M. de Wit

Maintaining success, reducing treatment burden, focusing on survivorship: highlights from the third European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer

In November 2011, the Third European Consensus Conference on Diagnosis and Treatment of Germ-Cell Cancer (GCC) was held in Berlin, Germany. This third conference followed similar meetings in 2003 (Essen, Germany) and 2006 (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) [Schmoll H-J, Souchon R, Krege S et al. European consensus on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus Group (EGCCCG). Ann Oncol 2004; 15: 1377–1399; Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon R et al. European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus group (EGCCCG): part I. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 478–496; Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon R et al. European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus group (EGCCCG): part II. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 497–513]. A panel of 56 of 60 invited GCC experts from all across Europe discussed all aspects on diagnosis and treatment of GCC, with a particular focus on acute and late toxic effects as well as on survivorship issues. The panel consisted of oncologists, urologic surgeons, radiooncologists, pathologists and basic scientists, who are all actively involved in care of GCC patients. Panelists were chosen based on the publication activity in recent years. Before the meeting, panelists were asked to review the literature published since 2006 in 20 major areas concerning all aspects of diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of GCC patients, and to prepare an updated version of the previous recommendations to be discussed at the conference. In addition, ∼50 E-vote questions were drafted and presented at the conference to address the most controversial areas for a poll of expert opinions. Here, we present the main recommendations and controversies of this meeting. The votes of the panelists are added as online supplements.

18FDG-PET following treatment as valid predictor for disease-free survival in Hodgkin's lymphoma

PURPOSE The value of 18FDG-PET to predict the outcome after therapy in Hodgkins lymphoma was compared to morphologic staging and ESR. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 50 concurrent 18FDG-PET and CT studies were performed in 37 patients with Hodgkins lymphoma. ESR was evaluated 32 times after treatment was completed. RESULTS Out of 39 residual masses found by CT 8 relapses could be proven. Out of 11 CT exams with CR 3 relapses occurred. CT turned out to show a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of 72%, 21%, 21%, 73%, and 32%, with respect to predict disease-free survival (DFS). 18FDG-PET was positive in 22 examinations with 10 recurrences in this group. Out of 28 negative 18FDG-PET 1 relapse developed 3 years later. 18FDG-PET turned out to show promising sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of 91%, 69%, 46%, 96%, 74%, with respect to predict DFS. ESR was elevated in 12 studies of which 5 relapses could be proven, while out of 20 normal ESR-studies 3 relapses occurred. Thus, ESR turned out to show sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of 63%, 71%, 42%, 85%, and 75%, with respect to predict DFS. In summary, only 18FDG-PET was able to predict DFS statistically significant. CONCLUSION 18FDG-PET can be very useful in patients with residual masses after treatment.

[18F]-FDG–PET in clinical stage I/II non-seminomatous germ cell tumours: results of the German multicentre trial

PURPOSE The aim of this study was to determine the predictive values of 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in primary staging in patients with newly diagnosed non-seminomatous germ cell tumour (NSGCT) clinical stage I/II. PATIENTS AND METHODS The hypothesis was that FDG-PET would improve the negative predictive value (NPV) from 70% to 90%, thus requiring a total of 169 patients. All scans underwent visual analysis by a reference team of nuclear medicine physicians. Results were validated by histology following retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. RESULTS Only 72 of the planned 169 patients were included, due to poor accrual. The prevalence of nodal involvement was 26%. Correct nodal staging by FDG-PET was achieved in 83% compared with correct computed tomography (CT) staging in 71%. CT had a sensitivity and specificity of 41% and 95%, respectively. Positive predictive value (PPV) and NPV were 87% and 67%, respectively. FDG-PET had a sensitivity and specificity of 66% and 98%, respectively. PPV was 95%. The primary end point was not reached, with an NPV of 78%. CONCLUSION FDG-PET as a primary staging tool for NSGCT yielded only slightly better results than CT. Both methods had a high specificity while false-negative findings were more frequent with CT. FDG-PET is mostly useful as a diagnostic tool in case of questionable CT scan.

