Der Onkologe

, Volume 14, Issue 6, pp 593–601 | Cite as

Behandlung von Patienten mit metastasierten Keimzelltumoren

  • C. Kollmannsberger
  • K. Oechsle
  • F. Honecker
  • F. Mayer
  • C. Bokemeyer
Leitthema
First Online:
  • 66 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Hodentumoren stellen insgesamt eine seltene Tumorentität dar. Die Inzidenz von Hodentumoren, insbesondere der Frühstadien, ist jedoch deutlich ansteigend. Die optimale Behandlung dieser Patienten erfordert die enge Kooperation von Onkologen, Urologen und Strahlentherapeuten an erfahrenen Zentren. Die Prognose von Hodentumorpatienten ist ausgezeichnet und Überlebensraten variieren abhängig von Tumorstadium und prognostischen Faktoren zwischen 50–99%. Die Behandlungsintensität für Hodentumorpatienten ist dem individuellen Tumorstadium und den vorliegenden Prognosefaktoren angepasst. Der vorliegende Artikel fasst die derzeitigen Behandlungskonzepte für Patienten mit metastasierten Hodentumoren unter Berücksichtigung der Empfehlungen der europäischen evidenzbasierten Konsensuskonferenzrichtlinien zusammen.

Schlüsselwörter

Keimzelltumoren Kooperation Prognose Behandlungskonzepte Evidenzbasierte Konsensuskonferenzrichtlinien 

Treatment of patients with metastatic germ cell tumors

Abstract

Testicular cancers are a rare tumor entity. The incidence of testicular cancer, in particular in early stages, has markedly increased over the past 3 decades. The optimal treatment of these patients requires close cooperation between medical oncologists, urologists, and radiation oncologists in experienced centers. The prognosis of testicular cancer patients is excellent and survival rates vary depending upon tumor stage and prognostic factors between 50 and 99%. The treatment intensity for testicular cancer patients is adapted to the individual tumor stage and prognostic factors present. The present review summarizes the current treatment strategies for patients with metastatic testicular cancer taking the recommendations of the European evidence-based consensus conference guidelines into account.

