| 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. |
- Tandstad, T., et al.
(författare)
-
One course of adjuvant BEP in clinical stage I nonseminoma mature and expanded results from the SWENOTECA group
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Annals of Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0923-7534 .- 1569-8041. ; 25:11, s. 2167-2172
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The SWENOTECA group treated 517 clinical stage I nonseminoma patients with one course of adjuvant BEP in a prospective study. The median follow-up is 7.9 years. One course of adjuvant BEP reduced the risk of relapse by over 90%. The relapse rates were 1.6% in low-risk disease and 3.2% in high-risk disease. One course of adjuvant BEP should be considered a standard adjuvant treatment option.SWENOTECA has since 1998 offered patients with clinical stage I (CS I) nonseminoma, adjuvant chemotherapy with one course of bleomycin, etoposide and cisplatin (BEP). The aim has been to reduce the risk of relapse, sparing patients the need of toxic salvage treatment. Initial results on 312 patients treated with one course of adjuvant BEP, with a median follow-up of 4.5 years, have been previously published. We now report mature and expanded results. In a prospective, binational, population-based risk-adapted treatment protocol, 517 Norwegian and Swedish patients with CS I nonseminoma received one course of adjuvant BEP. Patients with lymphovascular invasion (LVI) in the primary testicular tumor were recommended one course of adjuvant BEP. Patients without LVI could choose between surveillance and one course of adjuvant BEP. Data for patients receiving one course of BEP are presented in this study. At a median follow-up of 7.9 years, 12 relapses have occurred, all with IGCCC good prognosis. The latest relapse occurred 3.3 years after adjuvant treatment. The relapse rate at 5 years was 3.2% for patients with LVI and 1.6% for patients without LVI. Five-year cause-specific survival was 100%. The updated and expanded results confirm a low relapse rate following one course of adjuvant BEP in CS I nonseminoma. One course of adjuvant BEP should be considered a standard treatment in CS I nonseminoma with LVI. For patients with CS I nonseminoma without LVI, one course of adjuvant BEP is also a treatment option.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
