Treatment of Relapse of Clinical Stage I Nonseminomatous Germ Cell Tumors on Surveillance

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (22) ◽  
pp. 1919-1926 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Hamilton ◽  
Madhur Nayan ◽  
Lynn Anson-Cartwright ◽  
Eshetu G. Atenafu ◽  
Philippe L. Bedard ◽  
...  

PURPOSE Active surveillance (AS) for testicular nonseminomatous germ cell tumors (NSGCT) is widely used. Although there is no consensus for optimal treatment at relapse on surveillance, globally patients typically receive chemotherapy. We describe treatment of relapses in our non–risk-adapted NSGCT AS cohort and highlight selective use of primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND). METHODS From December 1980 to December 2015, 580 patients with clinical stage I NSGCT were treated with AS, and 162 subsequently relapsed. First-line treatment was based on relapse site and extent. Logistic regression was used to explore factors associated with need for multimodal therapy on AS relapse. RESULTS Median time to relapse was 7.4 months. The majority of relapses were confined to the retroperitoneum (66%). After relapse, first-line treatment was chemotherapy for 95 (58.6%) and RPLND for 62 (38.3%), and five patients (3.1%) underwent other therapy. In 103 (65.6%), only one modality of treatment was required: chemotherapy only in 58 of 95 (61%) and RPLND only in 45 of 62 (73%). Factors associated with multimodal relapse therapy were larger node size (odds ratio, 2.68; P = .045) in patients undergoing chemotherapy and elevated tumor markers (odds ratio, 6.05; P = .008) in patients undergoing RPLND. When RPLND was performed with normal markers, 82% required no further treatment. Second relapse occurred in 30 of 162 patients (18.5%). With median follow-up of 7.6 years, there were five deaths (3.1% of AS relapses, but 0.8% of whole AS cohort) from NSGCT or treatment complications. CONCLUSION The retroperitoneum is the most common site of relapse in clinical stage I NSGCT on AS. Most are cured by single-modality treatment. RPLND should be considered for relapsed patients, especially those with disease limited to the retroperitoneum and normal markers, as an option to avoid chemotherapy.

1997 ◽  
Vol 158 (2) ◽  
pp. 620-625 ◽  
Author(s):  
Axel Heidenreich ◽  
Noah S. Schenkmann ◽  
Isabell A. Sesterhenn ◽  
F. Kash Mostofi ◽  
William F. McCarthy ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 556-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy F. Sturgeon ◽  
Malcolm J. Moore ◽  
David M. Kakiashvili ◽  
Ignacio Duran ◽  
Lynn C. Anson-Cartwright ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 383-383
Author(s):  
Rohit R Badia ◽  
Daniel Wong ◽  
Rashed Ghandour ◽  
Nathan Chertack ◽  
Xiaosong Meng ◽  
...  

383 Background: Nationwide cancer registries such as the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) rely on accurate data from institutional tumor registries to formulate hypotheses and report outcomes and treatment patterns for patients with cancer. We evaluated the accuracy of our institutional registry for testicular germ cell tumors (GCT) by comparing data abstracted by urologists with data abstracted by our tumor registry. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients receiving initial diagnosis and treatment for testicular cancer at our hospital system from 2005-2016. We reviewed registrar coding for American Joint Committee on Cancer clinical staging, overall composite stage grouping, and first-line treatment and compared it with urologist-reviewed staging at the time of diagnosis. Results: Paired staging from registry and urologist was available for 80 patients. T, N, M, and S-staging were accurate for 90%, 81%, 94%, and 54% of records, respectively. Composite staging and first-line treatment were concordant for 39% and 90% of patients, respectively. A separate review of 33 Stage IS patients per registry for composite staging revealed only 15% concordance. Conclusions: We identified significant inconsistencies with data abstracted by our institutional tumor registry for patients with testicular cancer, most notably with regards to S and composite stage. An educational intervention to improve abstraction by registry led to increased concordance. Assuming similar discrepancies may exist at other institutions and for other cancer types, caution should be used when interpreting NCDB and SEER cancer staging data. This sheds light on the need for improved clarification of staging guidelines, dynamic institutional internal auditing, and training reform within cancer registries.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document