Keywords

Germ cell tumors Cooperation Prognosis Treatment strategies Evidence-based consensus conference guidelines 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Mead G for the IGCCCG (1997) International Germ Cell Consensus Classification: a prognostic factor-based staging system for metastatic germ cell cancers. International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group. J Clin Oncol 15: 594–603Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weissbach L, Bussar MR, Flechtner H et al. (2000) RPLND or primary chemotherapy in clinical stage IIA/B nonseminomatous germ cell tumors? Results of a prospective multicenter trial including quality of life assessment. Eur Urol 37: 582–594PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kuczyk M, Machtens S, Stief C, Jonas U (1999) Management of the post-chemotherapy residual mass in patients with advanced stage non-seminomatous germ cell tumors (NSGCT). Int J Cancer 83: 852–855PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Albers P, Siener R, Krege S et al. (2006) One course of adjuvant PEB chemotherapy versus retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in patients with stage I non-seminomatous germ-cell tumors (NSGCT): results of the German Prospective Multicenter Trial (Association of Urological Oncology [AUO]/German testicular cancer study group [GTCSG] Trial 01–94). J Clinl Oncol, 2006 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings Part I. 24: 4512Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donohue JP, Thornhill JA, Foster RS et al. (1993) Retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for clinical stage A testis cancer (1965 to 1989): modifications of technique and impact on ejaculation. J Urol 149: 237–243PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sheinfeld J, Motzer RJ, Rabbani F et al. (2003) Incidence and clinical outcome of patients with teratoma in the retroperitoneum following primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for clinical stages I and IIA nonseminomatous germ cell tumors. [see comment]. J Urol 170: 1159–1162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Williams SD, Stablein DM, Einhorn LH et al. (1987) Immediate adjuvant chemotherapy versus observation with treatment at relapse in pathological stage II testicular cancer. N Engl J Med 317: 1433–1438PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weissbach L, Hartlapp JH (1991) Adjuvant chemotherapy of metastatic stage II nonseminomatous testis tumor. J Urol 146: 1295–1298PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Williams SD, Birch R, Einhorn LH et al. (1987) Treatment of disseminated germ-cell tumors with cisplatin, bleomycin, and either vinblastine or etoposide. N Engl J Med 316: 1435–1440PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saxman SB, Finch D, Gonin R, Einhorn LH (1998) Long-term follow-up of a phase III study of three versus four cycles of bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin in favorable-prognosis germ-cell tumors: The Indiana University experience. J Clin Oncol 16: 702–706PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wit R de, Roberts JT, Wilkinson P et al. (2001) 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: 1629–1640PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fossa SD, Wit R de, Roberts JT et al. (2003) Quality of life in good prognosis patients with metastatic germ cell cancer: a prospective study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Genitourinary Group/Medical Research Council Testicular Cancer Study Group (30941/TE20). J Clin Oncol 21: 1107–1118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bokemeyer C, Kohrmann O, Tischler J et al. (1996) 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: 1015–1021PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Horwich A, Sleijfer DT, Fossa SD et al. (1997) Randomized trial of bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin compared with bleomycin, etoposide, and carboplatin in good-prognosis metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell cancer: a Multiinstitutional Medical Research Council/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Trial. J Clin Oncol 15: 1844–1852PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wit R de, Stoter G, Kaye SB et al. (1997) 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: 1837–1843PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Loehrer-PJ Sr, Johnson D, Elson P et al. (1995) Importance of bleomycin in favorable-prognosis disseminated germ cell tumors: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trial. J Clin Oncol 13: 470–476PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Culine S, Kerbrat P, Kramar A et al. (2007) 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: 917–924PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kondagunta GV, Bacik J, Bajorin D et al. (2005) Etoposide and cisplatin chemotherapy for metastatic good-risk germ cell tumors. J Clin Oncol 23: 9290–9294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wit R de, Louwerens M, Mulder PHM de et al. (1999) Management of intermediate prognosis germ cell cancer: results of a phase I/II study of taxol-BEP. Int J Cancer 83: 831–833PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nichols CR, Catalano PJ, Crawford ED et al. (1998) Randomized comparison of cisplatin and etoposide and either bleomycin or ifosfamide in treatment of advanced disseminated germ cell tumors: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, Southwest Oncology Group, and Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study. J Clin Oncol 16: 1287–1293PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kaye SB, Mead GM, Fossa SD et al. (1998) Intensive induction-sequential chemotherapy with BOP/VIP-B compared with treatment with BEP/EP for poor prognosis metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumor: A randomized Medical Research Council/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer study. J Clin Oncol 16: 692–701PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wit R de, Stoter G, Sleijfer DT et al. (1995) Four cycles of BEP versus an alternating regime of PVB and BEP in patients with poor-prognosis metastatic testicular non-seminoma; a randomised study of the EORTC Genitourinary Tract Cancer Cooperative Group. Br J Cancer 71: 1311–1314PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Culine J, Kramar A, Théodore C et al. (2008) Randomized trial comparing bleomycin/etoposide/cisplatin with alternating cisplatin/cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin and vinblastine/bleomycin regimens of chemotherapy for patients with intermediate- and poor-risk metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumors: Genito-Urinary Group of the French