Search

Aims: To resolve the ongoing controversy surrounding the impact of teratoma (TER) in the primary among patients with metastatic testicular non-seminomatous germ-cell tumours (NSGCT)., Patients and Methods: Using the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG) Update Consortium database, we compared the survival probabilities of patients with metastatic testicular GCT with TER (TER) or without TER (NTER) in their primaries corrected for known prognostic factors. Progression-free survival (5y-PFS) and overall survival at 5 years (5y-OS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: Among 6792 patients with metastatic testicular NSGCT, 3224 (47%) had TER in their primary, and 3568 (53%) did not. In the IGCCCG good prognosis group, the 5y-PFS was 87.8% in TER versus 92.0% in NTER patients (p = 0.0001), the respective 5y-OS were 94.5% versus 96.5% (p = 0.0032). The corresponding figures in the intermediate prognosis group were 5y-PFS 76.9% versus 81.6% (p = 0.0432) in TER and NTER and 5y-OS 90.4% versus 90.9% (p = 0.8514), respectively. In the poor prognosis group, there was no difference, neither in 5y-PFS [54.3% in TER patients versus 55.4% (p = 0.7472) in NTER], nor in 5y-OS [69.4% versus 67.7% (p = 0.3841)]. NSGCT patients with TER had more residual masses (65.3% versus 51.7%, p < 0.0001), and therefore received post-chemotherapy surgery more frequently than NTER patients (46.8% versus 32.0%, p < 0.0001)., Conclusion: Teratoma in the primary tumour of patients with metastatic NSGCT negatively impacts on survival in the good and intermediate, but not in the poor IGCCCG prognostic groups., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Silke Gillessen: Personal honoraria: advisory boards from Amgen, MSD; invited speaker ESMO, Swiss group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK), German-speaking European School of Oncology (DESO), Swiss Academy of Multidisciplinary oncology (SAMO); travel grant from AstraZeneca, Bayer. Institutional honoraria: advisory boards or in Independent Data Monitoring-/Steering Committees from AAA International, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, DAIICHI Sankyo, Innomedica, Ipsen, Meister-ConCept, Modra Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Myriad Genetic, Novartis, Orion, Pfizer, Roche, Telixpharma; invited speaker SAKK, ASCO GU, ESMO, PeerVoice, Silvio Grasso Consulting, WebMD-Medscape. Patent for a research method for biomarker WO2009138392. Karim Fizazi: Participation to advisory boards and talks for: Amgen, Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, MSD, Novartis/AAA, Pfizer, Sanofi. Honoraria go to Gustave Roussy, my institution. Participation to advisory boards with personal honorarium for Arvinas, CureVac, Macrogenics and Orion. Darren Feldman: Consulting: BioNTech, Telix, Renibus, Xencor. Research Funding: Telix, Exelixis, BMS, Decibel. Royalties: UpToDate. All other authors did not declare any conflicts of interest., (Crown Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The classification of the International Germ-Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG) has been a major advance in the management of germ-cell tumors, but relies on data of only 660 patients with seminoma treated between 1975 and 1990. We re-evaluated this classification in a database from a large international consortium., Materials and Methods: Data on 2,451 men with metastatic seminoma treated with cisplatin- and etoposide-based first-line chemotherapy between 1990 and 2013 were collected from 30 institutions or collaborative groups in Australia, Europe, and North America. Clinical trial and registry data were included. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) calculated from day 1 of treatment. Variables at initial presentation were evaluated for their prognostic impact. Results were validated in an independent validation set of 764 additional patients., Results: Compared with the initial IGCCCG classification, in our modern series, 5-year PFS improved from 82% to 89% (95% CI, 87 to 90) and 5-year OS from 86% to 95% (95% CI, 94 to 96) in good prognosis, and from 67% to 79% (95% CI, 70 to 85) and 72% to 88% (95% CI, 80 to 93) in intermediate prognosis patients. Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) proved to be an additional adverse prognostic factor. Good prognosis patients with LDH above 2.5× upper limit of normal had a 3-year PFS of 80% (95% CI, 75 to 84) and a 3-year OS of 92% (95% CI, 88 to 95) versus 92% (95% CI, 90 to 94) and 97% (95% CI, 96 to 98) in the group with lower LDH., Conclusion: PFS and OS in metastatic seminoma significantly improved in our modern series compared with the original data. The original IGCCCG classification retains its relevance, but can be further refined by adding LDH at a cutoff of 2.5× upper limit of normal as an additional adverse prognostic factor., Competing Interests: Jörg BeyerHonoraria: Roche, Janssen Oncology, AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Ipsen Gedske DaugaardConsulting or Advisory Role: Sanofi/Aventis, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, MSD Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squibb/PfizerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Astellas Pharma Darren R. FeldmanResearch Funding: Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Decibel