Induction chemotherapy (IC) followed by radiotherapy (RT) versus cetuximab plus IC and RT in advanced laryngeal/hypopharyngeal cancer resectable only by total laryngectomy—final results of the larynx organ preservation trial DeLOS-II

Background The German multicenter randomized phase II larynx organ preservation (LOP) trial DeLOS-II was carried out to prove the hypothesis that cetuximab (E) added to induction chemotherapy (IC) and radiotherapy improves laryngectomy-free survival (LFS; survival with preserved larynx) in locally advanced laryngeal/hypopharyngeal cancer (LHSCC). Patients and methods Treatment-naïve patients with stage III/IV LHSCC amenable to total laryngectomy (TL) were randomized to three cycles IC with TPF [docetaxel (T) and cisplatin (P) 75 mg/m2/day 1, 5-FU (F) 750 mg/m2/day days 1-5] followed by radiotherapy (69.6 Gy) without (A) or with (B) standard dose cetuximab for 16 weeks throughout IC and radiotherapy (TPFE). Response to first IC-cycle (IC-1) with ≥30% endoscopically estimated tumor surface shrinkage (ETSS) was used to define early responders; early salvage TL was recommended to non-responders. The primary objective was 24 months LFS above 35% in arm B. Results Of 180 patients randomized (July 2007 to September 2012), 173 fulfilled eligibility criteria (A/B: larynx 44/42, hypopharynx 41/46). Because of 4 therapy-related deaths among the first 64 randomized patients, 5-FU was omitted from IC in the subsequent 112 patients reducing further fatal toxicities. Thus, IC was TPF in 61 patients and TP in 112 patients, respectively. The primary objective (24 months LFS above 35%) was equally met by arms A (40/85, 47.1%) as well as B (41/88, 46.6%). One hundred and twenty-three early responders completed IC+RT; their overall response rates (TPF/TP) were 94.7%/87.2% in A versus 80%/86.0% in B. The 24 months overall survival (OS) rates were 68.2% and 69.3%. Conclusions Despite being accompanied by an elevated frequency in adverse events, the IC with TPF/TP plus cetuximab was feasible but showed no superiority to IC with TPF/TP regarding LFS and OS at 24 months. Both early response and 24 months LFS compare very well to previous LOP trials and recommend effective treatment selection and stratification by ETSS. Clinical trial information NCT00508664.

1198PDGERMAN CLINICAL REGISTRIES: NEOADJUVANT CHEMORADIOTHERAPY IN NON SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER

ABSTRACT Aim: In 2000 and 2011 the “Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Tumorzentren (ADT)” and the “Kooperationsverband Qualitatssicherung durch klinische Krebsregister (KoQK)” collected the German data of clinical cancer registries for certain tumour entities using a standardized data sheet. These data were analyzed in February 2014, and we report the results for neoadjuvant therapy in non small lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: A total of 129740 patients with NSCLC were submitted for analysis. Of 10819 (41.4%) in stage IIIA 9356 presented with stage IIIA (N2) (35.8%), while 15325 (58.6%) already had reached stage IIIB. Most often squamous cell carcinoma (52.3%) was diagnosed followed by adenocarcinoma (32.5%) and large cell carcinoma (5.2%), but a large percentage of “other non small cell lung cancer” (10%) were included. Results: “Neoadjuvant therapy” was documented in 1441 patients but 393 of these underwent chemoradiotherapy alone and did not proceed to surgery and thus were omitted in the further evaluation. In the remaining 1048 radiotherapy (n = 53), chemotherapy (n = 328) or chemoradiotherapy (n = 604) preceded surgery. Comparing patients who received neoaduvant therapy with patients who did not receive neoadjuvant treatment stages and gender showed no significant differences but patients receiving neoadjuvant treatment in the mean were younger (women 60 vs. 66 years, men 62 vs. 67 years). Patients who had been treated neoadjuvant lived longer (median 25 vs. 12 months) and showed better therapeutic response, but at the same time local relapses or metastases were registered more frequently. Conclusions: We conclude that patients who received neoadjuvant therapy lived longer. Whether this is due to their younger age (and probably better ECOG at diagnosis) can not be found out in this retrospective analysis of non-randomized patients. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.