Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Urology. 2011 Oct;78(4 Suppl):S435-43. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.02.031.

Management of localized seminoma, stage I-II: SIU/ICUD Consensus Meeting on Germ Cell Tumors (GCT), Shanghai 2009.

Author information

1
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. padraig.warde@rmp.uhn.on.ca

Abstract

The treatment of patients with Stage I-II seminoma has changed considerably in the past decade, and in November 2009, an International Consensus meeting was held under the sponsorship of the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC), Société Internationale d'Urologie (SIU), and International Consultation on Urological Diseases (ICUD) to review recent updates in the published data and develop international consensus guidelines on the treatment of this group of patients. In Stage I disease, the consensus conference recommended that patients should be informed of all treatment options, including the potential benefits and side effects of each treatment. It was agreed that this discussion should include a review of the possible salvage treatment effects. In addition, in patients willing and able to adhere to a surveillance program, this should be considered the management option of choice (assuming facilities are available for suitable monitoring). For Stage IIA disease, the consensus conference recommended that radiotherapy should be considered the standard treatment in the absence of contraindications. For Stage IIB disease, chemotherapy or radiotherapy were considered reasonable treatment approaches, and for Stage IIC disease, chemotherapy should be considered the standard treatment approach. For patients with a residual mass after chemotherapy, the consensus conference noted that patients with masses <3 cm in diameter could likely be safely observed, and patients with residual masses >3 cm in diameter could be considered for immediate surgery or close observation. It was also noted that surgery in this setting is technically challenging and could be associated with greater morbidity than in patients with nonseminomatous tumors.

PMID:
21986223
DOI:
10.1016/j.urology.2011.02.031
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center