Richard S Matulewicz1, Daniel T Oberlin2, Joel Sheinfeld3, Joshua J Meeks2. 1. Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL; Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center (SOQIC), Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. Electronic address: Richard.Matulewicz@northwestern.edu. 2. Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. 3. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine trends in management and factors associated with men receiving either chemotherapy or radiation therapy post orchiectomy for clinical stage I (CSI) seminoma in a contemporary setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Data Base was queried for all patients with CSI seminoma from 1998 to 2012. Adjuvant treatment after orchiectomy was classified into 3 groups: surveillance, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. Yearly trends in management are described. Subgroup analysis for the years 2010-2012 was completed using logistic regression to determine predictors of receiving treatment. RESULTS: Of 80,385 patients with testicular cancer, 16,931 had CSI seminoma. There was a progressive decline in the use of post-orchiectomy treatment from 1998 to 2012. In the years 2010-2012 (n = 5816), 59.9% of patients chose surveillance compared with 25.1% receiving radiotherapy and 15.0% receiving chemotherapy. Regression modeling demonstrated that men aged 18-30 were less likely (odds ratio [OR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-1.00, P = .048) to receive treatment than those aged 31-37. Increasing pathologic stage was associated with a greater likelihood of treatment (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.52-2.06), whereas patients treated at academic hospitals were less likely to receive adjuvant therapy (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62-0.94). CONCLUSION: Despite a trend toward increased use of post-orchiectomy surveillance for patients with CSI seminoma, a significant portion of patients are still receiving treatment. Pathologic stage and treating hospital type have the strongest association with management decisions. Improved guideline adherence may reduce the potential for adverse effects after chemotherapy or radiation therapy for CSI seminoma.
OBJECTIVE: To determine trends in management and factors associated with men receiving either chemotherapy or radiation therapy post orchiectomy for clinical stage I (CSI) seminoma in a contemporary setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Data Base was queried for all patients with CSI seminoma from 1998 to 2012. Adjuvant treatment after orchiectomy was classified into 3 groups: surveillance, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. Yearly trends in management are described. Subgroup analysis for the years 2010-2012 was completed using logistic regression to determine predictors of receiving treatment. RESULTS: Of 80,385 patients with testicular cancer, 16,931 had CSI seminoma. There was a progressive decline in the use of post-orchiectomy treatment from 1998 to 2012. In the years 2010-2012 (n = 5816), 59.9% of patients chose surveillance compared with 25.1% receiving radiotherapy and 15.0% receiving chemotherapy. Regression modeling demonstrated that men aged 18-30 were less likely (odds ratio [OR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-1.00, P = .048) to receive treatment than those aged 31-37. Increasing pathologic stage was associated with a greater likelihood of treatment (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.52-2.06), whereas patients treated at academic hospitals were less likely to receive adjuvant therapy (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62-0.94). CONCLUSION: Despite a trend toward increased use of post-orchiectomy surveillance for patients with CSI seminoma, a significant portion of patients are still receiving treatment. Pathologic stage and treating hospital type have the strongest association with management decisions. Improved guideline adherence may reduce the potential for adverse effects after chemotherapy or radiation therapy for CSI seminoma.
Authors: L B Travis; R E Curtis; H Storm; P Hall; E Holowaty; F E Van Leeuwen; B A Kohler; E Pukkala; C F Lynch; M Andersson; K Bergfeldt; E A Clarke; T Wiklund; G Stoter; M Gospodarowicz; J Sturgeon; J F Fraumeni; J D Boice Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1997-10-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Phillip J Gray; Chun Chieh Lin; Helmneh Sineshaw; Jonathan J Paly; Ahmedin Jemal; Jason A Efstathiou Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-10-24 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Maxine Sun; Firas Abdollah; Daniel Liberman; Al'a Abdo; Rodolphe Thuret; Zhe Tian; Shahrokh F Shariat; Francesco Montorsi; Paul Perrotte; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 6.860
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: 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: J Aparicio; X García del Muro; P Maroto; L Paz-Ares; E Alba; A Sáenz; J Terrasa; A Barnadas; D Almenar; J A Arranz; M Sánchez; A Fernández; J Sastre; J Carles; J Dorca; J Gumà; A L Yuste; J R Germà Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Klaus-Peter Dieckmann; Arlo Radtke; Lajos Geczi; Cord Matthies; Petra Anheuser; Ulrike Eckardt; Jörg Sommer; Friedemann Zengerling; Emanuela Trenti; Renate Pichler; Hanjo Belz; Stefan Zastrow; Alexander Winter; Sebastian Melchior; Johannes Hammel; Jennifer Kranz; Marius Bolten; Susanne Krege; Björn Haben; Wolfgang Loidl; Christian Guido Ruf; Julia Heinzelbecker; Axel Heidenreich; Jann Frederik Cremers; Christoph Oing; Thomas Hermanns; Christian Daniel Fankhauser; Silke Gillessen; Hermann Reichegger; Richard Cathomas; Martin Pichler; Marcus Hentrich; Klaus Eredics; Anja Lorch; Christian Wülfing; Sven Peine; Werner Wosniok; Carsten Bokemeyer; Gazanfer Belge Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544