Download Testicular Cancer: A Reflection on 50 Years of Discovery

VOLUME
32
䡠
NUMBER
28
䡠
OCTOBER
1
2014
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
A S C O 50TH A N N I V E R S A R Y
Testicular Cancer: A Reflection on 50 Years
of Discovery
Nasser Hanna and Lawrence H. Einhorn, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN
Introduction
The advances in the treatment of testicular cancer are among the
great achievements in medicine. Cancer researchers from around the
globe have asked and answered nearly every fundamental question
about the treatment of patients with testicular cancer. The results are
astonishing: cure in 95% of all patients; refined surgical techniques
that preserve sexual function; minimization of short-term and longterm toxicities of therapy; FDA approval of several agents due entirely
or in part from trials in testicular cancer including vinblastine in the
1960’s, bleomycin in 1973, cisplatin in 1978, etoposide in 1983, and
ifosfamide in 1988. This article will help the reader understand this
journey to a cure, which in many ways mirrors the history of drug
development and cancer management during the 20th century.
The basic tenets of cancer care were established, reinforced, or
challenged during the methodical study of testicular cancer. These
tenets include the use of randomized clinical trials to minimize
toxicity and maximize outcomes; the rational utilization of combination chemotherapy; and the integration of care involving medical and surgical specialties.
Early Challenges
Before the era of platinum combination chemotherapy, testicular
cancer was curable in its’ earliest stages with surgery and radiation, but
nearly uniformly fatal in patients with advanced disease. The lack of
convenient and accurate imaging techniques made effective management more challenging. A patient with testicular cancer was evaluated
by physical examination, and radiographic procedures which may
include chest x-ray, abdominal x-ray, urogram, venocavogram, or
lymph angiogram and many patients required surgical staging. The
ability to diagnose, stage, assess response, detect relapse, and estimate
prognosis took a major leap forward with the discovery of human
chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) and ␣-fetoprotein (AFP) in 1927 and
1956, respectively.1,2 The demonstration of hCG in the urine of patients with testicular cancer, first reported in 1937, significantly improved the accuracy of detecting advanced stage disease.3,4 By the late
1970s and early 1980s, surgical staging was no longer required with the
routine use of AFP, hCG, and computed tomography scans.5
In the years following World War II, the successful treatment of
testicular cancer included orchiectomy with retroperitoneal lymphnode dissection (RPLND), radiation, or both, regardless of histology.
Seminomas were more radiation-sensitive.6 Between 1920 and 1965,
414 cases of testicular cancer were reported from Roswell Park.7 For
patients with pure seminoma, orchiectomy was followed by RPLND
Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 32, No 28 (October 1), 2014: pp 3085-3092
or radiation to pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes. Either approach
resulted in similar survival; therefore, postorchiectomy radiation became standard practice. Before 1949, if embryonal carcinoma was
present, higher doses of radiation were given. Given the relative
radiation-resistance of embryonal carcinoma, RPLND soon replaced
radiation if nonseminomatous germ cell tumors (NSGCT) were present. Each of these observations were confirmed from a series of patients (n ⫽ 510) with testicular cancer treated at Walter Reed Army
Hospital (Washington, DC) from 1940 to 1964.8 A 95% cure rate was
reported in patients with seminoma treated with orchiectomy and
radiation therapy. If distant metastases were found, radiation was
given to the abdomen, mediastinum, supraclavicular area and even to
lung metastases. In their series of 127 patients with NSGCT, no patients with lymph node involvement responded to radiation, and all
died within 2 years. RPLND replaced radiation for patients with stage
I or II NSGCT, achieving cures in nearly 50% of patients with nonmetastatic, lymph node (LN) –positive disease.
Further refinements in the management of patients with stage I
seminoma challenged the need for adjuvant radiation, reduced the
dose and fields of radiation for those receiving it, and broadened
the treatment options to include adjuvant chemotherapy. Today, the
treatment options for stage I seminoma following orchiectomy include surveillance, 20 Gy radiation to the ipsilateral RPLN⬘s, or one to
two cycles of carboplatin. Long-term survival is nearly 100%, irrespective of the initial option chosen.9-11 For patients with low volume (⬍ 3
cm LN) stage II seminoma, 30 to 36 Gy radiation to the para-aortic
and ipsilateral iliac lymph nodes remains standard,12 whereas chemotherapy (regimen of bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin [BEP] ⫻ 3
or regimen of etoposide and cisplatin [EP] ⫻ 4) is preferred for
patients with bulkier disease. The management of residual masses
greater than 3 cm following chemotherapy has been aided with positron emission tomography imaging. A positive positron emission
tomography image (standard uptake value ⬎ 4) may represent active
seminoma and surgical resection is considered.13
The treatment of stage I and II NSGCT was dependent on performing a RPLND. Full bilateral suprahilar dissections with wide
templates removing all lymphatic tissues between the ureters were
performed routinely but were associated with significant morbidity.14,15 In the 1970s and 1980s, elegant lymph node mapping studies
elucidating the drainage patterns of right versus left-sided tumors were
performed in Europe and at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
(MSKCC) and Indiana University.15-17 Elimination of the suprarenal
component of LNs was possible based on studies by Donohue et al,15
© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
Information downloaded from jco.ascopubs.org and provided by at IU Health on July 29, 2015 from 162.1.224.165
Copyright © 2014 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
3085
Hanna and Einhorn
who demonstrated suprarenal LN⬘s were rarely involved in lower
stage tumors and should be removed only in some patients with
bulkier disease. Retrograde ejaculation was a common complication
for patients undergoing bilateral RPLND. Techniques to preserve the
postganglionic sympathetic nerve fibers resulted in preservation of
seminal emission and antegrade ejaculation.18-24 This modified unilateral RPLND preserves ejaculation in 90% of patients.
Subsequent research further refined the role of RPLND. Key
findings included: residual masses in the RP may contain necrosis,
teratoma, or viable germ cell tumor (GCT), the presence of teratoma
in the orchiectomy is predictive of teratoma in the RPLN, the histology
in postchemotherapy (PC) –RPLNs predict the histology of residual
masses elsewhere, particularly the lungs, and 95% 2-year progressionfree survival is now achieved with a modified, bilateral, PC-RPLND in
patients with low volume stage II disease.25-28 One area of management which remains unsettled is the role of PC-RPLND in patients
with stage II or III disease achieving a serologic and radiographic
complete response (CR). Proponents of observation at Indiana University cite the 15-year cancer-specific survival of 97% reported with
this approach,29 while investigators at MSKCC recommend PCRPLND in most patients, citing the presence of viable GCT and teratoma in some patients with normal-size RPLNs on CT.30
Three treatment options, which include active surveillance,
nerve-sparing RPLND or adjuvant chemotherapy, are standard for
stage I NSGCT, resulting in 98% to 100% long-term cure rates.31-34
Patients are characterized as high risk (relapse rates 50% with surveillance) versus low risk (15% relapse rates with surveillance) based on
the presence of vascular invasion and embryonal predominant histology.11,31 Patients with low volume stage II NSGCT (RPLN ⬍ 3 cm)
and normal postorchiectomy hCG and AFP are generally managed
with RPLND, while those with higher volume stage II disease or rising
markers receive chemotherapy (BEP ⫻ 3 or EP ⫻ 4).36,37 Cures are
achieved in approximately 95% of all patients.