Therapeutics, Astellas PharmaOther Relationship: UpToDate Alexey TryakinConsulting or Advisory Role: BioCad, Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Merck Sharp & DohmeSpeakers' Bureau: Bayer Health, BioCad, Lilly, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Merck Sharp & DohmeTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis, BioCad, Bayer, Veropharm, Sanofi Olof StahlHonoraria: Bayer Enrique Gonzalez-BillalabeitiaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, Astellas Pharma, Sanofi, Roche Ugo De GiorgiConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Janssen, Astellas Pharma, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Ipsen, Merck, MSD, PharmaMar, NovartisResearch Funding: Sanofi, AstraZeneca, RocheTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche Stephane CulineConsulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, Janssen, Astellas PharmaSpeakers' Bureau: Takeda, JanssenResearch Funding: Astellas PharmaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Ipsen, Janssen Ronald De WitHonoraria: Sanofi, Merck Sharp & DohmeConsulting or Advisory Role: Sanofi, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Janssen, Bayer, Astellas PharmaResearch Funding: Sanofi, BayerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bayer Aaron HansenConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EisaiResearch Funding: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche/Genentech, Janssen, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Astellas Pharma, Macrogenics Marko BebekHonoraria: Roche, Novartis, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi, Sandoz, Astellas PharmaResearch Funding: Roche, Astellas PharmaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Astellas Pharma, Sanofi, Janssen, Novartis Angelika TerbuchResearch Funding: Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb Costantine AlbanyStock and Other Ownership Interests: AdvaxisHonoraria: Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Seattle GeneticsConsulting or Advisory Role: Seattle Genetics, AstraZeneca/MedImmuneSpeakers' Bureau: SanofiResearch Funding: Astex Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, BayerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Sanofi Marcus HentrichConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Sanofi, Hexal, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, TakedaSpeakers' Bureau: Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Sanofi, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead SciencesTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda Jourik A. GietemaResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech, Abbvie, Siemens Robert A. HuddartEmployment: Aspen Parkside HospitalLeadership: Cancer Clinic London limited liability partnershipHonoraria: Janssen OncologyConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Janssen Oncology, Nektar, BayerSpeakers' Bureau: Roche, MSDResearch Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, JanssenPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Royalties for drug discovery from JanssenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Janssen Oncology, Roche/Genentech, MSD Oncology, Nektar Anja LorchHonoraria: MSD Oncology, Merck, MSDConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD Oncology, Janssen Oncology, Ipsen, Merck, PfizerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Ipsen, AstraZeneca Daniel Y. C. HengConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Astellas Pharma, Ipsen, Eisai, MerckResearch Funding: Pfizer, Novartis, Exelixis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen Christopher J. SweeneyStock and Other Ownership Interests: LeuchemixConsulting or Advisory Role: Sanofi, Janssen Biotech, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Amgen, Celgene, LillyResearch Funding: Janssen Biotech, Astellas Pharma, Sanofi, Bayer, Dendreon, PfizerPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Leuchemix, Parthenolide, Dimethylaminoparthenolide. Exelixis: Abiraterone plus cabozantinib combination Eric WinquistHonoraria: Merck, Bayer, Eisai, Amgen, RocheResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech, Merck, Pfizer, Eisai, Ayala Pharmaceuticals Peter GrimisonResearch Funding: Tilray, Pfizer, MSD, Gilead Sciences, Boston Biomedical, Tigermed, Halozyme, Specialised Therapeutics, Medimmune, Pfizer, ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, Genentech, Eisai, Five Prime Therapeutics, QED Therapeutics, Janssen-Cilag Andrea NecchiEmployment: BayerStock and Other Ownership Interests: BayerHonoraria: Roche, Merck, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Foundation Medicine, Bristol-Myers SquibbConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Janssen, Incyte, Seattle Genetics/Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Rainier Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, FerringResearch Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, IpsenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Rainier TherapeuticsOther Relationship: Bayer Ben TranHonoraria: Astellas Pharma, Janssen-Cilag, Sanofi, Tolmar, Amgen, Bristol-Myers SquibbConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Sanofi, Tolmar, Janssen-Cilag, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, MSD