Testis Cancer Testis Cancer The Management of Residual The Management of Residual Masses Post-chemotherapy Masses Post-chemotherapy Dr Manish I. Patel Dr Manish I. Patel Urologic Oncologist Urologic Oncologist Westmead Hospital / University of Westmead Hospital / University of Sydney Sydney
25
Embed
Testis Cancer The Management of Residual Masses Post-chemotherapy Dr Manish I. Patel Urologic Oncologist Westmead Hospital / University of Sydney.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Testis CancerTestis CancerThe Management of Residual Masses The Management of Residual Masses
Post-chemotherapy Post-chemotherapy
Dr Manish I. PatelDr Manish I. Patel
Urologic OncologistUrologic Oncologist
Westmead Hospital / University of SydneyWestmead Hospital / University of Sydney
Questions to be Answered.Questions to be Answered.
• Do all masses have to be resected or can the histology be accurately predicted?
• Do normal (or minimal) residual masses in the RP need resection?
• Is a modified template safe?• Is nerve sparing safe?• Is there a place for surgery post salvage chemo?• When do you resect a post-chemo seminomatous
mass?• Is there any way to predict the histology?
NSGCT-Resection of tumor is important.NSGCT-Resection of tumor is important.
• Teratoma:– Chemo-resistant (Baniel et al. JCO 1995)
– Resection is curative.– Unpredictable malignant potential- TMT.– Late relapse.
• Median relapse time is 5-7 years.-flawed by short FU studies.
Resection of Viable Cancer is Important.Resection of Viable Cancer is Important.
• Complete resection for viable GCT– May be curative– Prognostic
Predicitive Factors of Outcome
In patients with viable cancer on
Multivariate analysis.
•Complete resection
•Proportion of viable cancer cells
•Good risk IGCCC criteria
Surgery for necrosis is not beneficial.Surgery for necrosis is not beneficial.
• Need to accurately predict those with necrosis.
• Minimise morbidity of surgery.
Accurately predicting the histology of PC Accurately predicting the histology of PC residual masses has been difficult.residual masses has been difficult.
Instit. Policy N Necrosis Teratoma Cancer
Resect None 716 45% 42% 13%
Indiana <10mm or >70%red+ 10 T. -ve 237 72% 23% 5%
Mass <10mm 204 70% 25% 5%
Steyerberg Prediction model >70% necrosisSteyerberg JCO 1998 16(1): 269-274
181 81% 13% 7%
Netherlands Mass < 10mm and 10 T. -ve 114 76% 17% 7%
ReHit Study Group716 PC RPLND Histology from 6 centers.>90% residual masses >5mmHistology of mass not resected by various policies
PC-RPLND Good Risk (IGCCCG) PatientsPC-RPLND Good Risk (IGCCCG) Patients
Histology of Residual Retroperitoneal MassHistology of Residual Retroperitoneal Mass Size: MSKCC Size: MSKCC
Residual RP
Mass Size
Total Cancer Teratoma Malignant Transformation
Necrosis
No Mass 41 0 15 (37%) 0 26 (63%)
<2cm 101 7 (7%) 26 (26%) 2 (2%) 66 (65%)
> 2cm and <5cm 41 3 (7%) 21 (51%) 0 17 (42%)
>5cm and <10cm 17 3 (18%) 10 (59%) 0 4 (24%)
>10cm and <20cm 5 0 3 (60%) 1 (20%) 1(20%)
Total 205 13 (6%) 75 (37%) 3 (2%) 114 (56%)
Patel et.al. presented AUA 2003
PC-RPLND Good Risk (IGCCCG) Patients PC-RPLND Good Risk (IGCCCG) Patients Presence of Teratoma in the Residual RP MassPresence of Teratoma in the Residual RP Mass
Residual Mass <2cm and Histology of Primary TumorResidual Mass <2cm and Histology of Primary TumorResidual Retroperitoneal
Mass Size
Teratoma in Primary
TotalTeratoma in
Retroperitoneum
No Mass+
-
18
23
10 (56%)
5 (22%)
>0cm and <0.5cm+
-
6
6
1 (17%)
2 (33%)
>0.5cm and <1.0cm+
-
8
16
2 (25%)
4 (25%)
>1.0cm and <1.5cm+
-
8
7
3 (38%)
1 (14%)
>1.5cm and >2.0cm+
-
6
12
5 (83%)
0
Total+
-
46
64
21 (46%)
12 (19%)
Patel et.al. presented AUA 2003
• 87 patients with PC masses <=20mm.
• 23 patients mass<=5mm
• All had RPLND
• Increasing incidence of teratoma with size of mass.
• No significant pre or post PC factor predicted necrosis.
Decision analysis model predicts increased survival Decision analysis model predicts increased survival with resection of minimal residual masses.with resection of minimal residual masses.
• Decision analysis model for estimating survival achieved by resection or observation of minimal residual masses.
According to the model:
Survival=+2 years with resection of masses 10-20mm.
Survival=+1 year with resection of masses 0-10mm.
Indiana University Outcomes of patients with RP disease Indiana University Outcomes of patients with RP disease who underwent induction chemotherapywho underwent induction chemotherapy
What type of surgery is required?What type of surgery is required?
• With extensive prechemo disease in the RP, a full bilateral dissection is required.– The incidence of tumor away from the primary landing
zone or main mass is common. (Donohue 1982 JUrol 127)
• The dissection may be limited when the prechemo disease is minimal and limited to the primary landing zone.– Advantage: limited morbidity– Disadvantage: RP recurrence
Only a small number of non-palapable tumors will be Only a small number of non-palapable tumors will be located outside the modified dissection template.located outside the modified dissection template.