Torgrim Tandstad

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.

Risk-Adapted Treatment in Clinical Stage I Nonseminomatous Germ Cell Testicular Cancer: The SWENOTECA Management Program

PURPOSE To offer minimized risk-adapted adjuvant treatment on a nationwide basis for patients with clinical stage 1 (CS1) nonseminomatous germ-cell testicular cancer (NSGCT). The aim was to reduce the risk of relapse and thereby reducing the need of later salvage chemotherapy while maintaining a high cure rate. PATIENTS AND METHODS From 1998 to 2005, 745 Norwegian and Swedish patients were included into a prospective, community-based multicenter Swedish and Norwegian Testicular Cancer Project (SWENOTECA) management program. Treatment strategy depended on the presence or absence of vascular tumor invasion (VASC). VASC-positive patients were recommended brief adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) with bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP), whereas VASC-negative patients could choose between ACT and surveillance. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 4.7 years, there have been 51 relapses. On surveillance, 41.7% of VASC+ patients relapsed, compared with 13.2% of VASC- patients. After one course of BEP, 3.2% of VASC+ and 1.3% of VASC- patients relapsed. The toxicity of adjuvant BEP was low. Eight patients have died, none died from progressive disease. CONCLUSION One course of adjuvant BEP reduces the risk of relapse by approximately 90% in both VASC+ and VASC- CS1 NSGCT, and may be a new option as initial treatment for all CS1 NSGCT. One course of adjuvant BEP for VASC+ CS1 reduces the total burden of chemotherapy compared with surveillance or two courses of BEP. SWENOTECA currently recommends one course of BEP as standard treatment of VASC+ CS1 NSGCT, whereas both surveillance and one course of BEP are options for VASC- CS1 NSGCT.

Management of Seminomatous Testicular Cancer: A Binational Prospective Population-Based Study From the Swedish Norwegian Testicular Cancer Study Group

PURPOSE A binational, population-based treatment protocol was established to prospectively treat and follow patients with seminomatous testicular cancer. The aim was to standardize care for all patients with seminoma to further improve the good results expected for this disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS From 2000 to 2006, a total of 1,384 Norwegian and Swedish patients were included in the study. Treatment in clinical stage 1 (CS1) was surveillance, adjuvant radiotherapy, or adjuvant carboplatin. In metastatic disease, recommended treatment was radiotherapy in CS2A and cisplatin-based chemotherapy in CS2B or higher. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 5.2 years, 5-year cause-specific survival was 99.6%. In CS1, 14.3% (65 of 512) of patients relapsed following surveillance, 3.9% (seven of 188) after carboplatin, and 0.8% (four of 481) after radiotherapy. We could not identify any factors predicting relapse in CS1 patients who were subjected to surveillance only. In CS2A, 10.9% (three of 29) patients relapsed after radiotherapy compared with no relapses in CS2A/B patients (zero of 73) treated with chemotherapy (P = .011). CONCLUSION An international, population-based treatment protocol for testicular seminoma is feasible with excellent results. Surveillance remains a good option for CS1 patients. No factors predicted relapse in CS1 patients on surveillance. Despite resulting in a lower rate of relapse than with adjuvant carboplatin, adjuvant radiotherapy has been abandoned in the Swedish and Norwegian Testicular Cancer Project (SWENOTECA) as a recommended treatment option because of concerns of induction of secondary cancers. The higher number of relapses in radiotherapy-treated CS2A patients when compared with chemotherapy-treated CS2A/B patients is of concern. Late toxicity of cisplatin-based chemotherapy versus radiotherapy must be considered in CS2A patients.

Patterns of Relapse in Patients With Clinical Stage I Testicular Cancer Managed With Active Surveillance

PURPOSE To evaluate the performance of active surveillance as a management strategy in broad populations and to inform the development of surveillance schedules by individual patient data regarding timing and type of relapse. METHODS Retrospective study including data from 2,483 clinical stage I (CSI) patients, 1,139 CSI nonseminoma and 1,344 CSI seminoma managed with active surveillance, with the majority treated between 1998 and 2010. Clinical outcomes including relapse and death, time distribution, extent of relapse and method of relapse detection observed on active surveillance were recorded. RESULTS Relapse occurred in 221 (19%) CSI-nonseminoma and 173 (13%) CSI-seminoma patients. Median time to relapse was 4 months (range, 2-61 months), 8 months (range, 2-77 months) and 14 months (range, 2-84 months) for lymphovascular invasion-positive CSI nonseminoma, lymphovascular invasion-negative CSI nonseminoma and CSI seminoma. Most relapses were observed within the first 2 years/3 years after orchiectomy for CSI nonseminoma (90%)/CSI seminoma (92%). Relapses were detected by computed tomography scan/tumor-markers in 87%/3% of seminoma recurrences, in 48%/38% of lymphovascular invasion-negative and 41%/61% of lymphovascular invasion-positive patients, respectively. 90% of CSI-nonseminoma and 99% of CSI-seminoma relapses exhibited International Germ Cell Collaborative Group good-risk features. Three patients with CSI nonseminoma died of disease (0.3%). One patient with CSI seminoma and two patients with CSI nonseminoma died because of treatment-related events. Overall, advanced disease was seen in both early- and late-relapse patients. All late recurrences were cured with standard therapy. Five-year disease-specific survival was 99.7% (95% CI, 99.24% to 99.93%). CONCLUSION Active surveillance for CSI testis cancer leads to excellent outcomes. The vast majority of relapses occur within 2 years of orchiectomy for CSI nonseminoma and within 3 years for CSI seminoma. Late and advanced stage relapse are rarely seen. These data may inform further refinement of rationally designed surveillance schedules.

One course of adjuvant BEP in clinical stage I nonseminoma mature and expanded results from the SWENOTECA group

BACKGROUND SWENOTECA has since 1998 offered patients with clinical stage I (CS I) nonseminoma, adjuvant chemotherapy with one course of bleomycin, etoposide and cisplatin (BEP). The aim has been to reduce the risk of relapse, sparing patients the need of toxic salvage treatment. Initial results on 312 patients treated with one course of adjuvant BEP, with a median follow-up of 4.5 years, have been previously published. We now report mature and expanded results. PATIENTS AND METHODS In a prospective, binational, population-based risk-adapted treatment protocol, 517 Norwegian and Swedish patients with CS I nonseminoma received one course of adjuvant BEP. Patients with lymphovascular invasion (LVI) in the primary testicular tumor were recommended one course of adjuvant BEP. Patients without LVI could choose between surveillance and one course of adjuvant BEP. Data for patients receiving one course of BEP are presented in this study. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 7.9 years, 12 relapses have occurred, all with IGCCC good prognosis. The latest relapse occurred 3.3 years after adjuvant treatment. The relapse rate at 5 years was 3.2% for patients with LVI and 1.6% for patients without LVI. Five-year cause-specific survival was 100%. CONCLUSIONS The updated and expanded results confirm a low relapse rate following one course of adjuvant BEP in CS I nonseminoma. One course of adjuvant BEP should be considered a standard treatment in CS I nonseminoma with LVI. For patients with CS I nonseminoma without LVI, one course of adjuvant BEP is also a treatment option.

Population-Based Study of Treatment Guided by Tumor Marker Decline in Patients With Metastatic Nonseminomatous Germ Cell Tumor: A Report From the Swedish-Norwegian Testicular Cancer Group

PURPOSE From 1995 to 2003, 603 adult patients from Sweden and Norway with metastatic testicular nonseminomatous germ cell tumor (NSGCT) were included prospectively in a population-based protocol with strict guidelines for staging, treatment, and follow-up. Patients with extragonadal primary tumor or previous treatment for contralateral testicular tumor were excluded. The basic strategy was to individualize treatment according to initial tumor marker response. METHODS Initial treatment for all patients was two courses of standard bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP), with tumor markers analyzed weekly. Good response was defined as a half-life (t(1/2)) for α-fetoprotein (AFP) of ≤ 7 days and/or for β-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-HCG) of ≤ 3 days. Patients with prolonged marker t(1/2) (ie, poor response) received intensification with addition of ifosfamide (BEP-if/PEI) in step 1. If poor response continued, the treatment was intensified with high-dose chemotherapy with stem-cell rescue as step 2. RESULTS Overall, 99% of all patients with metastatic testicular NSGCT in the population were included in the protocol. Median follow-up was 8.2 years. Seventy-seven percent of the patients were treated with BEP alone; 18% received intensification step 1%, and 5% received intensification step 2. Grouped according to International Germ Cell Consensus Classification, 10-year overall survival was 94.7% in good-prognosis patients, 90.0% in intermediate-prognosis patients, and 67.4% in poor-prognosis patients. CONCLUSION With detailed treatment protocols and a dedicated collaborative group of specialists, treatment results comparable to those reported from large single institutions can be achieved at national level. With the treatment principles used in Swedish-Norwegian Testicular Cancer Group study SWENOTECA IV, the survival of intermediate-prognosis patients is remarkable and close to that of good-prognosis patients.