Federation of Cancer Centers Trial T93MP. J Clin Oncol 26: 421–427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nichols CR, Williams SD, Loehrer PJ et al. (1991) Randomized study of cisplatin dose intensity in poor-risk germ cell tumors: a Southeastern Cancer Study Group and Southwest Oncology Group protocol. J Clin Oncol 9: 1163–1172PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schmoll HJ, Kollmannsberger C, Metzner B et al. (2003) Long-term results of first-line sequential high-dose etoposide, ifosfamide, and cisplatin chemotherapy plus autologous stem cell support for patients with advanced metastatic germ cell cancer: an extended phase I/II study of the German Testicular Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 21: 4083–4091PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bokemeyer C, Kollmannsberger C, Meisner C et al. (1999) First-line high-dose chemotherapy compared to standard-dose PEB/VIP chemotherapy in patients with advanced germ cell tumors: a multivariate and matched pair analysis. J Clin Oncol 17: 3450–3456PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Motzer RJ, Nichols CJ, Margolin KA et al. (2007) 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: 247–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mazumdar M, Bajorin DF, Bacik J et al. (2001) Predicting outcome to chemotherapy in patients with germ cell tumors: the value of the rate of decline of human chorionic gonadotrophin and alpha-fetoprotein during therapy. J Clin Oncol 19: 2534–2541PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fizazi K, Culine S, Kramar A et al. (2004) Early predicted time to normalization of tumor markers predicts outcome in poor-prognosis nonseminomatous germ cell tumors. J Clin Oncol 22: 3868–3876PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Toner GC, Stockler MR, Boyer MJ et al. (2001) Comparison of two standard chemotherapy regimens for good-prognosis germ-cell tumours: a randomised trial. Australian and New Zealand Germ Cell Trial Group. Lancet 357: 739–745PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Collette L, Sylvester RJ, Stenning SP et al. (1999) Impact of the treating institution on survival of patients with „poor-prognosis“ metastatic nonseminoma. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Genito-Urinary Tract Cancer Collaborative Group and the Medical Research Council Testicular Cancer Working Party [see comments]. J Natl Cancer Inst 91: 839–846PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Feuer EJ, Sheinfeld J, Bosl GJ (1999) Does size matter? Association between number of patients treated and patient outcome in metastatic testicular cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 91: 816–818PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Albers P, Weissbach L, Krege S et al. (2004) Predictions of necrosis after chemotherapy of advanced germ cell tumors: results of a prospective multicenter trial of the German Testicular Cancer Study Group. J Urol 171: 1835–1838PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mosharafa AA, Foster RS, Leibovich BC et al. (2003) Is post-chemotherapy resection of seminomatous elements associated with higher acute morbidity? J Urol 169: 2126–2128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    De Santis M, Becherer A, Bokemeyer C et al. (2004) 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: 1034–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Debono DJ, Heilman DK, Einhorn LH, Donohue JP (1997) Decision analysis for avoiding postchemotherapy surgery in patients with disseminated nonseminomatous germ cell tumors [see comments]. J Clin Oncol 15: 1455–1464PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Steyerberg EW, Gerl A, Fossa SD et al. (1998) Validity of predictions of residual retroperitoneal mass histology in nonseminomatous testicular cancer. J Clin Oncol 16: 269–274PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hartmann JT, Candelaria M, Kuczyk MA et al. (1997) Comparison of histological results from the resection of residual masses at different sites after chemotherapy for metastatic non-seminomatous germ cell tumours. Eur J Cancer 33: 843–847PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Toner GC, Panicek DM, Heelan RT et al. (1990) Adjunctive surgery after chemotherapy for nonseminomatous germ cell tumors: recommendations for patient selection. J Clin Oncol 8: 1683–1694PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stephenson AJ, Bosl GJ, Motzer RJ et al. (2005) Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for nonseminomatous germ cell testicular cancer: impact of patient selection factors on outcome. J Clin Oncol 23: 2781–2788PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fizazi K, Tjulandin S, Salvioni R et al. (2001) Viable malignant cells after primary chemotherapy for disseminated nonseminomatous germ cell tumors: prognostic factors and role of postsurgery chemotherapy–results from an international study group. J Clin Oncol 19: 2647–2657PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bosl GJ, Geller NL, Bajorin D et al. (1988) A randomized trial of etoposide + cisplatin versus vinblastine + bleomycin + cisplatin + cyclophosphamide + dactinomycin in patients with good-prognosis germ cell tumors. J Clin Oncol 6: 1231–1238PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bajorin DF, Sarosdy MF, Pfister DG et al. (1993) Randomized trial of etoposide and cisplatin versus etoposide and carboplatin in patients with good-risk germ cell tumors: a multiinstitutional study. J Clin Oncol 11: 598–606PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ozols RF, Ihde DC, Linehan WM et al. (1988) A randomized trial of standard chemotherapy versus a high-dose chemotherapy regimen in the treatment of poor prognosis nonseminomatous germ-cell tumors. J Clin Oncol 6: 1031–1040PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wozniak AJ, Samson MK, Shah NT et al. (1991) A randomized trial of cisplatin, vinblastine, and bleomycin versus vinblastine, cisplatin, and etoposide in the treatment of advanced germ cell tumors of the testis: a Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 9: 70–76PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Kollmannsberger
    • 1
  • K. Oechsle
    • 2
  • F. Honecker
    • 2
  • F. Mayer
    • 3
  • C. Bokemeyer
    • 2
  1. 1.Div. of Medical OncologyUniversity of British Columbia,British Columbia Cancer Agency – Vancouver Cancer CenterVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Klinik für Hämatology / Onkologie / Knochenmarktransplantation und Sektion PneumologieUniversitätsklinik Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgDeutschland
  3. 3.Medizinische Klinik IIUniversitätsklinik TübingenTübingenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations