially carboplatin, seems to be a suitable treatment for patients with risk factors for relapse, surveillance is still feasible and the preferred management option after radical orchiectomy in men with stage I seminoma. More reliable predictive factors are needed to make treatment decisions.
BACKGROUND: Approximately 75 % of patients with testicular seminoma present with stage I disease, and the probability of long-term survival approaches 100 %. However, the standard adjuvant treatment for stage I seminomapatients remains controversial, and there is no uniform consensus in the literature. The present study was performed to evaluate treatment preference and outcomes for men with stage I testicular seminoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 1997 to 2013, 282 patients with histologically confirmed stage IA and IB testicular seminoma who underwent orchiectomy were included. The outcomes of three management options and survivals were retrospectively analyzed. The prognostic significance of risk factors for relapse on survival was evaluated by univariate and multivariate analysis; in addition, the factors predicting relapse were also evaluated by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the 282 patients with stage I seminoma, 130 (46.1) received adjuvant radiotherapy (RT), 80 (28.4 %) were treated with adjuvant carboplatin, while the remaining 72 patients (25.5 %) underwent surveillance. At the time of analysis, the median follow-up period of 38.5 months; relapses were observed in 16 patients (22.3 %) on surveillance, in one patient (1.2 %) treated with adjuvant carboplatin and in ten patients (%7.7) who received adjuvant RT. The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate for patients who underwent surveillance was worse than those of patients treated with adjuvant carboplatin and RT (64.2 vs. 97.7 vs. 91.9 %, respectively; p < 0.001). However, the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate for patients on surveillance was similar compared with the adjuvant treatment groups (100 vs. 92.3 vs. 97.4 %, respectively; p = 0.44). Univariate analysis showed that only the treatment approach (surveillance vs. adjuvant carboplatin vs. adjuvant RT) for DFS (p < 0.001), invasion of the rete testis (p = 0.041) and the presence of relapse (p < 0.001) for OS were important prognostic indicators. Multivariate analysis indicated that the treatment strategy for DFS (p < 0.001, HR 0.34) was an independent prognostic factor. Furthermore, a logistic regression analysis showed that adjuvant treatment was found to be an independent factor for predicting relapse (p = 0.004, odds ratio: 0.39). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that adjuvant treatment with carboplatin or RT is associated with improved DFS compared with surveillance for men with stage I testicular seminoma after orchiectomy. Moreover, the treatment strategy is an important prognostic indicator for DFS and a predictive factor for relapse. Although adjuvant treatment, especially carboplatin, seems to be a suitable treatment for patients with risk factors for relapse, surveillance is still feasible and the preferred management option after radical orchiectomy in men with stage I seminoma. More reliable predictive factors are needed to make treatment decisions.
Authors: R Timothy D Oliver; Graham M Mead; Gordon J S Rustin; Johnathan K Joffe; Nina Aass; Robert Coleman; Rhian Gabe; Philip Pollock; Sally P Stenning Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jorge Aparicio; Pablo Maroto; Xavier García del Muro; Josep Gumà; Alfonso Sánchez-Muñoz; Mireia Margelí; Montserrat Doménech; Romá Bastús; Antonio Fernández; Marta López-Brea; Josefa Terrassa; Andrés Meana; Purificación Martínez del Prado; Javier Sastre; Juan J Satrústegui; Regina Gironés; Lidia Robert; José R Germà Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-10-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Guy Jones; Benjamin Arthurs; Hakan Kaya; Kenneth Macdonald; Rui Qin; Robert K Fairbanks; Wayne T Lamoreaux; Irfan Jawed; Jonathan D Tward; Danko Martincic; Anand T Shivnani; Christopher M Lee Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Jorge Aparicio; José R Germà; Xavier García del Muro; Pablo Maroto; José A Arranz; Alberto Sáenz; Agustín Barnadas; Joan Dorca; Josep Gumà; David Olmos; Romá Bastús; Joan Carles; Daniel Almenar; Miguel Sánchez; Luis Paz-Ares; Juan J Satrústegui; Begoña Mellado; Ana Balil; Marta López-Brea; Alfredo Sánchez Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: R T D Oliver; M D Mason; G M Mead; H von der Maase; G J S Rustin; J K Joffe; R de Wit; N Aass; J D Graham; R Coleman; S J Kirk; S P Stenning Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Jul 23-29 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: P Warde; M K Gospodarowicz; T Panzarella; C N Catton; J F Sturgeon; M Moore; P Goodman; M A Jewett Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1995-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christian G Ruf; Stefanie Schmidt; Sabine Kliesch; Christoph Oing; David Pfister; Jonas Busch; Julia Heinzelbecker; Christian Winter; Friedemann Zengerling; Peter Albers; Karin Oechsle; Susanne Krege; Julia Lackner; Klaus-Peter Dieckmann Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-09-15 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: A Terbuch; F Posch; L M Annerer; T Bauernhofer; M Pichler; J Szkandera; G C Hutterer; K Pummer; R Partl; K S Kapp; H Stöger; A Gerger; M Stotz Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2017-08-29 Impact factor: 3.405