Precisplatin Chemotherapy Era
Fifty years ago, a diagnosis of metastatic testicular cancer meant a
negligible cure rate with 90% mortality within 1 year. During the
1950s and 1960s, the arsenal of chemotherapeutics now included
alkylating agents, antimetabolites such as methotrexate, antibiotics
including actinomycin-D, and plant products including the vinca
alkaloids.38 Actinomycin-D, isolated from cultures of Streptomyces
paravallus, was of particular interest in testicular cancer based on the
report of responses seen in pediatric patients with Wilms’ tumor, a
fetal tumor in the kidney, reported by Farber et al.39
The initial chemosensitivity of testicular cancer was demonstrated at MSKCC in 1960. Li et al40 reported actinomycin-D based
therapy resulted in durable remissions in 10% to 20% of patients and
a cure in approximately 5%. Li et al41 also reported the use of methotrexate to cure a patient with gestational choriocarcinoma, a landmark
event in 1956. Li et al40 studied 36 patients with advanced testicular
cancer utilizing actinomycin-D combined with an alkylating agent
(chorambucil) and antimetabolite (methotrexate) in men with advanced testicular cancer. The authors determined the best chance of
deriving benefit came with the combination of agents from different
classes. The concept of combined drug therapy given in a cyclical
manner was not new in medicine, as it had been used effectively to
treat tuberculosis, but challenged the dogma of the day in cancer
treatment. Li et al also recognized the significance of monitoring hCG
3086
© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
in the urine as a marker of persistent, microscopic disease, even when
the radiographs demonstrate a CR.
The plant Vinca rosea Linn (periwinkle) was widely cultivated as
an ornamental in gardens throughout the world and enjoyed a popular reputation as a medicinal, including as an effective oral hypoglycemic agent.42 Hertz et al demonstrated the activity of vinblastine in
patients with methotrexate-resistant choriocarcinoma.43 The activity
of vinblastine in testicular cancer was further characterized by Samuels
and Howe at MD Anderson in 1970.44 Based on this and other work
demonstrating the activity of bleomycin, Samuels and Howe studied
the combination of vinblastine plus bleomycin, each with comparable
single-agent activity to actinomycing-D, in the first-line treatment of
patients with advanced testicular cancer, resulting in a 32% CR rate in
50 patients, and remission greater than 2 years in half of patients
achieving a CR.44-46
Era of Cisplatin
The discovery of cis-diaminodichloroplatinum by Rosenberg et
al47 in 1965 is a landmark event in the history of oncology and the
single most important discovery in the treatment of metastatic testicular cancer. Platinum is a component of first-line chemotherapy in
over a dozen tumor types today. Rosenberg, a biophysicist at Michigan
State University, examined whether electrical currents played a role in
cellular division. In order to examine this, Escherichia coli cells growing
in ammonium chloride had a current applied to them through platinum electrodes. After additional investigation, it was determined that
inhibition of cellular division was not due to the electrical current, but
platinum hydrolysis products formed from the platinum electrode.
In 1971, the drug development of cisplatin began following the
observation of responses in patients with human malignancies, including testicular cancer, by Hill et al.48 Based on the observations
from Hill, Higby et al49 at Roswell Park conducted a phase I study of
cisplatin which included 11 patients with refractory testicular cancer
(previously treated with actinomycin-D– based regimens). They reported nine of 11 responded to cisplatin, including complete several
CRs, an unprecedented finding for a phase I trial even today.49 The
toxicity was substantial; however, as irreversible renal failure was observed in some patients and nausea/vomiting (sometimes lasting
weeks) was universal, necessitating hospitalization for all patients.
The addition of cisplatin to the regimen of vinblastine plus bleomycin, known as the PVB regimen, was introduced by Einhorn and
Donahue50 at Indiana University in 1974. In this phase II study,
patients with advanced testicular cancer received four cycles of PVB.
Responding patients were also treated with maintenance vinblastine
for an additional 21 months. Patients with persistent nodes in the
abdomen underwent RPLND. Thirty three of 47 patients achieved a
CR with chemotherapy alone resulting in a then astonishing 5-year
survival rate of 64%, a 1 log increase in the cure rate compared with
contemporaneous actinomycin-D based chemotherapy in metastatic
testicular cancer. Based on these stunning phase II results, the US Food
and Drug Administration granted approval for cisplatin as a commercial drug, even in the absence of a randomized trial.
Sequential studies from Indiana University testing PVB were
aimed at reducing the neuromuscular and myelosuppressive toxicity
of the regimen from vinblastine and challenging the tenet of maintenance therapy. The first phase III study (1976-1978) randomly assigned patients to receive PVB with vinblastine given at 0.4 mg/kg/
cycle as a control arm versus 0.3 mg/kg/cycle. No difference was
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Information downloaded from jco.ascopubs.org and provided by at IU Health on July 29, 2015 from 162.1.224.165
Copyright © 2014 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
ASCO 50th Anniversary
reported as 73% of patients remained long-term survivors with no
evidence of disease (NED).51 These results were confirmed by a more
robust study conducted by the European Organization for Research
and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC).52 The next phase III study (19781981) from Indiana University randomly assigned patients to receive
PVB with or without doxorubicin with a second random assignment
to with or without maintenance vinblastine for an additional 21
months.53 There was no improvement in survival with the addition of
doxorubicin or maintenance therapy. Therefore, PVB ⫻ four cycles
became standard therapy.
The next major advance in the treatment of testicular cancer
came with the discovery of etoposide.54 The dried roots from the
American mandrake containing podophyllotoxin were cultivated by
native North Americans and natives of Himalaya and used as an
emetic agent and to treat worm infections.55 Etoposide, a synthesized
derivative of the podophyllotoxin, entered cancer trials in 1971 and
was reported to be active as a single agent in patients with refractory
GCT.56 Based on a leukemia mouse model demonstrating the synergistic effects of etoposide with cisplatin, combination studies were
evaluated as second-line therapy in patients not cured with PVB.57 In
a trial from the Southeastern Cancer Study Group (SECSG), 43% of
patients achieved a CR, and 23% remained disease-free long term.
This was the first time in oncology that a relapsed solid tumor had
been cured with second-line chemotherapy.
