| 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. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Cohn-Cedermark, G., et al.
(författare)
-
Surveillance vs. adjuvant therapy of clinical stage I testicular tumors - a review and the SWENOTECA experience
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Andrology. - : Wiley. - 2047-2927 .- 2047-2919. ; 3:1, s. 102-110
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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)x1. During 2000-2006 S CS I patients had the option to choose surveillance or adjuvant radiotherapy (AR). In 2004, carboplatinx1 (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>4cm, tumor growth in the rete testis) were recommended carboplatinx1 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 BEPx1 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 BEPx1 standard adjuvant treatment in NS CS I high-risk patients. Low-risk patients should have the opportunity to receive BEPx1 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.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
