[Radiotherapy in stage I testicular seminoma: retrospective study and review of literature].

Service de radiothérapie et oncologie, HIA du Val-de-Grâce, 74, boulevard du Port-Royal, 75005 Paris, France.
Cancer/Radiothérapie (Impact Factor: 1.41). 01/2004; 7(6):386-94.
Source: PubMed


Seminoma accounts for about 40% of germ cell tumours of the testicle. In this retrospective analysis, we review literature concerning management of stage I seminoma.
Between March 1987 and April 2001, 65 patients with stage I pure testicular seminoma received adjuvant radiotherapy with a 25 MV linear accelerator.
Median age was 33 years. Testicular tumour has been found on the right testis in 39 patients and on the left one in 24 patients. Patients have been treated using an anterior-posterior parallel pair and have received 20-25 Gy in 10-14 fractions. The target volume consisted of paraaortic, and paraaortic + homolateral iliac lymph nodes in 17 and 46 patients, respectively. Acute toxicity was mainly digestive, 38% of patients presenting nausea and vomiting. Median follow-up time was 37 months. All patients are alive in complete remission.
Because of good radio-sensitivity of seminoma, radiotherapy is regarded as standard adjuvant treatment (5 years relapse rate: 3-5%). Acute toxicity is dominated by moderate gastro-intestinal side effects. Secondary neoplasia represents one of the worst possible long-term complications of therapy. Waiting for ongoing randomised trials, the modern literature for seminoma reflects a trend toward lower radiation doses (20-25 Gy) and smaller treatment volumes (paraaortic field). Adjuvant chemotherapy with two courses of carboplatin, might be equivalent to radiotherapy but must be investigated in randomised trials. A surveillance policy is one of the other management options less recommended.

3 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To review the treatment and outcomes in patients with stage I seminoma after orchidectomy. A retrospective chart review of all patients with stage I seminoma referred for initial treatment during the last 15 years was performed. Initial treatment approaches and outcomes were analyzed. Comparisons were made between patients treated with adjuvant radiotherapy and those receiving no adjuvant therapy (surveillance group). A total of 150 patients with stage I seminoma was seen between 1989 and 2003. Median age at diagnosis was 37.5 years (range 19-79), with a median follow-up of 54 months (range 1-162). Of the patients, 71% were treated with adjuvant radiotherapy, and 29% were placed on a surveillance protocol. The 5-year relapse-free survival and overall survival for the entire group were 95% and 100%, respectively. The 5-year relapse-free survival for the adjuvant radiotherapy group was 100% compared with 79% for the surveillance group (P < 0.001). Of the 6 patients who had a relapse, 5 were salvaged with radiation, but 1 required chemotherapy as well. One patient who had a relapse is currently refusing treatment for recurrence. Our results confirm the excellent prognosis for patients with stage I seminoma and indicate that surveillance does not compromise survival. This result adds to the evidence that surveillance is a good option for many patients and also supports our current approach, which favors surveillance for most patients with stage I seminoma after orchidectomy who are willing to go on our surveillance protocol.
    Urologic Oncology 05/2006; 24(3):180-3. DOI:10.1016/j.urolonc.2005.05.010 · 2.77 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to review retrospectively the results of low-dose radiotherapy for Stage I seminoma using four different fractionation schedules and target volume definitions. A total of 191 patients underwent irradiation for histologically proven Stage I seminoma after undergoing an inguinal orchiectomy. Fractionation schedules were used one after another as follows: Total dose 30 Gy (dose/fraction 1.5 Gy, 16 patients), total dose 25.5 Gy (dose/fraction 1.5 Gy, 62 patients), total dose 20 Gy (dose/fraction 2 Gy, 69 patients), total dose 26 Gy (dose/fraction 2 Gy, 29 patients). The remaining 12 patients were excluded from this study. In the same period the target volume was gradually reduced. In 1983 the paraaortic, pelvic and inguinal regions were irradiated; later the target volume was reduced to the paraaortic region exclusively. Overall survival and event-free survival were identical in all groups ranging from 95% to 100% /5 years. Three patients experienced a lymph node metastasis during follow-up, 3 patients a distant metastasis to the lung and the bones. Mild acute side effects were noted in 8% to 15% of the patients, and very mild long-term side effects in 1% to 5% of patients. Multivariate analysis showed no prognostic significance of total dose, dose per fraction, or target volume. In univariate analysis, a higher frequency of acute side effects to the skin and the bowel was related to a higher total dose, and an elevated frequency of nausea was related to a higher daily dose per fraction. Using lower doses and limiting the target volume to the paraaortic region exclusively did not result in a worse prognosis in our patient series.
    International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 12/2006; 66(4):1112-9. DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.06.054 · 4.26 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We believe that active surveillance is the optimal choice for compliant men who are able to handle the mental burden of not receiving adjuvant treatment. This takes into consideration the fact that a small number of men with clinical stage I (CSI) seminoma on surveillance will recur but are salvageable with equivalent outcome compared to those having adjuvant treatment which exposes eight in ten men to unnecessary short- and long-term risks with still the possibility of recurrence requiring salvation. This review will focus on CSI seminoma and the controversies surrounding its treatment and based upon current available evidence will outline the case for surveillance.
    World Journal of Urology 07/2009; 27(4):433-9. DOI:10.1007/s00345-009-0430-0 · 2.67 Impact Factor
Show more