European Urology Open Science (Jun 2022)

Safety of Minimizing Intensity of Follow-up on Active Surveillance for Clinical Stage I Testicular Germ Cell Tumors

  • Peter J. Gariscsak,
  • Lynn Anson-Cartwright,
  • Eshetu G. Atenafu,
  • Di Maria Jiang,
  • Peter Chung,
  • Philippe Bedard,
  • Padraig Warde,
  • Martin O'Malley,
  • Joan Sweet,
  • Rachel M. Glicksman,
  • Robert J. Hamilton

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 40
pp. 46 – 53

Abstract

Read online

Background: We have recommended active surveillance as the preferred management option for clinical stage I (CSI) testicular germ cell tumors (GCTs) since 1980. Over time, the recommended intensity of surveillance has decreased; however, the impact on relapse detection has not been investigated. Objective: To examine relapse rate, time to relapse, extent of disease, and burden of treatment at relapse across decreasing surveillance intensity over time. Design, setting, and participants: CSI GCT patients under active surveillance from 1981 to 2021 were included in this study. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Through four major iterations in both nonseminomatous (NSGCT) and seminoma surveillance schedules, visit frequency, blood testing, and imaging have been decreased successively. Low-dose, noncontrast computed tomography (CT) scans were adopted in 2011. Categorical variables and time to relapse were compared using chi-square and Fisher’s exact or Kruskal-Wallis test, respectively. Results and limitations: A total of 1583 consecutive patients (942 with seminoma and 641 with NSGCT) were included. In seminoma, chest x-rays were reduced from 13 to one and CT scans were reduced from 20 to ten. Relapse rate, time to relapse, N or M category, and International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG) classification did not change. In NSGCT, chest x-rays were reduced from 27 to zero and CT scans were reduced from 11 to five. Relapse rate (from 46.2% to 21.2%, p = 0.002) and the median time to relapse (from 6.54 to 4.47 mo, p = 0.025) decreased. No difference in relapsed disease burden was identified by N, M, and S category or IGCCCG classification. Treatment burden at relapse and GCT cancer deaths remained similar for seminoma and NSGCT. Limitations include the retrospective design and large time period covered. Conclusions: Despite considerable reductions in surveillance intensity, we did not observe an increase in disease extent, treatment burden, or GCT cancer deaths upon relapse. These results support that our current lower-intensity active surveillance schedules are safe for managing CSI GCT. Patient summary: Our current reduced-intensity surveillance schedules for clinical stage I germ cell tumors appear to be safe.

Keywords