While work continued at Indiana University refining the PVB
regimen, investigators at MSKCC had been refining their own chemotherapy program against testicular cancer, consisting of six successive
regimens beginning in 1972. In 1975, cisplatin was added to the regimen referred to as VAB-6, consisting of cisplatin, vinblastine, bleomycin, cyclophosphamide, and actinomycin-D with or without
maintenance therapy, and resulting in a CR rate of 67% with chemotherapy alone.58 Bosl et al59 at MSKCC conducted a randomized trial
comparing VAB-6 with EP. Based on a set of prognostic variables
(lactate dehydrogenase, hCG, number of sites of metastatic disease)
reported from MSKCC researchers, only patients with good-risk disease were eligible.60 Responses were seen in greater than 90% with
either treatment, however more patients receiving VAB-6 had residual
GCT at the time of surgery and patients treated with EP had numerically superior survival with less toxicity. Based on these results, EP
became standard treatment.
Investigators at Indiana University and the SECSG also studied
etoposide as an alternative to vinblastine, in the first-line setting. A
randomized phase III study compared PVB with BEP from 1981 to
1984.61 Two hundred and forty-four patients were randomly assigned.
Seventy-eight percent of patients receiving BEP were cured compared
with 66% receiving PVB. Based on this improved efficacy and less
toxicity, BEP became our standard of care. Attempts have been made
to improve on the efficacy, toxicity, and convenience of the BEP
regimen by testing alternative dose and schedules of BEP. The Australian and New Zealand Germ Cell trial group randomly assigned patients to receive BEP per the Indiana regimen (cisplatin 20 mg/m2 IV
day 1 through 5, etoposide 100 mg/m2 IV day 1 through 5 every 3
weeks and bleomycin 30 units intravenously [IV] weekly) versus cisplatin 100 mg/m2 day 1, etoposide 120 mg/m2 day 1 through 3 and
bleomycin 30 units IV weekly.62 The Indiana regimen resulted in
numerically superior survival and remains standard.
Each successive cycle of BEP resulted in cumulative chemotherapyinduced nephrotoxicity, neurotoxicity, ototoxicity, and bleomycinwww.jco.org
induced pulmonary toxicity. Therefore, from 1984 to 1987, the
SECSG randomly assigned patients with good risk disease to receive
three versus four cycles of BEP. This was done in an attempt to
eliminate the most toxic cycle of therapy, due to cumulative toxicity.63
One hundred and eighty-four patients were enrolled and 92% cure
rates were reported on each arm. Remarkably, 98% of metastatic
patients with an hCG of less than 1,000 were cured with only three
cycles of BEP. In a larger study, the EORTC randomly assigned patients with good risk disease to either BEP ⫻ 3 versus BEP ⫻ 3 then
EP ⫻ 1; they reported a 90% progression-free survival in both arms
and no difference in efficacy between a 3- and 5-day regimen of EP,
although the 3-day regimen had more hematologic toxicity, ototoxicity, and nausea.64 For patients with good risk metastatic disease, standard therapy remains BEP ⫻ 3 or EP ⫻ 4. An attempt to define the
superiority of one regimen over the other was undertaken by the
French Federation of Cancer Centers who randomly assigned patients
with good risk disease to either of these regimens, reporting 91% and
86% durable responses with BEP ⫻ 3 and EP ⫻ 4, respectively.65 Thus
from 1974 to 1987 randomized studies substituted etoposide for vinblastine with decreased toxicity and increased efficacy and shortened
duration of therapy from 2 years to 9 weeks for most patients with
metastatic disease.
Two achievements in the 1990s laid the groundwork for additional success in the management of patients with testicular cancer,
namely, identification of universally agreed on prognostic groups and
the discovery of the first selective serotonin type 3 (5HT3) receptor
antagonists. In 1997, following a multinational analysis, a consensus
statement for metastatic GCT was published by the International
Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG).66 The IGCCCG
risk stratification system takes into account the primary tumor site,
metastatic sites, and amplitude of serum tumor marker levels. Patients
with advanced GCT are now subdivided into 3 risk groups: good
(⬎ 90% rate of cure), intermediate (75% rate of cure) and poor (50%
rate of cure). The second major achievement came in 1991. Before the
advent of effective antiemetics, cisplatin-based chemotherapy was extremely difficult for most patients, as frequent and prolonged nausea/
vomiting was universal. In one phase III study, the median number of
emetic episodes on day 1 of chemotherapy was 10.67 Before the US
Food and Drug Administration approval of ondansetron in 1991,
antiemetic prophylaxis for cisplatin consisted of dexamethasone,
lorazepam and high-doses of metoclopramide, which frequently resulted in troubling extrapyramidal adverse effects in young patients.
Today the median number of emetic episodes on day 1 with modern
antiemetic therapy is zero.68
Bleomycin causes severe pulmonary toxicity in a dose-related
fashion in some patients.69 Investigators from the EORTC randomly
assigned patients to BEP ⫻ 4 versus EP ⫻ 4, demonstrating inferior
results with the deletion of bleomycin (95% v 87% cure rates).70 These
results confirmed the importance of bleomycin reported from an
earlier study from the Australasian Germ Cell Trial Group comparing
PVB with PV71 and another trial from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) comparing BEP versus EP (95% v 86% cure
rates).72 Therefore, bleomycin remains a valuable contributor to the
overall efficacy of treatment in good-risk patients and can be safely
given to most patients when limiting therapy to three cycles.
Additional attempts to reduce toxicity and preserve efficacy in
good risk patients included substitution of carboplatin for cisplatin.
Unfortunately, carboplatin substitution (a platinum agent with less
© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
Information downloaded from jco.ascopubs.org and provided by at IU Health on July 29, 2015 from 162.1.224.165
Copyright © 2014 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
3087
Hanna and Einhorn
Table 1. Standard Treatment of Seminoma
Stage
Treatment Options
I
Surveillance or 20 Gy radiation
or carboplatin ⫻ 1-2
30-36 Gy radiation preferred
for nonbulky disease (⬍ 3
cm) BEP ⫻ 3 or EP ⫻ 4
preferred for bulky disease
(⬎ 3 cm)
EP ⫻ 4 or BEP ⫻ 3
II
III
Table 3. Landmark Achievements in Testicular Cancer
5-Year
OS (%)
Reference(s)
⬎ 99
9-11
⬎ 95
12
⬎ 90
Year
59, 63
Event
Significance
Ref
1937
hCG first reported in the
urine of patients with
testicular cancer
3
1940s
Seminomas are
radiation-sensitive
1960
Actinomycin-D based
chemotherapy tested
in advanced testicular
cancer
1965
Discovery of cisplatin
1974
PVB regimen first tested
1980s
Nerve-sparing RPLND
1981
1985
PVB with or without
maintenance
vinblastine
EP regimen
Improved ability to diagnose,
stage, assess response,
detect relapse, estimate
prognosis
95% cure rate for stage I or
II seminoma prior to era
of cisplatin-based
chemotherapy
Durable complete responses
and some cures reported
for the first time in
patients with metastatic
testicular cancer
Revolutionized the treatment
of testicular cancer,
achieving cures in ⬎ 80%
of patients with
metastatic disease
Increased cure rate by 1 log
compared with
contemporaneous
chemotherapy
Preserves ejaculatory
function in ⬎ 90% of
patients undergoing this
procedure
Eliminated need for
maintenance therapy
1987
PVB versus BEP
1989
BEP ⫻ 3 versus 4 cycles
in good risk
IGCCC prognostic
groups
Abbreviations: BEP, bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin; EP, etoposide and
cisplatin; OS, overall survival.
