C A Lago-Hernandez1, H Feldman2, E O'Donnell3, B A Mahal4, V Perez5, S Howard6, M Rosenthal6, S C Cheng7, P L Nguyen8, C Beard8, A V D'Amico8, C J Sweeney9. 1. Harvard Medical School, Boston Department of Medical Oncology-Genitourinary Division, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. 2. Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York Department of Medical Oncology-Genitourinary Division, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. 3. Department of Medical Oncology-Genitourinary Division, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. 4. Harvard Medical School, Boston Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. 5. University of Puerto Rico Medical School, San Juan PR. 6. Departments of Imaging, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, USA. 7. Biostatistics/Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, USA. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. 9. Department of Medical Oncology-Genitourinary Division, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston christopher_sweeney@dfci.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Active surveillance is an increasingly accepted approach for managing patients with germ-cell tumors (GCTs) after an orchiectomy. Here we investigate a time-to-relapse stratification scheme for clinical stage 1 (CS1) nonseminoma GCT (NSGCT) patients according to factors associated with relapse and identify a group of patients with a lower frequency and longer time-to-relapse who may require an alternative surveillance strategy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed 266 CS1 GCT patients from the IRB-approved DFCI GCT database that exclusively underwent surveillance following orchiectomy from 1997 to 2013. We stratified NSGCT patients according to predominance of embryonal carcinoma (EmbP) and lymphovascular invasion (LVI), using a 0, 1, and 2 scoring system. Cox regression and conditional risk analysis were used to compare each NSGCT group to patients in the seminomatous germ-cell tumor (SGCT) category. Median time-to-relapse values were then calculated among those patients who underwent relapse. Relapse-free survival curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Fifty (37%) NSGCT and 20 (15%) SGCT patients relapsed. The median time-to-relapse was 11.5 versus 6.3 months for the SGCT and NSGCT groups, respectively. For NSGCT patients, relapse rates were higher and median time-to-relapse faster with increasing number of risk factors (RFs). Relapse rates (%) and median time-to-relapse (months) were 25%/8.5 months, 41%/6.8 months and 78%/3.8 months for RF0, RF1 and RF2, respectively. We found a statistically significant difference between SGCT and patients with one or two RFs (P < 0.001) but not between SGCT and NSGCT RF0 (P = 0.108). CONCLUSION: NSGCT patients grouped by a risk score system based on EmbP and LVI yielded three groups with distinct relapse patterns -and patients with neither EmbP nor LVI appear to behave similar to SGCT.
BACKGROUND: Active surveillance is an increasingly accepted approach for managing patients with germ-cell tumors (GCTs) after an orchiectomy. Here we investigate a time-to-relapse stratification scheme for clinical stage 1 (CS1) nonseminoma GCT (NSGCT) patients according to factors associated with relapse and identify a group of patients with a lower frequency and longer time-to-relapse who may require an alternative surveillance strategy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed 266 CS1 GCT patients from the IRB-approved DFCI GCT database that exclusively underwent surveillance following orchiectomy from 1997 to 2013. We stratified NSGCT patients according to predominance of embryonal carcinoma (EmbP) and lymphovascular invasion (LVI), using a 0, 1, and 2 scoring system. Cox regression and conditional risk analysis were used to compare each NSGCT group to patients in the seminomatous germ-cell tumor (SGCT) category. Median time-to-relapse values were then calculated among those patients who underwent relapse. Relapse-free survival curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Fifty (37%) NSGCT and 20 (15%) SGCT patients relapsed. The median time-to-relapse was 11.5 versus 6.3 months for the SGCT and NSGCT groups, respectively. For NSGCT patients, relapse rates were higher and median time-to-relapse faster with increasing number of risk factors (RFs). Relapse rates (%) and median time-to-relapse (months) were 25%/8.5 months, 41%/6.8 months and 78%/3.8 months for RF0, RF1 and RF2, respectively. We found a statistically significant difference between SGCT and patients with one or two RFs (P < 0.001) but not between SGCT and NSGCT RF0 (P = 0.108). CONCLUSION: NSGCT patients grouped by a risk score system based on EmbP and LVI yielded three groups with distinct relapse patterns -and patients with neither EmbP nor LVI appear to behave similar to SGCT.
Authors: Robert J Motzer; Neeraj Agarwal; Clair Beard; Sam Bhayani; Graeme B Bolger; Mark K Buyyounouski; Michael A Carducci; Sam S Chang; Toni K Choueiri; Shilpa Gupta; Steven L Hancock; Gary R Hudes; Eric Jonasch; Timothy M Kuzel; Clayton Lau; Ellis G Levine; Daniel W Lin; Kim A Margolin; M Dror Michaelson; Thomas Olencki; Roberto Pili; Thomas W Ratliff; Bruce G Redman; Cary N Robertson; Charles J Ryan; Joel Sheinfeld; Jue Wang; Richard B Wilder Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Craig R Nichols; Bruce Roth; Peter Albers; Lawrence H Einhorn; Richard Foster; Siamak Daneshmand; Michael Jewett; Padraig Warde; Christopher J Sweeney; Clair Beard; Tom Powles; Scott Tyldesley; Alan So; Christopher Porter; Semra Olgac; Karim Fizazi; Brandon Hayes-Lattin; Peter Grimison; Guy Toner; Richard Cathomas; Carsten Bokemeyer; Christian Kollmannsberger Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-09-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christian Kollmannsberger; Torgrim Tandstad; Philippe L Bedard; Gabriella Cohn-Cedermark; Peter W Chung; Michael A Jewett; Tom Powles; Padraig R Warde; Siamak Daneshmand; Andrew Protheroe; Scott Tyldesley; Peter C Black; Kim Chi; Alan I So; Malcom J Moore; Craig R Nichols Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-08-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Pari V Pandharipande; Jonathan D Eisenberg; Richard J Lee; Michael E Gilmore; Ekin A Turan; Sarabjeet Singh; Mannudeep K Kalra; Bob Liu; Chung Yin Kong; G Scott Gazelle Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-12-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Gordon J Rustin; Graham M Mead; Sally P Stenning; Paul A Vasey; Nina Aass; Robert A Huddart; Michael P Sokal; Jonathan K Joffe; Stephen J Harland; Sarah J Kirk Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-04-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Salim K Cheriyan; Marilin Nicholson; Ahmet M Aydin; Mounsif Azizi; Charles C Peyton; Wade J Sexton; Scott M Gilbert Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2020-01
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: 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
Authors: Lekha Madhavan Nair; K M Jagathnath Krishna; Aswin Kumar; Susan Mathews; John Joseph; Francis Vadakkumparambil James Journal: Ecancermedicalscience Date: 2020-11-18
Authors: Joost M Blok; Ilse Pluim; Gedske Daugaard; Thomas Wagner; Katarzyna Jóźwiak; Erica A Wilthagen; Leendert H J Looijenga; Richard P Meijer; J L H Ruud Bosch; Simon Horenblas Journal: BJU Int Date: 2020-01-08 Impact factor: 5.588