Excellent survival in relapsed stage I testicular cancer.
Active surveillance
Clinical stage I
Follow-up
Germ-cell cancer
IGCCCG prognostic group
Relapse
Testicular cancer
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Sep 2023
15 Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
03
05
2023
accepted:
07
09
2023
medline:
18
9
2023
pubmed:
16
9
2023
entrez:
15
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Two thirds of patients with germ-cell cancer (GCC) present as clinical stage I (CSI). Following orchiectomy, active surveillance (AS) has become their standard management. However, 15-50% of patients eventually relapse with metastatic disease after AS. Relapses need to be detected early in order to achieve cure and avoid overtreatment. We retrospectively analyzed consecutive GCC patients treated at two Swiss academic centers between 2010 and 2020. Patients with stage IS and extragonadal primaries were excluded. We compared disease characteristics and survival outcomes of patients relapsed from initial CSI to patients with de novo metastatic disease. Primary endpoint was the IGCCCG category at the time of relapse. Main secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). We identified 360 GCC patients with initial CSI and 245 de novo metastatic patients. After a median follow-up of 47 months, 81 of 360 (22.5%) CSI patients relapsed: 41 seminoma (Sem) and 40 non-seminoma (NSem) patients. All Sems relapsed in the IGCCCG good prognosis group. NSem relapsed with good 29/40 (72.5%) and intermediate 11/40 (27.5%) prognostic features; 95.1% of relapses occurred within five years post-orchiectomy. Only 3 relapsed NSem patients died from metastatic disease. Five-year OS for relapsed CSI patients was 100% for Sem and 87% (95% CI: 61-96%) for NSem patients; five-year PFS was 92% (95% CI: 77-97) and 78% (95% CI: 56-90) for Sem and NSem, respectively. When stratified by IGCCCG prognostic groups, good risk relapsed patients had a trend towards better OS and PFS as compared to de novo metastatic patients. GCC patients who relapse after initial CSI can be detected early by active surveillance and have an excellent survival.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Two thirds of patients with germ-cell cancer (GCC) present as clinical stage I (CSI). Following orchiectomy, active surveillance (AS) has become their standard management. However, 15-50% of patients eventually relapse with metastatic disease after AS. Relapses need to be detected early in order to achieve cure and avoid overtreatment.
METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively analyzed consecutive GCC patients treated at two Swiss academic centers between 2010 and 2020. Patients with stage IS and extragonadal primaries were excluded. We compared disease characteristics and survival outcomes of patients relapsed from initial CSI to patients with de novo metastatic disease. Primary endpoint was the IGCCCG category at the time of relapse. Main secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS
RESULTS
We identified 360 GCC patients with initial CSI and 245 de novo metastatic patients. After a median follow-up of 47 months, 81 of 360 (22.5%) CSI patients relapsed: 41 seminoma (Sem) and 40 non-seminoma (NSem) patients. All Sems relapsed in the IGCCCG good prognosis group. NSem relapsed with good 29/40 (72.5%) and intermediate 11/40 (27.5%) prognostic features; 95.1% of relapses occurred within five years post-orchiectomy. Only 3 relapsed NSem patients died from metastatic disease. Five-year OS for relapsed CSI patients was 100% for Sem and 87% (95% CI: 61-96%) for NSem patients; five-year PFS was 92% (95% CI: 77-97) and 78% (95% CI: 56-90) for Sem and NSem, respectively. When stratified by IGCCCG prognostic groups, good risk relapsed patients had a trend towards better OS and PFS as compared to de novo metastatic patients.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
GCC patients who relapse after initial CSI can be detected early by active surveillance and have an excellent survival.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37715132
doi: 10.1186/s12885-023-11388-y
pii: 10.1186/s12885-023-11388-y
pmc: PMC10503206
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
870Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Eur Urol. 2023 Sep;84(3):289-301
pubmed: 37183161
Eur Urol. 2011 Apr;59(4):556-62
pubmed: 21190791
Cancer. 1997 May 1;79(9):1641-5; discussion 1646
pubmed: 9128977
J Urol. 2006 Oct;176(4 Pt 1):1424-29; discussion 1429-30
pubmed: 16952649
Ann Oncol. 2015 Jul;26(7):1396-401
pubmed: 25888612
J Clin Oncol. 2021 May 10;39(14):1553-1562
pubmed: 33729863
J Clin Oncol. 1997 Feb;15(2):594-603
pubmed: 9053482
Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022 Apr 27;40:46-53
pubmed: 35638085
Eur Urol. 2014 Dec;66(6):1172-8
pubmed: 25064686
J Clin Oncol. 2021 May 10;39(14):1563-1574
pubmed: 33822655
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 Dec;17(12):1529-1554
pubmed: 31805523
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Dec 1;32(34):3817-23
pubmed: 25267754
Ann Oncol. 2022 Apr;33(4):362-375
pubmed: 35065204
Ann Oncol. 2018 Aug 1;29(8):1658-1686
pubmed: 30113631
Can J Urol. 2005 Apr;12(2):2575-80
pubmed: 15877938
Diagn Pathol. 2013 Apr 08;8:57
pubmed: 23566361
BJU Int. 2020 Mar;125(3):355-368
pubmed: 31797520
Ann Oncol. 2013 Oct;24 Suppl 6:vi125-32
pubmed: 24078656
Eur Urol. 2002 Dec;42(6):553-62; discussion 562-3
pubmed: 12477650
Eur Urol. 2018 Mar;73(3):394-405
pubmed: 29100813
Ann Oncol. 1997 Jan;8(1):41-7
pubmed: 9093706
Clin Transl Oncol. 2021 Jan;23(1):58-64
pubmed: 32462393
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Apr 20;38(12):1322-1331
pubmed: 31877087