nephrotoxicity and emetogenic potential) for cisplatin also results in
inferior outcomes.73,74 In one study, Bajorin et al73 randomly assigned
patients to receive four cycles of EP versus etoposide plus carboplatin
(EC), reporting a 10% inferior relapse free survival with EC. In another study comparing bleomycin plus etoposide with either cisplatin
or carboplatin, relapse rates more than doubled with carboplatin
(32% v 13%) resulting in more deaths.74
While greater than 90% of patients with good risk metastatic
disease are cured with chemotherapy, patients with intermediate- or
poor-risk disease face of much less certain future. The worldwide
standard for poor-risk disease is four cycles of triple-drug therapy, but
nearly half of these patients are not cured. Therefore, intensification of
therapy beyond BEP ⫻ 4 has been investigated. The SECSG evaluated
BEP comparing double dose (40 mg/m2 day 1 through 5) cisplatin
versus standard dose (20 mg/m2 day 1 through 5) cisplatin for four
cycles each in 151 randomly assigned patients.75 Two thirds of patients
in each arm were cured. de Witt et al from the EORTC randomly
assigned patients to BEP with or without paclitaxel (T) in patients with
intermediate risk disease demonstrating no survival difference in 337
randomly assigned patients, although 3-year progression-free survival
favored the T-BEP arm (79 v 71%).76 Investigators from ECOG randomly assigned 304 men with advanced disseminated GCT to BEP ⫻
4 or cisplatin, ifosfamide, and etoposide (VIP) ⫻ 4. Overall complete
remission rate and 2-year overall survival (VIP, 74%; BEP, 71%) were
Table 2. Standard Treatment of Nonseminomatous Germ Cell Tumors
Stage
Treatment Options
I
II
III: Good risk
III: Intermediateⴱ/
poor risk
Surveillance or RPLND or
BEP ⫻ 1
RPLND preferred for
nonbulky disease (⬍ 3
cm) BEP ⫻ 3 or EP ⫻ 4
preferred for bulky
disease (⬎ 3 cm)
BEP ⫻ 3 or EP ⫻ 4
four cycles of 3-drug therapy
5-Year
OS (%)
Reference(s)
⬎ 99
31, 34
98
32, 36
⬎ 90
50-80
59, 61, 63, 65
77, 78
Abbreviations: BEP, bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin; EP, etoposide and
cisplatin; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; RPLND, retroperitoneal lymph-node dissection.
ⴱ
The addition of paclitaxel to BEP improves PFS but not OS in intermediate
risk patients76; some patients can be treated with BEP ⫻ 3 or BEP ⫻ 3
followed by EP ⫻ 1.105
3088
© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
1997
2007
Largest series to date
reported on HDCT in
relapsed disease
Cures possible in the
second-line setting
BEP supplants PVB as
standard therapy
Eliminates fourth cycle of
BEP in good risk patients
Allows for more accurate
study of treatment
outcomes by risk groups
Cures achieved in ⬎ thirdline, poor-risk groups,
including platinumrefractory patients
6
40
47
50
18-24
53
57
61
63
66
89
Abbreviations: BEP, bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin; EP, etoposide and
cisplatin; hCG, human chorionic gonadotropin ; HDCT, high-dose chemotherapy;
IGCCC, International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group; PVB, cisplatin,
vinblastine, and bleomycin; RPLND, retroperitoneal lymph-node dissection.
not significantly different between the two treatments, despite more
toxicity in the VIP arm.77 Two randomized clinical trial compared
BEP ⫻ 4 with BEP ⫻ 2 followed by high-dose chemotherapy as
first-line treatment in patients with poor-risk GCT78,79 and one trial
compared BEP ⫻ 4 with VIP ⫻ 1 followed by high-dose VIP ⫻ 3.80 All
of these studies failed to demonstrate any advantage over BEP ⫻ 4
with durable CR’s seen in approximately 50% of patients, and toxicity
was more severe with the investigational regimens. Furthermore,
some have advocated intensification of therapy based on the rate of
tumor marker decline, an independent prognostic variable in patients
with poor risk disease, following the first or second cycle of BEP.81 This
strategy may result in fewer relapses requiring salvage therapy, but has
failed to prove a survival advantage to date.
Salvage Therapy for Relapsed GCT
Patients who relapse after initial chemotherapy can still be cured
with second-line and even third-line regimens. VIP, vinblastine
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Information downloaded from jco.ascopubs.org and provided by at IU Health on July 29, 2015 from 162.1.224.165
Copyright © 2014 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
ASCO 50th Anniversary
(VeIP), or paclitaxel (TIP) are commonly used.82-86 These studies
showed durable response rates in patients with recurrent GCT.
Bone marrow transplantation (BMT) entered patient care in the
1950s and was increasingly successful by the end of the 1960s with the
use of platelet transfusion support, improved antibiotics, growth factor support, and more effective cancer drugs. In 1986, investigators
at Indiana University began work with high-dose chemotherapy
(HDCT) in patients with relapsed testicular cancer. Significant escalation of cisplatin dose is limited by extramedullary toxicities; therefore,
high-dose carboplatin and etoposide were evaluated since myelosuppression, which can be managed with bone marrow rescue, is their
dose-limiting toxicity. In a phase I/II trial, 33 patients with recurrent
disease were treated from 1986 to 1988. Enough bone marrow for two
courses of therapy was harvested a few days before chemotherapy. The
median time to hematopoietic recovery was about 25 days and 25%
achieved a CR. Cures were observed even in the third- and fourth-line
setting, which was unprecedented at the time.87
In 1995, it was reported that peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC)
resulted in sustained trilineage reconstitution after HDCT more rapidly than bone marrow.88 Therefore, in 1996, PBSC transplantation
could replace BMT for the treatment of recurrent GCT at Indiana
University.89 Einhorn et al reported the experience from Indiana University with HDCT (using carboplatin and etoposide) followed by
PBSC rescue in 184 patients with metastatic GCT that had progressed
after first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Of the 184 patients, 63%
achieved a CR without relapse during a median follow-up of 48
months; 70% of patients who received the treatment as second-line
therapy were cured, as were 45% treated in greater than or equal to the
third-line setting.