Surveillance vs. adjuvant therapy of clinical stage I testicular tumors – a review and the SWENOTECA experience

Although clinical stage I (CS I) testicular cancer is highly curable, the optimal management is controversial. The aims of the Swedish and Norwegian Testicular Cancer Group (SWENOTECA) studies for CS I non‐seminoma (NS) and seminoma (S) have been to reduce treatment intensity while maintaining high survival rates, reduce the number of patients needing salvage treatment and implement patient autonomy with regard to adjuvant treatment. During 1998–2010 NS CSI patients with lymphovascular invasion (LVI) of the primary tumor (high risk) were recommended bleomycin, etoposide, cisplatin (BEP) × 1. During 2000–2006 S CS I patients had the option to choose surveillance or adjuvant radiotherapy (AR). In 2004, carboplatin × 1 (AUC7) was added as a third treatment option. In 2007 a new risk‐adapted treatment protocol for S CS I was initiated. Patients with two risk factors (tumor size > 4 cm, tumor growth in the rete testis) were recommended carboplatin × 1 and patients with 0–1 risk factor were recommended surveillance. All patients were provided with oral and written information of possible management options and could choose the other alternative. The relapse rate for NS CS I with BEP × 1 was 3.2% for high risk, and 1.6% for low‐risk patients. Five‐year cause‐specific survival was 100%. For S CS I‐patients treated before 2007, 14.3% on surveillance relapsed, 3.9% after carboplatin, and 0.8% after AR. Five‐year cause‐specific survival was 99.9%. For S CS I‐patients treated from 2007, a relapse rate <3% was confirmed for patients without risk factors. SWENOTECA considers BEP × 1 standard adjuvant treatment in NS CS I high‐risk patients. Low‐risk patients should have the opportunity to receive BEP × 1 following thorough information regarding pros and cons. For S CS I patients without risk factors, adjuvant treatment is not necessary. For patients with risk factors, patient autonomy should be respected.

Personalizing, not patronizing: the case for patient autonomy by unbiased presentation of management options in stage I testicular cancer

Testicular cancer (TC) is the most common neoplasm in males aged 15-40 years. The majority of patients have no evidence of metastases at diagnosis and thus have clinical stage I (CSI) disease [Oldenburg J, Fossa SD, Nuver J et al. Testicular seminoma and non-seminoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2013; 24(Suppl 6): vi125-vi132; de Wit R, Fizazi K. Controversies in the management of clinical stage I testis cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 5482-5492.]. Management of CSI TC is controversial and options include surveillance and active treatment. Different forms of adjuvant therapy exist, including either one or two cycles of carboplatin chemotherapy or radiotherapy for seminoma and either one or two cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy or retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for non-seminoma. Long-term disease-specific survival is ∼99% with any of these approaches, including surveillance. While surveillance allows most patients to avoid additional treatment, adjuvant therapy markedly lowers the relapse rate. Weighing the net benefits of surveillance against those of adjuvant treatment depends on prioritizing competing aims such as avoiding unnecessary treatment, avoiding more burdensome treatment with salvage chemotherapy and minimizing the anxiety, stress and life disruption associated with relapse. Unbiased information about the advantages and disadvantages of surveillance and adjuvant treatment is a prerequisite for informed consent by the patient. In a clinical scenario like CSI TC, where different disease-management options produce indistinguishable long-term survival rates, patient values, priorities and preferences should be taken into account. In this review, we provide an overview about risk factors for relapse, potential benefits and harms of adjuvant chemotherapy and active surveillance and a rationale for involving patients in individualized decision making about their treatment rather than adopting a uniform recommendation for all.

