Publication | Closed Access
Individualized intensification of treatment based on tumor marker decline in metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell testicular cancer (NSGCT): A report from the Swedish Norwegian Testicular Cancer Group, SWENOTECA
10
Citations
0
References
2009
Year
Surgical OncologyCancer ManagementSurgeryGynecology OncologyTesticular TumoursRadiation MedicineOncologyGenitourinary CancerMetronomic TherapyClinical TrialsRadiation OncologyCancer ResearchMolecular OncologyHealth SciencesCancer TreatmentUrologyTumor Marker DeclineMetastatic Testicular NsgctSatisfactory ResponseMedicineJuly 1995
5015 Background: From July 1995 to December 2003, 602 adult patients from Sweden and Norway with metastatic testicular NSGCT were included in a population-based multicenter SWENOTECA protocol with strict guidelines for staging, treatment and follow-up. Methods: The basic strategy of this protocol was to individualize treatment according to AFP and β-HCG decline (t1/2). Satisfactory response to treatment was defined as a t½ for AFP ≤ 7 days and/or β-HCG ≤ 3 days. Initial treatment for all patients was 2 courses of standard BEP. Tumor markers were analyzed once a week during treatment. Patients with satisfactory response went on with BEP while patients with unsatisfactory t1/2 received intensified treatment in two steps with addition of ifosfamide (BEP-if/PEI) in step 1. If still unsatisfactory response the treatment was intensified according to step 2 involving high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell rescue. Postchemotherapy surgery was performed according to protocol guidelines. Results: 99,7% (602 of 604) of all patients with metastatic testicular NSGCT in the population were included in the protocol. Median FU was 72 months. 75% of the patients were treated with BEP, median 4 courses, without intensification, 19% according to intensification step 1 and 6% according to intensification step 2. Five year progression free survival (PFS), cancer specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) grouped according to IGCCCG prognostic score are given in the Table below. There was no significant difference in PFS between the good and intermediate risk group. Death due to all causes was 10,1% (n=61) and treatment related deaths were 1,3 % (n=8). Conclusions: Our results, in a population based patient material, with individualized treatment based on tumor marker decline, are highly encouraging in all risk groups, but most notably in the intermediate risk group. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.