Investigators from MSKCC have also evaluated HDCT, the
TI–CE protocol, incorporating paclitaxel and ifosfamide (TI) as induction chemotherapy and stem cell mobilization, followed by three
cycles of high-dose carboplatin and etoposide (HD-CE) and autologous stem-cell transplantation. In their experience, 54 (50%) patients
achieved a CR, including 42% with chemotherapy alone and 8% with
chemotherapy and surgery. The 5-year disease-free survival was 47%
and overall survival was 52%.90
Refinements in the use of HDCT continue today. Patients
with recurrent disease have been classified into very low, low,
intermediate, high, and very high risk categories.91 In a large 1,500patient multi-institutional retrospective study, HDCT cured 27%
of patients with very high–risk disease compared with only 3% with
standard-dose salvage therapy.91 In addition, two other series report that patients with recurrent disease and unfavorable prognostic features including primary mediastinal NSGCT are curable with
HDCT, a result rarely seen with standard-dose therapy.90,91 Based
on this data, some have argued using HDCT for most patients in
the second-line setting, while others have proposed HDCT only in
high- or very high–risk groups unlikely to be cured with standarddose salvage therapy. There are current attempts to address this
with a proposed phase III study comparing TIP with TI-CE as
initial salvage chemotherapy.
Long-Term Issues in Survivors
Given the high cure rates in patients with testicular cancer,
this young population has been evaluated for the long-term toxicity of diagnostic studies, therapy, and other long-term issues affecting survivors. There has been an emerging concern about the risks
www.jco.org
of second cancers due to the frequent exposure to diagnostic radiation to the abdomen and pelvis in young patients undergoing
active surveillance. van Walraven et al92 explored this issue in 2,569
men, observed for a median of 11 years, reporting no increased risk
of second cancers. However, follow-up may not have been long
enough to observe secondary malignancies. Similarly, the risk of
treatment-related second cancers from surgery, chemotherapy,
and therapeutic radiation has been reported.93,94 Fung et al95 evaluated 12,691 patients treated with chemotherapy or surgery and
reported a 40% increased risk for cancers for those receiving chemotherapy. Secondary leukemia is also recognized to result from the
cumulative exposure to etoposide, particularly beyond 2000 mg/
m2.96 Testicular cancer survivors are also at risk for metabolic
syndrome, cardiovascular disease, infertility, neurotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, pulmonary toxicity, hypogonadism, psychosocial disorders, and behavioral issues including problem drinking.97-103 A
multi-institutional effort is underway to understand the genetic
underpinnings of long-term cisplatin toxicities, identify single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with these toxicities, and to
systematically collect data regarding various cardiovascular risk
factors in testicular cancer survivors.
Vexing Issues in Testicular Cancer Remain
The last 50 years of testicular cancer research have produced
stunning results, but multiple challenges remain. Ninety-five percent of patients with testicular cancer, including 80% with metastatic disease, can be assured they will be cured. The primary focus
today is to develop more effective treatments for those with poorrisk disease, especially those with multiple poor-risk features at
diagnosis, and those whose disease has relapsed following first-line
chemotherapy. Secondly, patients with late relapse (⬎ 2 years from
diagnosis) and those with malignant transformation of teratoma
are less chemotherapy sensitive.104 They are managed primarily
with surgery and fewer than half will remain continuously free of
disease following treatment. Thirdly, common clinical scenarios
can still be vexing for clinicians less experienced at managing
patients with testicular cancer.
Final Thoughts
The success in the treatment of testicular cancer is not the
result of a single individual or institution, but rather the collective
work of an international community of cancer researchers (Tables
1 and 2). Each major discovery is dependent on the discoveries that
precede them (Table 3). Refinements in surgical mapping of disease, discovery of radiation and its application to cancer care,
isolation of tumor markers initially in the urine and subsequently
in the serum, development of preclinical tumor models to test the
potential of cancer drugs, development of chemotherapy principles, and the discovery of cisplatin each predated the landmark trial
of PVB in 1974. The refinement of chemotherapy at each institution built off the experiences reported from other institutions. This
collaborative spirit continues today as an international group of
researchers work with a common spirit to ensure no person will die
of testicular cancer in the future.
AUTHORS’ DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The author(s) indicated no potential conflicts of interest.
© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
Information downloaded from jco.ascopubs.org and provided by at IU Health on July 29, 2015 from 162.1.224.165
Copyright © 2014 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
3089
Hanna and Einhorn
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Manuscript writing: All authors
Final approval of manuscript: All authors
REFERENCES
1. Bergstrand CG, Czar B: Demonstration of a new protein fraction in serum
from the human fetus. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 8:174-179, 1956
2. Ascheim S, Zondek B: Anterior pituitary hormones and ovarian hormones
in the urine of pregnant women [in German]. Klin Wochenschr 6:13-21, 1927
3. Zondek B: Gonadotropic hormone in the diagnosis of chorioepithelioma.
JAMA 108:607, 1937
4. Montgomery B: Tumor markers aid therapy of testicular cancer. JAMA
242:320-321, 1979
5. Vaitukaitis J: Human chorionic gonadotropin as a tumor marker. Ann Clin
Lab Sci 4:276, 1974
6. Cahill G: Cancer of the kidneys, adrenals, and testes. JAMA 138:415-425, 1948
7. Boctor Z, Kurohara S, Badib A, et al: Current results from therapy of
testicular tumors. Cancer 24:870-875, 1969
8. Patton J, Hewitt C: Diagnosis and treatment of tumors of the testis.
JAMA 2194-2198, 1959
9. Oliver RT, Mead GM, Rustin GJ, et al: Randomized trial of carboplatin
versus radiotherapy for stage I seminoma: Mature results on relapse and
contralateral testis cancer rates in MRC TE19/EORTC 30982 study (ISRCTN27163214). J Clin Oncol 29:957-962, 2011
10. Mortensen MS, Gundgaard MG, Lauritsen J, et al: A nationwide cohort
study of surveillance for stage I seminoma. J Clin Oncol 31:284s, 2013 (suppl;
abstr 4502)
11. Jones W, Fossa S, Mead G, et al: Randomized trial of 30 versus 20 Gy in
the adjuvant treatment of stage I testicular seminoma: A report on Medical
Research Council Trial TE18, European Organization for the Research and
Treatment of Cancer Trial 30942. J Clin Oncol 23:1200-1208, 2005
12. Schmoll HJ, Jordan K, Huddart R, et al: Testicular seminoma: ESMO
Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol:
21:v140 –v146, 2010 (suppl 5)
13. De Santis M, Becherer A, Bokemeyer C, et al: 2-18fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose
positron emission tomography is a reliable predictor for viable tumor in postchemotherapy seminoma: An update of the prospective multicentric SEMPET trial.
J Clin Oncol 22:1034-1039, 2004
14. Staubitz W: The place of nodal dissection. JAMA 213:99-100, 1970
15. Donohue JP, Zachary JM, Maynard BR: Distribution of nodal metastases
in nonseminomatous testis cancer. J Urol 128:315-320, 1982
16. Ray B, Hajdu SI, Whitmore WF Jr: Distribution of retroperitoneal lymph
node metastases in testicular germinal tumors. Cancer 33:340-348, 1974
17. Weissbach L, Boedefeld EA: Localization of solitary and multiple metastases in stage II nonseminomatous testis tumor as basis for a modified staging
lymph node dissection in stage I. J Urol 138:77-82, 1987
18. Jewett MA, Torbey C: Nerve-sparing techniques in retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy in patients with low-stage testicular cancer. Semin Urol 6:233-237,
1988
19. Colleselli K, Poisel S, Schachtner W, et al: Nerve-preserving bilateral
retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy: Anatomical study and operative approach.
