| 1. |
- Beyer, J., et al.
(författare)
-
Maintaining success, reducing treatment burden, focusing on survivorship: highlights from the third European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Annals of Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1569-8041 .- 0923-7534. ; 24:4, s. 878-888
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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, similar to 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.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Albers, P, et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines on testicular cancer
- 2005
-
Ingår i: European urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838. ; 48:6, s. 885-894
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Gerdtsson, Axel, et al.
(författare)
-
Validation of a prediction model for post-chemotherapy fibrosis in nonseminoma patients
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Bju International. - 1464-4096 .- 1464-410X. ; 132:3, s. 329-336
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective To validate Vergouwe's prediction model using the Swedish and Norwegian Testicular Cancer Group (SWENOTECA) RETROP database and to define its clinical utility. Materials and methods Vergouwe's prediction model for benign histopathology in post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (PCRPLND) uses the following variables: presence of teratoma in orchiectomy specimen; pre-chemotherapy level of alphafetoprotein; b-Human chorionic gonadotropin and lactate dehydrogenase; and lymph node size pre- and postchemotherapy. Our validation cohort consisted of patients included in RETROP, a prospective population-based database of patients in Sweden and Norway with metastatic nonseminoma, who underwent PC-RPLND in the period 2007-2014. Discrimination and calibration analyses were used to validate Vergouwe's prediction model results. Calibration plots were created and a Hosmer-Lemeshow test was calculated. Clinical utility, expressed as opt-out net benefit (NBopt-out), was analysed using decision curve analysis. Results Overall, 284 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 130 (46%) had benign histology after PC-RPLND. Discrimination analysis showed good reproducibility, with an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.77-0.87) compared to Vergouwe's prediction model (AUC between 0.77 and 0.84). Calibration was acceptable with no recalibration. Using a prediction threshold of 70% for benign histopathology, NBopt-out was 0.098. Using the model and this threshold, 61 patients would have been spared surgery. However, only 51 of 61 were correctly classified as benign. Conclusions The model was externally validated with good reproducibility. In a clinical setting, the model may identify patients with a high chance of benign histopathology, thereby sparing patients of surgery. However, meticulous follow-up is required.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