Long-term follow-up after risk-adapted treatment in clinical stage 1 (CS1) nonseminomatous germ-cell testicular cancer (NSGCT) implementing adjuvant CVB chemotherapy. A SWENOTECA study

BACKGROUND To offer minimized risk-adapted adjuvant treatment on a community and nationwide basis for patients with clinical stage 1 (CS1) nonseminomatous germ-cell testicular cancer (NSGCT). The aim was to reduce the risk of relapse and thereby reducing the need of later salvage chemotherapy while maintaining a high cure rate. PATIENTS AND METHODS From July 1995 to January 1998, a total of 232 Swedish and Norwegian patients were treated for CS1 NSGCT. All were eligible for inclusion into one of two community-based multicenter Swedish and Norwegian Testicular Cancer Project (SWENOTECA) III studies. One study was a prospective randomized study for patients without vascular invasion in the testicular tumor (VASC-), evaluating the effect of one adjuvant course of cisplatin, vinblastine and bleomycin (CVB) compared with surveillance. The second study was a prospective study evaluating the effect of two adjuvant courses of CVB for VASC+ patients. RESULTS Due to slow accrual and emerging data on toxicity of CVB, the studies were prematurely closed for inclusion in 1998. Of the 232 CS1 patients treated during the study period, only 97 were included in the studies. As all remaining patients were managed according to the SWENOTECA III protocol, although not randomized, the data were pooled. At a median follow-up of 10.1 years, there have been 24 relapses. While one course of CVB to VASC- patients had limited effect on the relapse rate, two courses of adjuvant CVB reduced the relapse rate among VASC+ patients by >90%. Toxicity was high in patients administered adjuvant CVB as 24% of patients experienced grade 3 or 4 obstipation/ileus and 23% grade 3 or 4 infection. CONCLUSIONS There was no statistical difference in relapse rate between one course of adjuvant CVB and surveillance for VASC- NSGCT patients. Two courses of adjuvant CVB for VASC+ NSGCT patients reduced the relapse rate with >90% in comparison to the surveillance group. Toxicity was unacceptably high for all patients receiving CVB. Adjuvant CVB chemotherapy has no place in the treatment of CS1 NSGCT.

Treatment of stage I seminoma, with one course of adjuvant carboplatin or surveillance, risk-adapted recommendations implementing patient autonomy: a report from the Swedish and Norwegian Testicular Cancer Group (SWENOTECA)

BACKGROUND The purpose of the protocol was to reduce the treatment burden in clinical stage I (CSI) seminoma by offering risk-adapted treatment. The protocol aimed to prospectively validate the proposed risk factors for relapse, stromal invasion of the rete testis and tumor diameter >4 cm, and to evaluate the efficacy of one course of adjuvant carboplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS From 2007 to 2010, 897 patients were included in a prospective, population-based, risk-adapted treatment protocol implementing one course of adjuvant carboplatin AUC7 (n = 469) or surveillance (n = 422). In addition, results from 221 patients receiving carboplatin between 2004 and 2007 are reported. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 5.6 years, 69 relapses have occurred. Stromal invasion of the rete testis [hazard ratio (HR) 1.9, P = 0.011] and tumor diameter >4 cm (HR 2.7, P < 0.001) were identified as risk factors predicting relapse. In patients without risk factors, the relapse rate (RR) was 4.0% for patients managed by surveillance and 2.2% in patients receiving adjuvant carboplatin. In patients with one or two risk factors, the RR was 15.5% in patients managed by surveillance and 9.3% in patients receiving adjuvant carboplatin. We found no increased RR in patients receiving carboplatin <7 × AUC compared with that in patients receiving ≥7 × AUC. CONCLUSION Stromal invasion in the rete testis and tumor diameter >4 cm are risk factors for relapse in CSI seminoma. Patients without risk factors have a low RR and adjuvant therapy is not justified in these patients. The efficacy of adjuvant carboplatin is relatively low and there is need to explore more effective adjuvant treatment options in patients with high-risk seminoma. The data do not support the concept of a steep dose response for adjuvant carboplatin.