J Urol 144:293-297, 1990
20. Donohue JP, Foster RS, Rowland RG, et al: Nerve-sparing retroperitoneal
lymphadenectomy with preservation of ejaculation. J Urol 144:287-291, 1990
21. Donohue J, Foster R: Retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy in staging and
treatment: The development of nerve-sparing techniques. Urol Clin North Am
25:461-468, 1998
22. Donohue J, Foster R, Rowland R, et al: Nerve-sparing retroperitoneal
lymphadenectomy with preservation of ejaculation. J Urol 144:287-292, 1990
23. Eggener S, Carver B, Sharp D, et al: Incidence of disease outside modified
retroperitoneal lymph node dissection templates in clinical stage I or IIA nonseminomatous germ cell testicular cancer. J Urol 177:937-942, 2007
24. Donohue J, Thornhill J, Foster R, et al: Retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy
for clinical stage A testis cancer (1965-1989): Modifications of technique and
impact on ejaculation. J Urol 149:237-243, 1993
25. Oldenburg J, Alfsen GC, Lien HH, et al: Postchemotherapy retroperitoneal
surgery remains necessary in patients with nonseminomatous testicular cancer
and minimal residual tumor masses. J Clin Oncol 21:3310-3317, 2003
26. Steyerberg EW, Keizer HJ, Messemer JE, et al: Residual pulmonary
masses after chemotherapy for metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumor:
Prediction of histology. ReHiT Study Group Cancer 79:345-355, 1997
27. Beck S, Foster R, Bihrle R, et al: Is full bilateral retroperitoneal lymph node
dissection (RPLND) always necessary for post chemotherapy residual tumor?
J Urol 173:117, 2005
3090
© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
28. Beck S, Foster R, Bihrle R, et al: Outcome analysis for patients with
elevated serum tumor markers at postchemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node
dissection. J Clin Oncol 23:6149-6156, 2005
29. Ehrlich Y, Brames MJ, Beck SD, et al: Long-term follow-up of Cisplatin
combination chemotherapy in patients with disseminated nonseminomatous
germ cell tumors: Is a postchemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection
needed after complete remission? J Clin Oncol 28:531-536, 2010
30. Carver BS, Bianco FJ Jr, Shayegan B, et al: Predicting teratoma in the
retroperitoneum in men undergoing post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph
node dissection. J Urol 176:100-103, 2006
31. Kollmannsberger C, Tandstad T, Bedard P, et al: Characterization of relapse
in patients with clinical stage I (CSI) nonseminoma (NS-TC) managed with active
surveillance (AS): A large multicenter study. J Clin Oncol 31:284s, 2013 (abstr 4503)
32. Schmoll HJ, Jordan K, Huddart R, et al: Testicular non-seminoma: ESMO
clinical recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol
20:89-96, 2009 (suppl 4)
33. Westermann DH, Studer UE: High-risk clinical stage I nonseminomatous
germ cell tumors: The case for chemotherapy. World Jrnl Urol 27:455-461, 2009
34. Albers P, Siener R, Krege S, et al: Randomized phase III trial comparing
retroperitoneal lymph node dissection with one course of bleomycin and etoposide plus cisplatin chemotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of clinical stage I
Nonseminomatous testicular germ cell tumors: AUO trial AH 01/94 by the
German Testicular Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 26:2966-2972, 2008
35. Reference deleted
36. Donohue JP, Thornhill JA, Foster RS, et al: The role of retroperitoneal
lymphadenectomy in clinical stage B testis cancer: The Indiana University
experience (1965 to 1989). J Urol 153:85-89, 1995
37. Williams SD, Stablein DM, Einhorn LH, et al: Immediate adjuvant chemotherapy versus observation with treatment at relapse in pathological stage II
testicular cancer. N Engl J Med 317:1433-1438, 1987
38. Davis W, Larionov L: Progress in chemotherapy of cancer. Bull Wld Hlth
Org 30:327-341, 1964
39. Farber S, Toch R, Sears E, et al: Advances in chemotherapy of cancer in
man. Advances Cancer Res 4:1, 1956
40. Li M, Whitmore W, Golbey R, Grabstald H: Effects of combined drug
therapy on metastatic cancer of the testis. JAMA 174:145-153, 1960
41. Li M, Hertz R, Bergenstal D: Therapy of choriocarcinoma and related
trophoblastic tumors with folic acid and purine antagonists. N Engl J Med 259:66-74,
1958
42. Johnson I, Armstrong J, Gorman M, et al: The vinca alkaloids: A new class
of oncolytic agents. Cancer Res 23:1390-1426, 1963
43. Hertz R, Lipsett M, Moy R: Effects of vincaleukoblastine on metastatic
choriocarcinoma and related trophoblastic tumors in women. Cancer Res 20:
