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 Stephenson, A. J. Articles by Sheinfeld, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Stephenson, A. J. Articles by Sheinfeld, J. Related Articles Related Editorial Social Bookmarking                            What's this?

Nonrandomized Comparison of Primary Chemotherapy and Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection for Clinical Stage IIA and IIB Nonseminomatous Germ Cell Testicular Cancer

Andrew J. Stephenson, George J. Bosl, Robert J. Motzer, Dean F. Bajorin, Jason P. Stasi, Joel Sheinfeld

From the Section of Urologic Oncology, Glickman Urological Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH; and the Department of Urology and Genitourinary Oncology Service, Division of Solid Tumors, Department of Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY

Address reprint requests to Joel Sheinfeld, MD, Department of Urology, Sidney Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10021; e-mail: sheinfej{at}mskcc.org

Purpose Patients with clinical stage (CS) IIA and IIB nonseminomatous germ cell tumor (NSGCT) with adenopathy more than 2 cm, multiple masses, elevated serum tumor markers, or disease outside the primary landing zone have increasingly been recommended to receive primary chemotherapy over time at our institution. The impact of these selection factors on the outcome of patients managed primarily by retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) or chemotherapy was examined.

Patients and Methods Between 1989 and 2002, 252 patients with CS IIA and IIB NSGCT were referred to our institution for initial management, of whom 136 underwent RPLND and 116 received chemotherapy and postchemotherapy RPLND. Patient information was obtained from a prospective RPLND database.

Results Proportionately more patients received chemotherapy over time (22% in 1989 to 1993 v 68% in 1999 to 2002), and the relapse-free survival (RFS) subsequently improved from 84% (1989 to 1998) to 98% (1999 to 2002; P = .004) without increasing the proportion who received any chemotherapy (70% v 79%; P = .16). By increasingly selecting patients with adverse features for primary chemotherapy, the RFS after RPLND improved from 78% to 100% (P = .019), but rates of pathologic stage II and retroperitoneal teratoma were unaffected. Retroperitoneal histology and RFS did not change over time for chemotherapy patients. Primary chemotherapy was associated with improved RFS compared with RPLND (98% v 79%; P < .001), but disease-specific survival did not differ significantly (100% v 98%; P = .3).

Conclusion Patient selection factors have significantly improved the outcome of patients with CS IIA and IIB NSGCT without substantially increasing the proportion of patients exposed to chemotherapy.

Presented in part at the 2005 American Urological Association Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX, May 21-26, 2005.

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?

Related Editorial

• Optimal Management of Retroperitoneal Metastatic Nonseminomatous Testicular Cancer: Toward a Better Selection Between Scalpel and Needle
  Ronald de Wit
  JCO 2007 25: 5550-5552 [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]

				R. A. Huddart The management of non-seminomatous germ-cell tumours patients with viable malignancy at the time of RPLND Ann. Onc., February 1, 2008; 19(2): 203 - 204. [Full Text] [PDF]

				Management of Stage II Nonseminomatous Germ-Cell Cancer Journal Watch Oncology and Hematology, January 22, 2008; 2008(122): 2 - 2. [Full Text]