Intricacies of Radiographic Assessment in Testicular Germ Cell Tumors.

active surveillance computed tomography follow-up magnetic resonance positron emission tomography/computer tomography (PET/CT) post-chemotherapy testicular germ cell tumors testis

Journal

Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2020
Historique:
received: 26 07 2020
accepted: 16 11 2020
entrez: 15 2 2021
pubmed: 16 2 2021
medline: 16 2 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Testicular germ cell tumors (GCTs) are malignancies with a unique biology, pathology, clinical appearance, and excellent outcomes. A correct radiographic assessment of GCTs is extremely important for the clinical management in several typical scenarios. Advancements in the field of diagnostic medicine bring an increasing number of sophisticated imaging methods to increase the performance of imaging studies. The conventional computed tomography (CT) remains the mainstay of diagnostic imaging in the management of GCTs. While certain improvements in the sensitivity and specificity are suggested with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with lymphotrophic nanoparticles in evaluating retroperitoneal lymph nodes during the staging procedure, further exploration in larger prospective studies is needed. A common diagnostic dilemma is assessing the post-chemotherapy residual disease in GCTs. Several studies have consistently shown advantages in the utility of positron emission tomography (PET) scanning in post-chemotherapy residual retroperitoneal lymph nodes in patients with seminoma, but not with non-seminoma. Recommendations suggest that seminoma patients with a residual disease in the retroperitoneum larger than 3 cm should be subjected for PET scanning with 18-fluorodeoxyglucose. Relatively high sensitivity, specificity and a negative predictive value (80-95%) may guide clinical decision to spare these patients of high morbidity of an unnecessary surgery. However, a positive predictive value of around 50% renders PET scanning difficult to interpret in the case of positive finding. These patients often require extremely difficult surgical procedures with the high risk of post-operative morbidity. Therefore, seminoma patients with PET positive residual masses larger than 3 cm still remain a serious challenge in the decision making of nuclear medicine specialist, oncologists, and urologic surgeons. In this article, we aim to summarize data on controversial dilemmas in staging procedures, active surveillance, and post-chemotherapy assessment of GCTs based on the available published literature.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33585206
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.587523
pmc: PMC7874236
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Pagination

587523

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 Makovník, Rejleková, Uhrin, Mego and Chovanec.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

Ann Oncol. 2012 Jan;23(1):59-64
pubmed: 21460378
J Urol. 1995 Nov;154(5):1759-63
pubmed: 7563341
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2015 Jun;13(6):772-99
pubmed: 26085393
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Sep 21;97(18):1354-65
pubmed: 16174857
Int J Surg Pathol. 2012 Feb;20(1):15-8
pubmed: 22180527
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jul 20;29(21):2883-8
pubmed: 21690479
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Jun;200(6):1215-25
pubmed: 23701056
Urology. 2005 Nov;66(5):1066-71
pubmed: 16286125
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Apr 10;25(11):1310-5
pubmed: 17416851
Ann Oncol. 2013 Apr;24(4):878-88
pubmed: 23152360
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Dec 20;26(36):5930-5
pubmed: 19018083
Eur Urol. 2001 Nov;40(5):481-7
pubmed: 11752853
Ann Oncol. 2008 Sep;19(9):1619-23
pubmed: 18453520
BMJ. 1994 May 28;308(6941):1393-9
pubmed: 7912596
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019 Apr 12;10:218
pubmed: 31031704
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997 Aug;169(2):521-5
pubmed: 9242768
Eur Urol. 2009 Jan;55(1):217-24
pubmed: 18926622
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Apr 20;23(12):2813-21
pubmed: 15837995
Eur Urol. 2008 Mar;53(3):497-513
pubmed: 18191015
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Aug;191(2):387-95
pubmed: 18647907
World J Urol. 2004 Jun;22(2):132-9
pubmed: 14735310
Ann Oncol. 2018 Feb 1;29(2):341-346
pubmed: 29140422
Cancer. 2002 May 1;94(9):2353-62
pubmed: 12015760
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003 Mar;30(3):396-402
pubmed: 12634968
Gynecol Oncol. 1987 Nov;28(3):284-91
pubmed: 2445636
Clin Nucl Med. 1986 Dec;11(12):823-7
pubmed: 3028686
Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Nov;25(12):3668-3675
pubmed: 30191415
J Clin Oncol. 2000 Jan;18(2):358-62
pubmed: 10637250
Ann Oncol. 2005 May;16 Suppl 4:iv90-94
pubmed: 15923438
Ann Oncol. 2010 Jun;21(6):1323-1360
pubmed: 19948741
Radiology. 1999 Apr;211(1):249-56
pubmed: 10189480
Ann Oncol. 2010 May;21 Suppl 5:v147-54
pubmed: 20555066
Ann Oncol. 2013 Oct;24 Suppl 6:vi125-32
pubmed: 24078656
Cancer. 2007 Sep 15;110(6):1235-40
pubmed: 17665498
Nucl Med Commun. 2015 Jul;36(7):702-8
pubmed: 25757201
Urology. 1999 Apr;53(4):808-11
pubmed: 10197862
Indian J Urol. 2010 Jan-Mar;26(1):82-91
pubmed: 20535292
Adv Urol. 2018 Apr 5;2018:6783147
pubmed: 29849605
Front Surg. 2019 Jan 17;5:80
pubmed: 30705885
Nat Rev Urol. 2016 Nov;13(11):663-673
pubmed: 27618772
Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:852681
pubmed: 24963486
Cancer Med. 2015 Jan;4(1):155-60
pubmed: 25236854
Intern Med J. 2003 Sep-Oct;33(9-10):427-35
pubmed: 14511195
Eur Urol. 2015 Dec;68(6):1054-68
pubmed: 26297604
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Oct 4;:JCO1800210
pubmed: 30285559
Eur J Nucl Med. 2000 May;27(5):590-4
pubmed: 10853816
Urology. 2004 Dec;64(6):1202-7
pubmed: 15596197
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999 May;172(5):1347-51
pubmed: 10227514
J Clin Oncol. 1996 May;14(5):1637-41
pubmed: 8622082
BJU Int. 2002 Apr;89(6):549-56
pubmed: 11942962
Indian J Urol. 2010 Jan-Mar;26(1):76-81
pubmed: 20535291
Ann Intern Med. 1977 Sep;87(3):293-8
pubmed: 71004
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Apr 15;21(8):1505-12
pubmed: 12697874
Eur J Nucl Med. 1995 Jun;22(6):508-13
pubmed: 7556294
J Clin Oncol. 1997 Feb;15(2):594-603
pubmed: 9053482
Clin Radiol. 2009 Apr;64(4):362-7
pubmed: 19264179

Auteurs

Marek Makovník (M)

Radiology Department, National Cancer Institute, Bratislava, Slovakia.
2nd Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University and National Cancer Institute, Bratislava, Slovakia.

Katarína Rejleková (K)

2nd Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University and National Cancer Institute, Bratislava, Slovakia.

Ivan Uhrin (I)

Radiology Department, National Cancer Institute, Bratislava, Slovakia.

Michal Mego (M)

2nd Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University and National Cancer Institute, Bratislava, Slovakia.
Translational Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia.

Michal Chovanec (M)

2nd Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University and National Cancer Institute, Bratislava, Slovakia.

Classifications MeSH