Management of Residual Mass in Germ Cell Tumors After Chemotherapy

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Costantine Albany ◽  
Kenneth Kesler ◽  
Clint Cary
2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 323-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Constance Thibault ◽  
Yohann Loriot ◽  
Daniel Barrios Gonzales ◽  
Christophe Massard ◽  
Mario Di Palma ◽  
...  

323 Background: Germ-cell tumors (GCT) are rare but highly curable cancers even in patients with metastatic spread. We aimed at assessing whether relapse after upfront treatment could be explained by low compliance with international guidelines. Methods: All patients (pts) who were referred to Institut Gustave Roussy from 2000 to 2010 with progression or relapse after treatment for metastatic GCT were included. International guidelines available at the time of diagnosis were used as reference. A list of noncompliant criteria defined as disagreement with the recommendations with a potential impact on outcome was set up. Results: 78 pts were included. According to the IGCCCG classification, 18 pts (23.1%) had good, 25 pts (32%) had intermediary and 34 pts (43.6%) had poor prognosis. The first-line chemotherapy administered consisted of PEB regimen (70.5%) , PE regimen (15.4%) or other regimen (12.8%). Most patients were treated in cancer centers (52.5%, n=41), whereas 26.9% and 17.9% pts were treated in private or public general hospitals, respectively. Only 50% pts received treatment according to guidelines recommendations. This percentage was significantly higher in cancer centres than in public hospitals (75.6% versus 28.6%, p< 0.001) or also when compared with private hospitals (75.6% versus 14,3%, p<0.001). The most frequent noncompliance criteria were: time to surgery for residual mass (over 6 weeks after the latest chemotherapy cycle)(20.3%) and respected chemotherapy schedule (20.3%). Other noncompliance findings were: inadequate chemotherapy dose (15.6%), number of cycles (12.5%), decision regarding residual disease (12.5%), chemotherapy regimen (6.3%), follow up (4.6%), type of surgery (3.1%), staging(1.6%), IGCCCG classification (1.6%), or decision regarding chemotherapy after residual mass surgery (1.6%). Conclusions: This study suggests that the majority of relapse for metastatic GCT may be explained by a poor conformity to international guidelines and not only by aggressive tumor biology. These data represent a strong argument for treatment centralization in reference centers in patients with GCT.


1993 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. S242
Author(s):  
M Provencie ◽  
JA Arsuaga ◽  
J Lopez-Vega ◽  
F Besilla ◽  
P Rspañs

2001 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 536-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Finn Edler von Eyben ◽  
Ebbe Lindegaard Madsen ◽  
Ole Blaabjerg ◽  
Per Hyltoft Petersen ◽  
Hans von der Maase ◽  
...  

2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 244-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles J. Ryan ◽  
Dean F. Bajorin
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document