Mahmut Gumus1, Ahmet Bilici2,3, Hatice Odabas4, Bala Basak Oven Ustaalioglu5, Nurten Kandemir6, Umut Demirci7, Sener Cihan8, Ibrahim Vedat Bayoglu9, Turkan Ozturk10, Esma Turkmen11, Zurat Urakci12, Mehmet Metin Seker13, Yusuf Gunaydin14, Fatih Selcukbiricik15, Nedim Turan16, Alper Sevinc17. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey. ahmetknower@yahoo.com. 3. Tem Avrupa Otoyolu, Goztepe Cikisi, N0:1, 34214, Bagcilar, Istanbul, Turkey. ahmetknower@yahoo.com. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Dr. Lutfi Kirdar Kartal Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, Haydarpasa Numune Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. 6. Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara Onkoloji Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. 7. Department of Medical Oncology, Ataturk Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. 8. Department of Medical Oncology, Okmeydani Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. 9. Department of Medical Oncology, Izmir Ataturk Education and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey. 10. Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Karadeniz University, Trabzon, Turkey. 11. Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey. 12. Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey. 13. Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey. 14. Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey. 15. Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Koc University, Istanbul, Turkey. 16. Department of Medical Oncology, Malatya State Hospital, Malatya, Turkey. 17. Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, it is accepted that risk assessment of clinical stage I (CS I) nonseminomatous germ cell tumors (NSGCT) patient is mainly dependent on the presence of lymphovascular invasion (LVI). Initial active surveillance, adjuvant chemotherapy and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) are acceptable treatment options for these patients, but there is no uniform consensus. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of active surveillance with adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: A total of 201 patients with CS I NSGCT after orchiectomy were included. Outcomes of active surveillance and adjuvant chemotherapy were retrospectively analyzed. The prognostic significance of risk factors for survival and relapse was evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 201 patients, 110 (54.7%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, while the remaining 91 patients (45.3%) underwent surveillance. Relapses were significantly higher for patients underwent surveillance compared to adjuvant chemotherapy group (18.3 vs. 1.2%, p < 0.001). The 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rate for patients who were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy was significantly better than those of patients underwent surveillance (97.6 vs. 80.8%, respectively; p < 0.001). Univariate analysis showed that the presence of LVI (p = 0.01) and treatment option (p < 0.001) were prognostic factors for RFS and pT stage (p = 0.004) and invasion of rete testis (p = 0.004) and the presence of relapse (p < 0.001) were significant prognostic factors for OS. Multivariate analysis revealed that the treatment strategy was an independent prognostic factor for RFS (p < 0.001, HR 0.54). A logistic regression analysis demonstrated that treatment options (p = 0.031), embryonal carcinoma (EC) >50% (p = 0.013) and tumor diameter (p = 0.016) were found to be independent factors for predicting relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that adjuvant chemotherapy is associated with improved RFS compared with surveillance for CS I NSGCT patients. Moreover, the treatment strategy is an important prognostic indicator for RFS and a predictive factor for relapse. Although adjuvant chemotherapy seems to be a suitable treatment for patients with risk factors for relapse, surveillance is still preferred management option.
BACKGROUND: Currently, it is accepted that risk assessment of clinical stage I (CS I) nonseminomatous germ cell tumors (NSGCT) patient is mainly dependent on the presence of lymphovascular invasion (LVI). Initial active surveillance, adjuvant chemotherapy and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) are acceptable treatment options for these patients, but there is no uniform consensus. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of active surveillance with adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: A total of 201 patients with CS I NSGCT after orchiectomy were included. Outcomes of active surveillance and adjuvant chemotherapy were retrospectively analyzed. The prognostic significance of risk factors for survival and relapse was evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 201 patients, 110 (54.7%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, while the remaining 91 patients (45.3%) underwent surveillance. Relapses were significantly higher for patients underwent surveillance compared to adjuvant chemotherapy group (18.3 vs. 1.2%, p < 0.001). The 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rate for patients who were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy was significantly better than those of patients underwent surveillance (97.6 vs. 80.8%, respectively; p < 0.001). Univariate analysis showed that the presence of LVI (p = 0.01) and treatment option (p < 0.001) were prognostic factors for RFS and pT stage (p = 0.004) and invasion of rete testis (p = 0.004) and the presence of relapse (p < 0.001) were significant prognostic factors for OS. Multivariate analysis revealed that the treatment strategy was an independent prognostic factor for RFS (p < 0.001, HR 0.54). A logistic regression analysis demonstrated that treatment options (p = 0.031), embryonal carcinoma (EC) >50% (p = 0.013) and tumor diameter (p = 0.016) were found to be independent factors for predicting relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that adjuvant chemotherapy is associated with improved RFS compared with surveillance for CS I NSGCT patients. Moreover, the treatment strategy is an important prognostic indicator for RFS and a predictive factor for relapse. Although adjuvant chemotherapy seems to be a suitable treatment for patients with risk factors for relapse, surveillance is still preferred management option.
Authors: Jeetesh M Bhardwa; Tom Powles; Dan Berney; Suhail Baithun; Vinod H Nargund; R Tim D Oliver Journal: BJU Int Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 5.588
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: Andrew J Stephenson; George J Bosl; Robert J Motzer; Michael W Kattan; Jason Stasi; Dean F Bajorin; Joel Sheinfeld Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: T Tandstad; O Ståhl; U Håkansson; O Dahl; H S Haugnes; O H Klepp; C W Langberg; A Laurell; J Oldenburg; A Solberg; K Söderström; E Cavallin-Ståhl; U Stierner; R Wahlquist; N Wall; G Cohn-Cedermark Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-08-11 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Y Vergouwe; E W Steyerberg; R de Wit; J T Roberts; H J Keizer; L Collette; S P Stenning; J D F Habbema Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2003-03-24 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Klaus-Peter Dieckmann; Tomas Pokrivcak; Lajos Geczi; David Niehaus; Inken Dralle-Filiz; Cord Matthies; Tamas Dienes; Stefanie Zschäbitz; Pia Paffenholz; Tanja Gschliesser; Renate Pichler; Michal Mego; Pia Bader; Friedemann Zengerling; Julia Heinzelbecker; Philipp Krausewitz; Susanne Krege; Gaetano Aurilio; Cem Aksoy; Marcus Hentrich; Christoph Seidel; Péter Törzsök; Tim Nestler; Matthaeus Majewski; Andreas Hiester; Tomas Buchler; Sonia Vallet; Hana Studentova; Sandra Schönburg; Dora Niedersüß-Beke; Julia Ring; Emanuela Trenti; Axel Heidenreich; Christian Wülfing; Hendrik Isbarn; Uwe Pichlmeier; Martin Pichler Journal: Ther Adv Med Oncol Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 8.168