This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by de Wit, R. Articles by Fizazi, K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by de Wit, R. Articles by Fizazi, K. Social Bookmarking                            What's this?

Controversies in the Management of Clinical Stage I Testis Cancer

Ronald de Wit, Karim Fizazi

From the Department of Medical Oncology of the Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam; the Rotterdam Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; and the Department of Medicine, Institut Gustave-Roussy, Villejuif, France

Address reprint requests to R. de Wit, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Daniel/Rotterdam Cancer Institute, Groene Hilledijk 301, 3075EA Rotterdam, the Netherlands; e-mail: r.dewit{at}erasmusmc.nl

During the last two decades, definitive primary treatments and surveillance with definitive treatment deferred until relapse have demonstrated 98% to 99% cure rates in patients with stage I testis cancer, and these options have obtained firm positions in standard management. The development of optimal management strategies in various countries were at least partly guided by available surgical expertise in retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in the United States, and easy access to reference hospitals in densely populated countries in Western Europe that facilitated close surveillance programs; hence, treatment preferences differ on the two sides of the Atlantic. The success of both approaches is highly dependent on the skills of the practitioner, particularly of surgery and of scrutinized surveillance. As a result, local expertise and familiarity with a chosen modality has strengthened over the years, and investigators have been reluctant to embark on randomized trials designed to compare one modality with another. Such expertise with one particular technique, with the other approach being less familiar territory, has created controversy, because both physicians and patients seek evidence-based data coming from randomized clinical trials on which to make management decisions. Moreover, the reduced risk of relapse resulting from the use of radiotherapy or carboplatin in stage I seminoma and of cisplatin-based chemotherapy in stage I nonseminoma must be balanced against the potential long-term adverse effects in this population of patients with a normal life expectancy. The purpose of this review is to present the currently available data and discuss the merits and the disadvantages of the various approaches, yielding to the possible conclusion that all options appear to be equal in terms of efficacy, but that modality-associated adverse effects differ.

Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this article.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H.-y. Yu, R. A. Madison, C. M. Setodji, and C. S. Saigal Quality of Surveillance for Stage I Testis Cancer in the Community J. Clin. Oncol., September 10, 2009; 27(26): 4327 - 4332. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Tandstad, O. Dahl, G. Cohn-Cedermark, E. Cavallin-Stahl, U. Stierner, A. Solberg, C. Langberg, R. M. Bremnes, A. Laurell, H. Wijkstrom, et al. Risk-Adapted Treatment in Clinical Stage I Nonseminomatous Germ Cell Testicular Cancer: The SWENOTECA Management Program J. Clin. Oncol., May 1, 2009; 27(13): 2122 - 2128. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H.-J. Schmoll, K. Jordan, R. Huddart, M. P. Laguna, A. Horwich, K. Fizazi, V. Kataja, and On behalf of the ESMO Guidelines Working Group Testicular seminoma: ESMO Clinical Recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up Ann. Onc., May 1, 2009; 20(suppl_4): iv83 - iv88. [Full Text] [PDF]

				H.-J. Schmoll, K. Jordan, R. Huddart, M. P. Laguna, A. Horwich, K. Fizazi, V. Kataja, and On behalf of the ESMO Guidelines Working Group Testicular non-seminoma: ESMO Clinical Recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up Ann. Onc., May 1, 2009; 20(suppl_4): iv89 - iv96. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. R. Feldman, G. J. Bosl, J. Sheinfeld, and R. J. Motzer Medical Treatment of Advanced Testicular Cancer JAMA, February 13, 2008; 299(6): 672 - 684. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Shahidi and M. Robia Bilateral Germ Cell Tumors and Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome J. Clin. Oncol., October 10, 2007; 25(29): 4686 - 4688. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. F. Bajorin The Graying of Testis Cancer Patients: What Have We Learned? J. Clin. Oncol., October 1, 2007; 25(28): 4341 - 4343. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. W. van den Belt-Dusebout, R. de Wit, J. A. Gietema, S. Horenblas, M. W.J. Louwman, J. G. Ribot, H. J. Hoekstra, G. M. Ouwens, B. M.P. Aleman, and F. E. van Leeuwen Treatment-Specific Risks of Second Malignancies and Cardiovascular Disease in 5-Year Survivors of Testicular Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., October 1, 2007; 25(28): 4370 - 4378. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. de Wit Cutting Back on Computed Tomography Scan Frequency in Curative Oncology: Get the Picture J. Clin. Oncol., April 10, 2007; 25(11): 1308 - 1309. [Full Text] [PDF]