Oncological outcomes in patients with stage I testicular seminoma and nonseminoma: pathological risk factors for relapse and feasibility of surveillance after orchiectomy
1 Department of Urology, Niigata Cancer Center Hospital, Kawagishi-cho 2, Niigata 951-8566, Japan
2 Department of Pathology, Niigata Cancer Center Hospital, Kawagishi-cho 2, Niigata 951-8133, Japan
3 Division of Urology, Department of Regenerative and Transplant Medicine, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata University, Asahimachi 1, Niigata 951-8510, Japan
4 Division of Molecular Oncology, Department of Signal Transduction Research, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata University, Asahimachi 1, Niigata, 951-8510, Japan
Diagnostic Pathology 2013, 8:57 doi:10.1186/1746-1596-8-57Published: 8 April 2013
Surveillance after orchiectomy has recently been a management option in patients with stage I seminoma, while it remains controversial in those with stage I nonseminoma, and the risk factor associated with relapse is still a matter of concern in both entities. This study was performed to explore pathological risk factors for post-orchiectomy relapse in patients with stage I seminoma and nonseminoma, and to assess oncological outcomes in those managed with surveillance.
In this single institution study, 118 and 40 consecutive patients with stage I seminoma and nonseminoma were reviewed, respectively. Of the 118 patients with stage I seminoma, 56 and one received adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy, respectively, and 61 were managed with surveillance. Of the 40 men with stage I nonseminoma, 4 underwent adjuvant chemotherapy and 36 were managed with surveillance.
No patient had cause-specific death during the mean observation period of 104 and 99 months in men with seminoma and nonseminoma, respectively. In men with stage I seminoma, 1 (1.7%) receiving radiotherapy and 4 (6.6%) men managed with surveillance had disease relapse; the 10-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rate was 93.4% in men managed with surveillance, and their RFS was not different from that in patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy (logrank P=0.15). Patients with tunica albuginea involvement showed a poorer RFS than those without (10-year RFS rate 80.0% vs. 94.1%), although the difference was of borderline significance (P=0.09). In men with stage I nonseminoma, 9 (22.5%) patients experienced relapse. Patients with lymphovascular invasion seemingly had a poorer RFS than those without; 40.0% and 18.7% of the patients with and without lymphovascular invasion had disease relapse, respectively, although the difference was not significant (logrank P=0.17).
In both men with stage I seminoma and nonseminoma, surveillance after orchiectomy is a feasible option. However, disease extension through tunica albuginea might be a factor associated with disease relapse in patients with organ-confined seminoma, and those with stage I nonseminoma showing lymphovascular invasion may possibly be at high risk for disease relapse.