Clinical outcomes of stage IIA/IIB seminoma treated with radiotherapy and chemotherapy: Should regional therapy be considered the preferred treatment approach?
Abstract
629 Background: With the publication of the Surgery in Early Metastatic Seminoma Trial there has been increasing interest in the use of regional therapy as first line treatment (reserving systemic therapy for relapse) in patients with testicular seminoma with low volume with retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy. Herein, we sought to evaluate outcomes with both management approaches. Methods: A prospectively maintained single-institutional database was retrospectively queried for patients diagnosed between 1995-2016 with de novo clinical stage IIA/B (CSIIA/B) or who relapsed on surveillance (Rel-CSIIA/B) treated with radiotherapy or chemotherapy. All patients were reviewed by the multidisciplinary team; while the preferred management policy during this period was radiotherapy, all treatment decisions were individualized at the physician/patient level. Results: The median follow-up was 7.1 years (IQR 4.3-9.9). There were 153 patients: 67 had de novo CSIIA/B (IIA-32, IIB-35) and 86 patients had Rel-CSIIA/B seminoma (IIA-51, IIB-35). One hundred and twenty patients (78%) received radiotherapy (IIA-78, IIB-42) and 33 (22%) received platinum-based chemotherapy (IIA-5, IIB-28). Eleven patients (IIA- 9/78, IIB- 2/42) relapsed following radiotherapy and 1 patient (IIB) relapsed following chemotherapy, corresponding to 5-year relapse rates of 10% for radiotherapy and 3% for chemotherapy. All 12 patients who relapsed were treated successfully with salvage chemotherapy. Conclusions: Regional therapy in patients with testicular seminoma with low volume with retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy gives excellent treatment results – recognising that a small proportion of patients will need salvage chemotherapy for cure, thereby exposing these patients to the morbidity of two treatment strategies. Our results support the view that regional therapy is a reasonable treatment option in this setting and should be discussed with all patients.
Article Details
Journal Info
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Authors (13)
Rachel Glicksman
Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
Di Maria Jiang
Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
Philippe Bedard
Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
Xiang Y Ye
Department of Biostatistics, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
Lynn Anson-Cartwright
Departments of Surgery (Urology) and Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
Astrid Billfalk-Kelly
Department of Radiation Oncology, Dr. H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Centre, St. John's, NF, Canada
Satheesh Krishna
Department of Medical Imaging, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
Martin O'Malley
Department of Medical Imaging, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
Carol C Cheung
Department of Pathology, University Health Network; Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
Abigail Shin
Radiation Medicine Department, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
Robert James Hamilton
Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
Padraig Warde
Radiation Medicine Department, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
Peter Chung
Radiation Medicine Department, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada