Clinical News & Knowledge: Testicular Cancer
February 1, 2003
Oncology.
No. 2
The Raghavan Article Reviewed
Testicular Cancer: Maintaining the High Cure Rate
DAVID C. SMITH, MD
Associate Professor of
Medicine and Urology
Departments of Internal
Medicine and Urology
Division of Hematology/
Oncology
University of Michigan
Comprehensive Cancer Center
HOWARD M. SANDLER, MD
Professor of Radiation
Oncology
Associate Chair, Clinical
Research Division
Department of Radiation
Oncology
University of Michigan
Hospital
Ann Arbor, Michigan
As Dr. Raghavan has emphasized
in his excellent overview
of the current therapy
for testis cancer, it is critical that the
success of therapy for this disease
not be compromised by a desire to
avoid the complications of therapy.
We would wholeheartedly agree with
his assertion that modifications in
therapy must be introduced with a
thoughtful and structured approach
to minimize the risk to efficacy.
Clinicians who treat patients with
testis cancer face a series of challenging
questions. A clear understanding
of the natural history of the
disease and the risks associated with
various treatment options is crucial
to the goal of maximizing therapeutic
efficacy while minimizing risks
of recurrence and toxicity. We address
four of these challenging questions
below.
Stage I Disease: Treat
or Observe?
One of the most controversial issues
in the management of germ cell
tumors concerns the patient with disease
confined to the testis. Traditionally,
patients with nonseminoma
underwent orchiectomy and retroperitoneal
lymph node dissection. Large
series have shown that a substantial
majority (60% to 80%) of patients
will have no nodal involvement at
the time of resection, suggesting that
surgery may often be avoidable.
Prognostic factors have been identified
to distinguish between patients
with a low and high risk of relapse.
The most important of these are the
presence of vascular/lymphatic invasion
and greater than 30% embryonal
cell carcinoma.[1] Other factors
include the absence of measurable
levels of alpha-fetoprotein preorchiectomy,
less than 50% teratoma
in mixed germ cell tumors, and local
extension into paratesticular structures.
Patients without any of these
risk factors can be observed safely
with a low risk of recurrence. However,
as emphasized by Dr. Raghavan,
such observational strategies
need to be rigorous, as a small but
definite percentage of these patients
will develop recurrent disease.
A similar approach has been advocated
for stage I seminoma, for
which patients have traditionally been
treated with orchiectomy followed by
adjuvant radiotherapy. As with surgery
in nonseminoma, the majority
(75% to 80%) of these patients do
not require any therapy beyond orchiectomy.
Pooled data from over
600 patients identified tumor size and
the presence of invasion of the rete
testis as important prognostic factors
for relapse in patients with seminoma.[
2] Incorporation of these factors
into clinical practice may allow the
identification of a low-risk group similar
to that seen in nonseminoma,
making it feasible to observe selected
stage I patients if a rigorous follow-
up schedule is used.
The rigor and discipline of observation
require a serious commitment
by both the clinician and patient. A
major factor that the clinician must
consider in making a recommendation
for observation is the level of commitment by the individual patient
and his ability to maintain the
follow-up schedule. For some patients,
initial therapy may be preferable
based on these factors alone.
When Should a Residual
Mass Be Resected?
This question concerns the management
of residual masses following
successful treatment with chemotherapy.
In this context, "successful treatment"
refers to a substantial shrinkage
in bulky adenopathy with resolution
of any previously elevated serum
markers. Residual masses are present
in up to 60% of patients presenting
with bulky seminoma. In general,
these masses represent dense fibrotic
residua, which are difficult to dissect
from underlying structures.
Residual abnormalities greater
than 3 cm in size represented viable
malignancy in 30% of the patients in
a series from Memorial Sloan-Kettering,
whereas no cancer was present
in masses less than 3 cm in diameter.[
3] Based on these data, some
authors have recommended that all
masses greater than 3 cm should be
resected if technically feasible. In
patients who have unresectable residual
lesions or lesions less than
3 cm, careful surveillance should be
undertaken.
The majority of patients with nonseminoma
and a residual mass have
teratoma, although up to 20% may
have residual malignancy.[4] These
masses generally should be resected.
The major risk is local complications
due to growth of teratoma to
the point where it may become unresectable.
There is also a risk of malignant
transformation into sarcoma
and carcinoma, as well as a risk of
late recurrence of the germ cell malignancy.
Resection provides a definitive
means of addressing these
risks. Patients who are not resected
must be observed closely to minimize
these risks.
How Should Poor-Risk
Disease Be Managed?
The International Germ Cell Tumor
Collaborative Group has defined
prognostic factors that have been used
to categorize patients into good, intermediate,
and poor risk.[5] Management
of the poor-prognosis group
remains controversial, with some
experts advocating new drug combinations
and others high-dose chemotherapy
regimens.
Patients with negative prognostic
factors should probably be referred
to centers of excellence in the management
of testis cancer for evaluation
and therapy. It is clear from the
literature that the best opportunity
for cure in these individuals is with
the initial therapy administered, and
that questions regarding the efficacy
of new regimens and high-dose chemotherapy
should be answered in this
setting. The role of high-dose chemotherapy
with autologous stem cell
support has yet to be defined. An
ongoing Intergroup study is currently
comparing high-dose chemotherapy
to standard therapy in the high-risk
population.
How Should Long-Term
Survivors Be Followed?
Dr. Raghavan has pointed out several
of the late toxicities associated
with treatment for testis cancer and
summarized them in his Table 5. It is
important to note that although the
majority of testis cancer patients are
cured of their disease, long-term follow-
up is required.[6] This followup
component to disease management should focus on both the late toxicities
of the disease and detection of
late relapses.
Although testis cancer has been labeled
a "model of curable neoplasm,"
it is important to note that, since these
men will require medical observation
over a prolonged period, in some ways
this is a lifelong disease. As such, testis
cancer may be better described as a
model for converting an aggressive
neoplasm to a chronic condition.
DEREK RAGHAVAN, MD, PhD, FACP, FRACP
1. Moul JW, McCarthy WF, Fernandez,
et al: Percentage of embryonal carcinoma and
of vascular invasion predicts pathological
stage in clinical stage I nonseminomatous
testicular cancer. Cancer Res 54:362-364,
1994.
2. Warde P, Specht L, Horwich, et al: Prognostic
factors for relapse in stage I seminoma
managed by surveillance: A pooled analysis.
J Clin Oncol 20:4448-4452, 2002.
3. Herr HW, Sheinfeld J, Puc HS, et al:
Surgery for a post-chemotherapy residual
mass in seminoma. J Urol 157:860-862,
1997.
4. Bajorin DF, Herr H, Motzer RJ, et al:
Current perspectives on the role of adjunctive
surgery in combined modality treatment for
patients with germ cell tumors. Semin Oncol
19:148-158, 1992.
5. International Germ Cell Consensus
Classification: A prognostic factor-based
staging system for metastatic germ cell cancers.
International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative
Group. J Clin Oncol 15:594-603,
1997.
6. Vaughn DJ, Gignac GA, Meadows AT:
Long-term medical care of testicular cancer
survivors. Ann Intern Med 136:463-470,
2002.
|
SearchMedica Search Results
|