TY - JOUR
T1 - Late Relapses in Stage I Testicular Cancer Patients on Surveillance
AU - Mortensen, Mette Saksø
AU - Lauritsen, Jakob
AU - Kier, Maria Gry Gundgaard
AU - Bandak, Mikkel
AU - Appelt, Ane Lindegaard
AU - Agerbaek, Mads
AU - Holm, Niels Vilstrup
AU - Kempel, Mette Moe
AU - von der Maase, Hans
AU - Daugaard, Gedske
N1 - Copyright © 2016 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
PY - 2016/8/1
Y1 - 2016/8/1
N2 - Background Comprehensive data on late relapse (LR) and very LR (VLR) in patients with clinical stage I (CS-1) testicular cancer followed on surveillance are missing. These data are essential for planning optimal follow-up. Objective Assess incidence and outcome of LR (>2 yr) and VLR (>5 yr) in a large cohort of CS-1 surveillance patients, and examine differences in the clinical characteristics of patients with early relapse (ER), LR, and VLR. Design, setting, and participants CS-1 surveillance patients diagnosed between 1984 and 2007 were identified from the retrospective Danish Testicular Cancer (DaTeCa) database. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis We estimated survival and relapse probabilities and compared the results using log-rank tests and Cox regression analyses. We compared differences in patient characteristics by using χ2, Fisher exact, and Mann-Whitney tests. Results and limitations Our study included 3366 (2000 seminoma and 1366 nonseminoma) patients. Median follow-up was 15 yr. Five-year conditional risk of LR was 5.0% and 2.1% for seminoma and nonseminoma patients, respectively. There were no significant differences in disease-specific or overall survival when comparing the LR(VLR) and ER patients by log-rank, but Cox regression adjusted for age showed a significant effect of time to relapse on survival for seminoma patients. Apart from significantly more ER nonseminoma patients with elevated human chorionic gonadotropin at relapse, there were no significant differences in patient characteristics at orchiectomy or relapse. Limitations include retrospective design and exclusion of patients who had been offered adjuvant therapy. Conclusions The risk of VLR is minimal, and the patients carry a good prognosis. Patient characteristics of CS-1 surveillance patients with LR(VLR) do not differ significantly from patients with ER. Patient summary We compared stage I testicular cancer surveillance patients with early relapse (ER) versus late relapse (LR; >2 yr). LR patients as a group did no worse than ER patients, although increased time to relapse was negatively associated with survival for seminoma patients.
AB - Background Comprehensive data on late relapse (LR) and very LR (VLR) in patients with clinical stage I (CS-1) testicular cancer followed on surveillance are missing. These data are essential for planning optimal follow-up. Objective Assess incidence and outcome of LR (>2 yr) and VLR (>5 yr) in a large cohort of CS-1 surveillance patients, and examine differences in the clinical characteristics of patients with early relapse (ER), LR, and VLR. Design, setting, and participants CS-1 surveillance patients diagnosed between 1984 and 2007 were identified from the retrospective Danish Testicular Cancer (DaTeCa) database. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis We estimated survival and relapse probabilities and compared the results using log-rank tests and Cox regression analyses. We compared differences in patient characteristics by using χ2, Fisher exact, and Mann-Whitney tests. Results and limitations Our study included 3366 (2000 seminoma and 1366 nonseminoma) patients. Median follow-up was 15 yr. Five-year conditional risk of LR was 5.0% and 2.1% for seminoma and nonseminoma patients, respectively. There were no significant differences in disease-specific or overall survival when comparing the LR(VLR) and ER patients by log-rank, but Cox regression adjusted for age showed a significant effect of time to relapse on survival for seminoma patients. Apart from significantly more ER nonseminoma patients with elevated human chorionic gonadotropin at relapse, there were no significant differences in patient characteristics at orchiectomy or relapse. Limitations include retrospective design and exclusion of patients who had been offered adjuvant therapy. Conclusions The risk of VLR is minimal, and the patients carry a good prognosis. Patient characteristics of CS-1 surveillance patients with LR(VLR) do not differ significantly from patients with ER. Patient summary We compared stage I testicular cancer surveillance patients with early relapse (ER) versus late relapse (LR; >2 yr). LR patients as a group did no worse than ER patients, although increased time to relapse was negatively associated with survival for seminoma patients.
KW - Journal Article
U2 - 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.03.016
DO - 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.03.016
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 26996661
SN - 0302-2838
VL - 70
SP - 365
EP - 371
JO - European Urology
JF - European Urology
IS - 2
ER -