Oncology, IQvia, Novartis, Pfizer/EMD Serono, AstraZeneca, Roche Molecular DiagnosticsResearch Funding: Astellas Pharma, Janssen-Cilag, Amgen, Pfizer, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, IpsenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Amgen, Astellas Pharma Axel HeidenreichHonoraria: Amgen, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Ferring, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Sanofi, TakedaConsulting or Advisory Role: Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Janssen-Cilag, Clovis Oncology, BMS Global, AstraZeneca, MSD OncologySpeakers' Bureau: Amgen, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Sanofi, Takeda, PfizerResearch Funding: Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb Jonathan ShamashSpeakers' Bureau: Pfizer/EMD Serono Cora N. SternbergConsulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Incyte, AstraZeneca, Merck, Medscape, UroToday, Astellas Pharma, Genzyme, Immunomedics, Foundation Medicine David J. VaughnResearch Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche/Genentech, Astellas Pharma Ignacio DuranHonoraria: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Roche/Genentech, Janssen Oncology, MSD Oncology, Astellas Pharma, EUSA PharmaConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, MSD Oncology, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Seattle Genetics, Pharmacyclics, Janssen Oncology, Novartis, ImmunomedicsResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca Spain, Janssen Oncology, Astellas PharmaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca Spain, Ipsen Carsten BokemeyerHonoraria: Merck KGaA, Sanofi, Roche, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & DohmeConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly/ImClone, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Bayer Schering Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme, GSO, AOK Health InsuranceResearch Funding: Abbvie, ADC Therapeutics, Agile Therapeutics, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BerGenBio, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Glycotope GmbH, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, iOMEDICO, Isofol Medical, Janssen-Cilag, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Lilly, Millennium, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Rafael Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Springworks Therapeutics, Taiho PharmaceuticalTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck Serono, Sanofi, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Anna PatrikidouConsulting or Advisory Role: Basilea Richard CathomasHonoraria: Janssen-Cilag, Astellas Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Debiopharm GroupConsulting or Advisory Role: Astellas Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Roche, MSD Oncology, Janssen-Cilag, Bayer, Sanofi, IpsenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca Silke GillessenConsulting or Advisory Role: Astellas Pharma, Janssen, Bayer, Orion Pharma GmbH, Tolero Pharmaceuticals, MSD Oncology, Roche, Amgen, PfizerSpeakers' Bureau: Janssen-CilagPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Method for biomarker (WO 3752009138392 A1)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: ProteoMedixOther Relationship: ProteoMediX, Aranda PharmaNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose Adjuvant carboplatin is one of three management strategies that may follow inguinal orchiectomy in clinical stage I seminoma. However, little is known about the outcome of patients who experience a relapse after such treatment. Patients and Methods Data from 185 patients who relapsed after adjuvant carboplatin between January 1987 and August 2013 at 31 centers/groups from 20 countries were collected and retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcomes were disease-free survival and overall survival. Secondary outcomes were time to, stage at, and treatment of relapse as well as rate of subsequent relapses. Results With a median follow-up of 53 months (95% CI, 48 to 60 months) the 5-year disease-free survival was 82% (95% CI, 77% to 89%), and the 5-year overall survival was 98% (95% CI, 95% to 100%). The median time from orchiectomy to relapse was 19 months (95% CI, 17 to 23 months); 15% (95% CI, 10% to 21%) of relapses occurred > 3 years after treatment. The majority of relapses were detected by computed tomography scan during routine follow-up, 98% in the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group good prognosis group. Chemotherapy was administered to 92% of patients, mostly as standard first-line treatment corresponding to stage; 8% of patients had additional local treatments. Only 28 patients experienced a second relapse. At last follow-up, 174 (94%) of 185 patients were alive without disease, and four patients with disease. Seven patients died, three of whom due to progressive disease. Conclusion Within the limitations of a retrospective analysis, the results suggest that the majority of patients who experience a relapse after adjuvant carboplatin for clinical stage I seminoma can be successfully treated with a cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimen adequate for stage. Because 15% of the relapses occurred > 3 years after adjuvant treatment, a minimum of 5 years follow-up is recommended.

