Cargando…

Evaluation of a prognostic model for risk of relapse in stage I seminoma surveillance

A prognostic model for relapse risk in stage I seminoma managed by surveillance after orchiectomy has been developed but has not been independently validated. Individual data on 685 stage I seminoma surveillance patients managed between 1998 and 2005 at three cancer centers were retrospectively anal...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chung, Peter, Daugaard, Gedske, Tyldesley, Scott, Atenafu, Eshetu G, Panzarella, Tony, Kollmannsberger, Christian, Warde, Padraig
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BlackWell Publishing Ltd 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4312129/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25236854
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.324
_version_ 1782355101738860544
author Chung, Peter
Daugaard, Gedske
Tyldesley, Scott
Atenafu, Eshetu G
Panzarella, Tony
Kollmannsberger, Christian
Warde, Padraig
author_facet Chung, Peter
Daugaard, Gedske
Tyldesley, Scott
Atenafu, Eshetu G
Panzarella, Tony
Kollmannsberger, Christian
Warde, Padraig
author_sort Chung, Peter
collection PubMed
description A prognostic model for relapse risk in stage I seminoma managed by surveillance after orchiectomy has been developed but has not been independently validated. Individual data on 685 stage I seminoma surveillance patients managed between 1998 and 2005 at three cancer centers were retrospectively analyzed. Variables including age and pathology of the primary tumor: small vessel invasion, tumor size, and invasion of rete testis were analyzed. Specifically median tumor size and rete testis invasion was tested to evaluate the performance of the published model. Median follow-up was 3.85 years (0.1–10.29), 88 patients relapsed and 5-year relapse-free rate was 85%. In univariate analysis, median tumor size (<3 cm vs. ≥3 cm) was associated with increased risk of relapse but rete testis invasion was not, nor was age and small vessel invasion. In multivariable analysis, tumor size above median (cutpoint of 3 cm) was a predictor for relapse, HR 1.87 (95% CI 1.15, 3.06), whereas rete testis invasion HR 1.36, (95% CI 0.81, 2.28) was not statistically significant. The 3-year relapse risk based on the primary tumor size alone increased from 9% for 1 cm primary tumor to 26% for 8 cm tumor. A clinically useful, highly discriminating prognostic model remains elusive in stage I seminoma surveillance as we were unable to validate the previously developed model. However, primary tumor size retained prognostic importance and a scale of relapse risk based on the unit increment of tumor size was developed to help guide patients and clinicians in decision making.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4312129
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BlackWell Publishing Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43121292015-02-09 Evaluation of a prognostic model for risk of relapse in stage I seminoma surveillance Chung, Peter Daugaard, Gedske Tyldesley, Scott Atenafu, Eshetu G Panzarella, Tony Kollmannsberger, Christian Warde, Padraig Cancer Med Cancer Prevention A prognostic model for relapse risk in stage I seminoma managed by surveillance after orchiectomy has been developed but has not been independently validated. Individual data on 685 stage I seminoma surveillance patients managed between 1998 and 2005 at three cancer centers were retrospectively analyzed. Variables including age and pathology of the primary tumor: small vessel invasion, tumor size, and invasion of rete testis were analyzed. Specifically median tumor size and rete testis invasion was tested to evaluate the performance of the published model. Median follow-up was 3.85 years (0.1–10.29), 88 patients relapsed and 5-year relapse-free rate was 85%. In univariate analysis, median tumor size (<3 cm vs. ≥3 cm) was associated with increased risk of relapse but rete testis invasion was not, nor was age and small vessel invasion. In multivariable analysis, tumor size above median (cutpoint of 3 cm) was a predictor for relapse, HR 1.87 (95% CI 1.15, 3.06), whereas rete testis invasion HR 1.36, (95% CI 0.81, 2.28) was not statistically significant. The 3-year relapse risk based on the primary tumor size alone increased from 9% for 1 cm primary tumor to 26% for 8 cm tumor. A clinically useful, highly discriminating prognostic model remains elusive in stage I seminoma surveillance as we were unable to validate the previously developed model. However, primary tumor size retained prognostic importance and a scale of relapse risk based on the unit increment of tumor size was developed to help guide patients and clinicians in decision making. BlackWell Publishing Ltd 2015-01 2014-09-19 /pmc/articles/PMC4312129/ /pubmed/25236854 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.324 Text en © 2014 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Cancer Prevention
Chung, Peter
Daugaard, Gedske
Tyldesley, Scott
Atenafu, Eshetu G
Panzarella, Tony
Kollmannsberger, Christian
Warde, Padraig
Evaluation of a prognostic model for risk of relapse in stage I seminoma surveillance
title Evaluation of a prognostic model for risk of relapse in stage I seminoma surveillance
title_full Evaluation of a prognostic model for risk of relapse in stage I seminoma surveillance
title_fullStr Evaluation of a prognostic model for risk of relapse in stage I seminoma surveillance
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of a prognostic model for risk of relapse in stage I seminoma surveillance
title_short Evaluation of a prognostic model for risk of relapse in stage I seminoma surveillance
title_sort evaluation of a prognostic model for risk of relapse in stage i seminoma surveillance
topic Cancer Prevention
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4312129/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25236854
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.324
work_keys_str_mv AT chungpeter evaluationofaprognosticmodelforriskofrelapseinstageiseminomasurveillance
AT daugaardgedske evaluationofaprognosticmodelforriskofrelapseinstageiseminomasurveillance
AT tyldesleyscott evaluationofaprognosticmodelforriskofrelapseinstageiseminomasurveillance
AT atenafueshetug evaluationofaprognosticmodelforriskofrelapseinstageiseminomasurveillance
AT panzarellatony evaluationofaprognosticmodelforriskofrelapseinstageiseminomasurveillance
AT kollmannsbergerchristian evaluationofaprognosticmodelforriskofrelapseinstageiseminomasurveillance
AT wardepadraig evaluationofaprognosticmodelforriskofrelapseinstageiseminomasurveillance