8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

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

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          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.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Long-term and late effects of germ cell testicular cancer treatment and implications for follow-up.

            Germ cell testicular cancer (TC) represents a malignancy with high cure rates. Since the introduction of cisplatin-based chemotherapy in the late 1970s, the 5-year survival rate has increased considerably, and it is currently above 95%. Because TC is usually diagnosed before the age of 40 years, these men can expect to live for another 40 to 50 years after being successfully treated. This success, however, is hampered by an increased risk of long-term and late effects of treatment. Secondary malignant neoplasms and cardiovascular disease represent the most common potentially life-threatening late effects, typically occurring more than 10 years after treatment. Other long-term effects include pulmonary toxicity, nephrotoxicity, neurotoxicity, decreased fertility, hypogonadism, and psychosocial problems. The incidence and time to onset of these various adverse effects vary according to treatment type and intensity. There is still little knowledge about underlying mechanisms and genetic susceptibility of the various adverse effects. Apart from treatment burden, it is not yet possible to identify patients who are at high risk for certain late effects after TC treatment. In this clinical review, we present the current status regarding different somatic and psychosocial long-term late effects after treatment for TC, based on Medline searches and our own research. Moreover, we postulate recommendations for general medical evaluations that should begin after treatment is completed and continue during follow-up.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Radiotherapy versus single-dose carboplatin in adjuvant treatment of stage I seminoma: a randomised trial.

              Adjuvant radiotherapy is effective treatment for stage I seminoma, but is associated with a risk of late non-germ-cell cancer and cardiovascular events. After good results in initial studies with one injection of carboplatin, we undertook a large randomised trial to compare the approaches of radiotherapy with chemotherapy in seminoma treatment. Between 1996 and 2001, 1477 patients from 70 hospitals in 14 countries were randomly assigned to receive radiotherapy (para-aortic strip or dog-leg field; n=904) or one injection of carboplatin (n=573; dose based on the formula 7x[glomerular filtration rate+25] mg), at two trial centres in the UK and Belgium. The primary outcome measure was the relapse-free rate, with the trial powered to exclude absolute differences in 2-year rates of more than 3%. Analysis was by intention to treat and per protocol. This trial has been assigned the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN27163214. 885 and 560 patients received radiotherapy and carboplatin, respectively. With a median follow-up of 4 years (IQR 3.0-4.9), relapse-free survival rates for radiotherapy and carboplatin were similar (96.7% [95% CI 95.3-97.7] vs 97.7% [96.0-98.6] at 2 years; 95.9% [94.4-97.1] vs 94.8% [92.5-96.4] at 3 years, respectively; hazard ratio 1.28 [90% CI 0.85-1.93], p=0.32). At 2 years' follow-up, the absolute differences in relapse-free rates (radiotherapy-chemotherapy) were -1.0% (90% CI -2.5 to 0.5) by direct comparison of proportions, and 0.9% (-0.5 to 3.0) by a hazard-ratio-based approach. Patients given carboplatin were less lethargic and less likely to take time off work than those given radiotherapy. New, second primary testicular germ-cell tumours were reported in ten patients allocated irradiation (all after para-aortic strip field) and two allocated carboplatin (5-year event rate 1.96% [95% CI 1.0-3.8] vs 0.54% [0.1-2.1], p=0.04). One seminoma-related death occurred after radiotherapy and none after carboplatin. This trial has shown the non-inferiority of carboplatin to radiotherapy in the treatment of stage I seminoma. Although the absence of disease-related deaths and preliminary data indicating fewer second primary testicular germ-cell tumours favour carboplatin use, these findings need to be confirmed beyond 4 years' follow-up.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Annals of Oncology
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                1569-8041
                0923-7534
                May 01 2015
                May 01 2015
                : 26
                : 5
                : 833-838
                Article
                10.1093/annonc/mdu514
                25378299
                7f2650fa-06e5-4d93-b6ce-aa16afe6838d
                © 2015

                Comments

                Comment on this article