1050-1053, 1960
44. Samuels M, Howe C: Vinblastine in the management of testicular cancer.
Cancer 25:1009-1017, 1970
45. Blum R, Carter S, Agre K: A clinical review of bleomycin: A new
antineoplastic agent. Cancer 31:903-914, 1973
46. Samuels M, Johnson E, Holoye P: Continuous intravenous bleomycin
therapy with vinblastine in stage III testicular neoplasia. Cancer Chemother Rep
59:563-570, 1975
47. Rosenberg B, Vancamp L, Krigas T: Inhibition of cell division in escherichia
coli by electrolysis products from a platinum electrode. Nature 205:698-699, 1965
48. Hill J, Speer R, Loeb E, et al: Clinical experience with cis-platinous diamminochloride (PDD), in Hejzlar M (ed): Advances in Antimicrobial and Antineoplastic
Chemotherapy (vol 2). Baltimore, MD, University Park Press, 1972, p 255
49. Higby D, Wallace J, Albert D, Holland J: Diaminodichloroplatinum: A
phase I study showing responses in testicular cancer and other tumors. Cancer
33:1219-1225, 1974
50. Einhorn LH, Donohue J: Cis-diamminedichloroplatinum, vinblastine, and
bleomycin combination chemotherapy in disseminated testicular cancer. Ann
Intern Med 87:293-298, 1977
51. Einhorn L, Williams S: Chemotherapy of disseminated testicular cancer: A
random prospective study. Cancer 46:1339-1344, 1980
52. Stoter G, Sleyfer DT, ten Bokkel Huinink WW, et al: High-dose versus low-dose
vinblastine in cisplatin-vinblastine-bleomycin combination chemotherapy of nonseminomatous testicular cancer: A randomized study of the EORTC Genitourinary Tract
Cancer Cooperative Group. J Clin Oncol 4:1199-1206, 1986
53. Einhorn LH, Williams SD, Troner M, et al: The role of maintenance therapy
in disseminated testicular cancer. N Engl J Med 305:727-731, 1981
54. Meresse P, Dechaux E, Monneret C, et al: Etoposide: Discovery and
medicinal chemistry. Curr Med Chem 11:2443-2466, 2004
55. Stahelin H: Activity of a new glycosidic lignan derivative (VP 16-213)
related to podophyllotoxin in experimental tumors. Eur J Cancer 9:215, 1973
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Information downloaded from jco.ascopubs.org and provided by at IU Health on July 29, 2015 from 162.1.224.165
Copyright © 2014 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
ASCO 50th Anniversary
56. Fitzharris Bm, Kaye Sb, Saverymuttu, et al: VP 16-213 as a single agent in
advanced testicular tumors. Eur J Cancer 16:1193, 1980
57. Hainsworth JD, Williams SD, Einhorn LH, et al: Successful treatment of
resistant germinal neoplasms with VP-16 and cisplatin: Results of a Southeastern
Cancer Study Group trial. J Clin Oncol 3:666-671, 1985
58. Bosl G, Gluckman R, Geller N, et al: VAB-6: an effective chemotherapy
regimen for patients with germ cell tumors. J Clin Oncol 4:1493-1499, 1986
59. Bosl GJ, Geller NL, Bajorin D, et al: A randomized trial of etoposide ⫹
cisplatin versus vinblastine ⫹ bleomycin ⫹ cisplatin ⫹ cyclophosphamide ⫹
dactinomycin in patients with good-prognosis germ cell tumors. J Clin Oncol
6:1231-1238, 1988
60. Bosl G, Geller N, Cirrincione C, et al: Multivariate analysis of prognosis
variables in patients with metastatic testicular cancer. Cancer Res 43:3403-3407,
1983
61. Williams SD, Birch R, Einhorn LH, et al: Treatment of disseminated
germ-cell tumors with cisplatin, bleomycin, and either vinblastine or etoposide.
N Engl J Med 316:1435-1440, 1987
62. Toner G, Stockler M, Boyer, et al: Comparison of two standard chemotherapy regimens for good-prognosis germ-cell tumors: A randomized trial.
Lancet 357:739-745, 2001
63. Einhorn LH, Williams SD, Loehrer PJ, et al: Evaluation of optimal duration
of chemotherapy in favorable-prognosis disseminated germ cell tumors: A
Southeastern Cancer Study Group protocol. J Clin Oncol 7:387-391, 1989
64. de Wit R, Roberts T, Wilkinson P, et al: Equivalence of three or four cycles
of bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin chemotherapy and of a 3 or 5 day schedule
in good-prognosis germ cell cancer: A randomized study of the European
Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Genitourinary Tract Cancer
Cooperative Group and the Medical Research Council. J Clin Oncol 19:16291640, 2001
65. Culine S, Kerbrat P, Kramar A, et al: Refining the optimal chemotherapy
regimen for good-risk metastatic nonseminomatous germ-cell tumors: A randomized trial of the Genito-Urinary Group of the French Federation of Cancer Centers
(GETUG T93BP). Ann Oncol 18:917-924, 2007
66. International Germ Cell Consensus Classification: A prognostic factorbased staging system for metastatic germ cell cancers: International Germ Cell
Cancer Collaborative Group. J Clin Oncol 15:594-603, 1997
67. Herman T, Einhorn L, Jones S, et al: Superiority of nabilone over
prochloroperazine as an antiemetic in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy.
N Engl J Med 300:1295-1297, 1979
68. Albany C, Brames M, Fausel C, et al: Randomized, double-blind, placebo
controlled, phase III cross-over study evaluating the oral neurokinin-1 antagonist
Aprepitant in combination with a 5HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone
in patients with germ cell tumors receiving 5-day cisplatin combination chemotherapy regimens: A Hoosier Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 30:3998-4003,
2012
69. Samuels M, Johnson D, Holoye P, et al: Large-dose bleomycin therapy
and pulmonary toxicity: A possible role of prior radiotherapy. JAMA 235:11171120, 1976
70. de Wit R, Stoter G, Kaye S, et al: Importance of bleomycin in combination
chemotherapy for good-prognosis testicular nonseminoma: A randomized study
of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Genitourinary Tract Cancer Cooperative Group. J Clin Oncol 15:1837-1843, 1997
71. Levi J, Raghavan D, Harvey V, et al: The importance of bleomycin in
combination chemotherapy for good-prognosis germ cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol
11:1300-1305, 1993
72. Loehrer P, Johnson D, Elson P, et al: Importance of bleomycin in
favorable-prognosis disseminated germ cell tumors: An Eastern Cooperative
Oncology Group trial. J Clin Oncol 13:470-476, 1995
73. Bajorin DF, Sarosdy MF, Pfister DG, et al: Randomized trial of etoposide
and cisplatin versus etoposide and carboplatin in patients with good-risk germ cell
tumors: A multi-institutional study. J Clin Oncol 11:598-606, 1993
74. Bokemeyer C, Kohrmann O, Tischler J, et al: A randomized trial of
cisplatin, etoposide and bleomycin (PEB) versus carboplatin, etoposide and
bleomycin (CEB) for patients with ‘good-risk’ metastatic non-seminomatous
germ cell tumors. Ann Oncol 7:1015-1021, 1996
75. Nichols C, Williams S, Loehrer P, et al: Randomized study of cisplatin
dose intensity in poor-risk germ cell tumors: A Southeastern Cancer Study Group
and Southwestern Oncology Group protocol. J Clin Oncol 9:1163-1172, 1991
76. de Witt R, Skoneczna I, Daugaard G, et al: Randomized phase III study
comparing paclitaxel-bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) to standard BEP
in intermediate-prognosis germ-cell cancer: Intergroup study EORTC 30983.
