Management of low-stage nonseminomatous germ cell tumors of testis: SIU/ICUD Consensus Meeting on Germ Cell Tumors (GCT), Shanghai 2009.

OBJECTIVE

To advise urologists and other clinicians on the appropriate management of low-stage (clinical Stage [CS] I, IS, IIA, and IIB) nonseminomatous germ cell tumors of the testis.

METHODS

A panel was convened of experts from 5 countries. A literature search in MEDLINE was used to identify evidence from relevant studies on the outcome and toxicity of observational, surgical, and chemotherapeutic approaches for low-stage nonseminomatous germ cell tumors to form the basis of the panel's recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel has recommended the treatment of nonseminomatous germ cell tumors in centers with medical, surgical, and diagnostic expertise in testicular cancer. The cancer-specific survival rate for CS I and CS IIA-IIB should approach 100% and 95%-100%, respectively. Patients with CS I should be made aware of all treatments (ie, surveillance, primary chemotherapy, and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection) and the potential side effects. For patients with CS I at low risk of occult metastasis, surveillance is preferred. For patients at high risk of occult metastasis, all 3 options can be considered. For immediate treatment, the choice between primary chemotherapy and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection should be determined by patient preference and the specific expertise of the treating institution. Patients with increasing postorchiectomy serum α-fetoprotein or human choriogonadotropin levels (CS IS and CS IIA-IIB) should receive induction chemotherapy. Induction chemotherapy or retroperitoneal lymph node dissection can be considered for patients with CS IIA-IIB with normal postorchiectomy α-fetoprotein and human choriogonadotropin levels. Surveillance can be considered for patients with equivocal computed tomography retroperitoneal findings who are otherwise at low risk of metastatic disease.

CONCLUSION

These clinical practice guidelines are designed to improve clinical practice from the available evidence and the expert opinion of the panel. As such, deviation from these recommendations should be based on sound clinical judgment, considering the unique situation of the patient and the expertise of the treating physician and institution.