Background: The purpose of the protocol was to reduce the treatment burden in clinical stage I (CSI) seminoma by offering risk-adapted treatment. The protocol aimed to prospectively validate the proposed risk factors for relapse, stromal invasion of the rete testis and tumor diameter >4 cm, and to evaluate the efficacy of one course of adjuvant carboplatin., Patients and Methods: From 2007 to 2010, 897 patients were included in a prospective, population-based, risk-adapted treatment protocol implementing one course of adjuvant carboplatin AUC7 (n = 469) or surveillance (n = 422). In addition, results from 221 patients receiving carboplatin between 2004 and 2007 are reported., Results: At a median follow-up of 5.6 years, 69 relapses have occurred. Stromal invasion of the rete testis [hazard ratio (HR) 1.9, P = 0.011] and tumor diameter >4 cm (HR 2.7, P < 0.001) were identified as risk factors predicting relapse. In patients without risk factors, the relapse rate (RR) was 4.0% for patients managed by surveillance and 2.2% in patients receiving adjuvant carboplatin. In patients with one or two risk factors, the RR was 15.5% in patients managed by surveillance and 9.3% in patients receiving adjuvant carboplatin. We found no increased RR in patients receiving carboplatin <7 × AUC compared with that in patients receiving ≥7 × AUC., Conclusion: Stromal invasion in the rete testis and tumor diameter >4 cm are risk factors for relapse in CSI seminoma. Patients without risk factors have a low RR and adjuvant therapy is not justified in these patients. The efficacy of adjuvant carboplatin is relatively low and there is need to explore more effective adjuvant treatment options in patients with high-risk seminoma. The data do not support the concept of a steep dose response for adjuvant carboplatin., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Testicular cancer (TC) is the most common neoplasm in males aged 15-40 years. The majority of patients have no evidence of metastases at diagnosis and thus have clinical stage I (CSI) disease [Oldenburg J, Fossa SD, Nuver J et al. Testicular seminoma and non-seminoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2013; 24(Suppl 6): vi125-vi132; de Wit R, Fizazi K. Controversies in the management of clinical stage I testis cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 5482-5492.]. Management of CSI TC is controversial and options include surveillance and active treatment. Different forms of adjuvant therapy exist, including either one or two cycles of carboplatin chemotherapy or radiotherapy for seminoma and either one or two cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy or retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for non-seminoma. Long-term disease-specific survival is ∼99% with any of these approaches, including surveillance. While surveillance allows most patients to avoid additional treatment, adjuvant therapy markedly lowers the relapse rate. Weighing the net benefits of surveillance against those of adjuvant treatment depends on prioritizing competing aims such as avoiding unnecessary treatment, avoiding more burdensome treatment with salvage chemotherapy and minimizing the anxiety, stress and life disruption associated with relapse. Unbiased information about the advantages and disadvantages of surveillance and adjuvant treatment is a prerequisite for informed consent by the patient. In a clinical scenario like CSI TC, where different disease-management options produce indistinguishable long-term survival rates, patient values, priorities and preferences should be taken into account. In this review, we provide an overview about risk factors for relapse, potential benefits and harms of adjuvant chemotherapy and active surveillance and a rationale for involving patients in individualized decision making about their treatment rather than adopting a uniform recommendation for all., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose: To evaluate the performance of active surveillance as a management strategy in broad populations and to inform the development of surveillance schedules by individual patient data regarding timing and type of relapse., Methods: Retrospective study including data from 2,483 clinical stage I (CSI) patients, 1,139 CSI nonseminoma and 1,344 CSI seminoma managed with active surveillance, with the majority treated between 1998 and 2010. Clinical outcomes including relapse and death, time distribution, extent of relapse and method of relapse detection observed on active surveillance were recorded., Results: Relapse occurred in 221 (19%) CSI-nonseminoma and 173 (13%) CSI-seminoma patients. Median time to relapse was 4 months (range, 2-61 months), 8 months (range, 2-77 months) and 14 months (range, 2-84 months) for lymphovascular invasion-positive CSI nonseminoma, lymphovascular invasion-negative CSI nonseminoma and CSI seminoma. Most relapses were observed within the first 2 years/3 years after orchiectomy for CSI nonseminoma (90%)/CSI seminoma (92%). Relapses were detected by computed tomography scan/tumor-markers in 87%/3% of seminoma recurrences, in 48%/38% of lymphovascular invasion-negative and 41%/61% of lymphovascular invasion-positive patients, respectively. 90% of CSI-nonseminoma and 99% of CSI-seminoma relapses exhibited International Germ Cell Collaborative Group good-risk features. Three patients with CSI nonseminoma died of disease (0.3%). One patient with CSI seminoma and two patients with CSI nonseminoma died because of treatment-related events. Overall, advanced disease was seen in both early- and late-relapse patients. All late recurrences were cured with standard therapy. Five-year disease-specific survival was 99.7% (95% CI, 99.24% to 99.93%)., Conclusion: Active surveillance for CSI testis cancer leads to excellent outcomes. The vast majority of relapses occur within 2 years of orchiectomy for CSI nonseminoma and within 3 years for CSI seminoma. Late and advanced stage relapse are rarely seen. These data may inform further refinement of rationally designed surveillance schedules., (© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: A binational, population-based treatment protocol was established to prospectively treat and follow patients with seminomatous testicular cancer. The aim was to standardize care for all patients with seminoma to further improve the good results expected for this disease., Patients and Methods: From 2000 to 2006, a total of 1,384 Norwegian and Swedish patients were included in the study. Treatment in clinical stage 1 (CS1) was surveillance, adjuvant radiotherapy, or adjuvant carboplatin. In metastatic disease, recommended treatment was radiotherapy in CS2A and cisplatin-based chemotherapy in CS2B or higher., Results: At a median follow-up of 5.2 years, 5-year cause-specific survival was 99.6%. In CS1, 14.3% (65 of 512) of patients relapsed following surveillance, 3.9% (seven of 188) after carboplatin, and 0.8% (four of 481) after radiotherapy. We could not identify any factors predicting relapse in CS1 patients who were subjected to surveillance only. In CS2A, 10.9% (three of 29) patients relapsed after radiotherapy compared with no relapses in CS2A/B patients (zero of 73) treated with chemotherapy (P = .011)., Conclusion: An international, population-based treatment protocol for testicular seminoma is feasible with excellent results. Surveillance remains a good option for CS1 patients. No factors predicted relapse in CS1 patients on surveillance. Despite resulting in a lower rate of relapse than with adjuvant carboplatin, adjuvant radiotherapy has been abandoned in the Swedish and Norwegian Testicular Cancer Project (SWENOTECA) as a recommended treatment option because of concerns of induction of secondary cancers. The higher number of relapses in radiotherapy-treated CS2A patients when compared with chemotherapy-treated CS2A/B patients is of concern. Late toxicity of cisplatin-based chemotherapy versus radiotherapy must be considered in CS2A patients.

The clinical significance of serum neuron-specific enolase (NSE) was evaluated at diagnosis (before orchiectomy) in 132 patients, and in the follow-up of 236 men with germ cell tumours of the testis. The purpose of the study was to determine whether serum NSE was a more clinically useful tumour marker than the existing tumour markers beta-hCG, AFP and LDH. The mean observation time was 4.3 years. At orchiectomy, serum NSE levels were raised in 38 (29%) of all the patients, and in 8/53 (15%) of the patients with clinical stage 1 seminoma. NSE had the same sensitivity as beta-hCG in seminoma. There were very few false-positive values for the classic markers beta-hCG and AFP, but 117 out of 219 patients (53.5%) did experience false-positive serum NSE levels at least once during follow-up. The false-positive values were wide ranging [13-70 microg/L]. None of the four evaluable patients with seminoma who experienced relapse had increased levels of serum NSE at relapse. Two out of 14 non-seminoma patients who experienced relapse had elevated serum NSE levels at the time of relapse, but increased NSE was not the first sign of relapse in any of them. It is concluded that serum NSE is of no clinical value in monitoring patientswith testicular cancer.