J Clin Oncol 30:792-799, 2012
77. Nichols CR, Catalano PJ, Crawford ED, et al: Randomized comparison of
cisplatin and etoposide and either bleomycin or ifosfamide in treatment of
www.jco.org
advanced disseminated germ cell tumors: An Eastern Cooperative Oncology
Group, Southwest Oncology Group, and Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study
J Clin Oncol 16:1287-1293, 1998
78. Motzer RJ, Nichols CJ, Margolin KA, et al: Phase III randomized trial of
conventional-dose chemotherapy with or without high-dose chemotherapy and
autologous hematopoietic stem-cell rescue as first-line treatment for patients
with poor-prognosis metastatic germ cell tumors. J Clin Oncol 25:247-256, 2007
79. Droz JP, Kramar A, Biron P, et al: Failure of high-dose cyclophosphamide
and etoposide combined with double-dose cisplatin and bone marrow support in
patients with high-volume metastatic nonseminomatous germ-cell tumours:
Mature results of a randomised trial. Eur Urol 51:739-746, 2007
80. Daugaard G, Skoneczna I, Aass N, et al: A randomized phase III study
comparing standard dose BEP with sequential high-dose cisplatin, etoposide, and
ifosfamide (VIP) plus stem-cell support in males with poor-prognosis germ-cell
cancer: An intergroup study of EORTC, GTCSG, and Grupo Germinal (EORTC
30974). Ann Oncol 221054-1061, 2011
81. Fizazi K, Pagliaro L, Flechon A, et al: A phase III trial of personalized
chemotherapy based on serum tumor marker decline in poor-prognosis germ-cell
tumors: Results of GETUG 13. J Clin Oncol 31:284s, 2013 (abstr LBA 4500)
82. Loehrer PJ Sr, Einhorn LH, Williams SD: VP-16 plus ifosfamide plus cisplatin as
salvage therapy in refractory germ cell cancer. J Clin Oncol 4:528-536, 1986
83. Loehrer PJ Sr, Lauer R, Roth BJ, et al: Salvage therapy in recurrent germ
cell cancer: Ifosfamide and cisplatin plus either vinblastine or etoposide. Ann
Intern Med 109:540-546, 1988
84. Loehrer PJ Sr, Gonin R, Nichols CR, et al: Vinblastine plus ifosfamide plus
cisplatin as initial salvage therapy in recurrent germ cell tumor. J Clin Oncol
16:2500-2504, 1998
85. Motzer RJ, Sheinfeld J, Mazumdar M, et al: Paclitaxel, ifosfamide, and
cisplatin second-line therapy for patients with relapsed testicular germ cell
cancer. J Clin Oncol 18:2413-2418, 2000
86. Kondagunta GV, Bacik J, Donadio A, et al: Combination of paclitaxel,
ifosfamide, and cisplatin is an effective second-line therapy for patients with
relapsed testicular germ cell tumors. J Clin Oncol 23:6549-6555, 2005
87. Nichols CR, Tricot G, Williams SD, et al: Dose-intensive chemotherapy in
refractory germ cell cancer: A phase I/II trial of high-dose carboplatin and etoposide with
autologous bone marrow transplantation. J Clin Oncol 7:932-939, 1989
88. Beyer J, Schwella N, Zingsem J, et al: Hematopoietic rescue after
high-dose chemotherapy using autologous peripheral-blood progenitor cells or
bone marrow: A randomized comparison. J Clin Oncol 13:1328-1335, 1995
89. Einhorn LH, Williams SD, Chamness A, et al: High-dose chemotherapy
and stem-cell rescue for metastatic germ-cell tumors. N Engl J Med 357:340348, 2007
90. Feldman DR, Sheinfeld J, Bajorin DF, et al: TI-CE high-dose chemotherapy
for patients with previously treated germ cell tumors: Results and prognostic
factor analysis. J Clin Oncol 28:1706-1713, 2010
91. Lorch A, Bascoul-Mollevi C, Kramar A, et al: Conventional-dose versus
high-dose chemotherapy as first salvage treatment in male patients with metastatic germ cell tumors: Evidence from a large international database. J Clin
Oncol 29:2178-2184, 2011
92. van Walraven C, Fergusson D, Earle C, et al: Association of diagnostic
radiation exposure and second abdominal-pelvic malignancies after testicular
cancer. J Clin Oncol 29:2883-2888, 2011
93. Travis L, Beard C, Allan J, et al: Testicular cancer survivorship: Research
strategies and recommendations. J Natl Cancer Inst 102:1114-1130, 2010
94. van Leeuwen F, Stiggelbout A, van den Belt-Dusebout A, et al: Second
cancer risk following testicular cancer: A follow up study of 1,909 patients. J Clin
Oncol 11:415-425, 1993
95. Fung C, Fossa S, Milano M, et al: Solid tumors after chemotherapy or
surgery for testicular nonseminoma: A population-based study. J Clin Oncol
31:3807-3814, 2013
96. Abouassaly R, Fossa S, Giwerecman A, et al: Sequalae of treatment in
long-term survivors of testis cancer. Eur J Urol 60:516-626, 2011
97. Willemse P, Burggraaf J, Hamdy N, et al: Prevalence of the metabolic
syndrome and cardiovascular risk in chemotherapy-treated testicular germ cell
tumor survivors. Br J Cancer 109:60-67, 2013
98. Haugnes H, Wethal T, Aass N, et al: Cardiovascular risk factors and
morbidity in long-term survivors of testicular cancer: A 20-year follow-up study.
J Clin Oncol 28:4649-4657, 2010
99. van den Belt-Dusebout A, Nuver J, de Wit R, et al: Long-term risk of
cardiovascular disease in 5-year survivors of testicular cancer. J Clin Oncol
24:467-475, 2006
© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
Information downloaded from jco.ascopubs.org and provided by at IU Health on July 29, 2015 from 162.1.224.165
Copyright © 2014 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
3091
Hanna and Einhorn
100. Huddart R, Shahidi N, Horwich A, et al: Cardiovascular disease as a long-term
complication of treatment for testicular cancer. J Clin Oncol 21:1513-1523, 2003
101. Drasga R, Einhorn L, Williams S, et al: Fertility after chemotherapy for
testicular cancer. J Clin Oncol 3:179-183, 1983
102. Lampe H, Horwich A, Nicholls N, et al: Fertility after chemotherapy for
testicular germ cell cancers. J Clin Oncol 15:239-245, 1997
103. Shinn E, Swartz R, Thornton B, et al: Testis cancer survivors’ health
behaviors: Comparison with age-matched relative and demographically matched
population controls. J Clin Oncol 28:2274-2279, 2010
104. George D, Foster R, Hromas R, et al: Update on late relapse of germ cell
tumor: A clinical and molecular analysis. J Clin Oncol 21:113-122, 2003
105. Albany C, Satpute S, Brames M, et al: A retrospective analysis of patients
with intermediate risk germ cell tumor (IRGCT) treated at Indiana University from
2000-2010. J Clin Oncol 30:285s, 2012 (abstr 4534)
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.0896; published online ahead of print at
www.jco.org on July 14, 2014
■ ■ ■
ASCO Community Research Forum Annual Meeting
As part of ASCO’s efforts to support community-based researchers, this meeting provides a unique opportunity to discuss
barriers and develop solutions to common challenges that are faced in the community research setting, and provides a
forum to:
● Collaborate and network with colleagues
● Discuss barriers to conducting research
● Work to develop strategies to effectively conduct community-based research
● Influence the direction of ASCO initiatives
● Provide input on policy issues affecting clinical research
Space is limited, so register early! For more information, visit asco.org/communityresearchforum.
3092
© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Information downloaded from jco.ascopubs.org and provided by at IU Health on July 29, 2015 from 162.1.224.165
Copyright © 2014 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
ASCO 50th Anniversary
Acknowledgment
L.H.E. was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute Grant No. R01 CA157823-01A1.
www.jco.org
© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
Information downloaded from jco.ascopubs.org and provided by at IU Health on July 29, 2015 from 162.1.224.165
Copyright © 2014 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.