Carboplatin for Stage I Seminoma and the Sword of Damocles

Phase II study of radiation therapy combined with weekly low-dose gemcitabine for locally advanced, unresectable pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Through a phase I study with a fixed radiation dose of 54 Gy and escalating doses of weekly gemcitabine, we established a recommended dose of gemcitabine at 250 mg/m in combination with radiation therapy for patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this phase-II study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the regimen which was established in the phase I study.

METHODS

In all patients with unresectable stage III and limited stage IV pancreatic cancer with no distant metastasis except for para-aortic lymph node involvement at a level as low as the left renal vein, a total dose of 54 Gy was delivered in 30 fractions of 1.8 Gy/d. Gemcitabine was given weekly at a dose of 250 mg/m.

RESULTS

Between December 2002 and March 2006, 22 patients were enrolled in this study and one withdrew after enrollment. Twenty of 21 patients (95%) completed the protocol therapy. Radiologic partial response was observed in 6 and stable disease was noted in 15. Normalization of the tumor marker (CA19-9) occurred in 61% of patients. The 1-year survival rate was 74% and the median survival time was 16.6 months. The major toxicity was leucopenia; grade 3 in 14 (67%), anorexia grade 3 in 2 (9.5%), and grade 3 gastric ulcer in 2 (10%) in National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0 (NCI-CTCAE v3.0). Neither grade 4 nor 5 was recognized.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with gemcitabine combined with radiation therapy according to the present schedule is well tolerated and can provide prolonged survival in patients with localized, unresectable pancreatic cancer.

Management options for stage I seminoma

Stage I seminoma is the most common clinical scenario among patients with testicular cancer. Following orchiectomy, various treatment alternatives (adjuvant radiotherapy, surveillance, chemotherapy) can be offered that yield similar efficacy results and definitive cure is the rule. However, there is no consensus on the optimal management choice and considerable debate has been raised in recent years. The pros and the cons associated with each therapy, as well as their long-term outcomes are discussed in this review. Overall burden of treatment needed, therapy-related morbidity, economic costs, quality of life issues and patient preferences should all be considered. Refinement in the knowledge of predictive factors for relapse and mounting experience with both surveillance and adjuvant chemotherapy have led to consideration of risk-adapted treatment strategies as an alternative to standard radiotherapy. Although this model needs to be improved and validated, active close surveillance for low-risk patients and adjuvant therapy for those uncompliant or at higher risk of relapse seem to be acceptable options for patients with stage I seminoma.

Stage I testicular seminoma: management and controversies

Seminomas constitute more than half of testicular germ-cell tumours and 70-80% of patients with seminoma present with clinical stage I disease. Post-orchiectomy, management options include irradiation, surveillance or chemotherapy. Adjuvant irradiation to the infradiaphragmatic lymph nodes is the standard of care with relapse rates of 3-4%. Long-term follow-up data have shown association with late complications (cardiotoxicity, second malignancy, fertility impairment). Surveillance is an attractive alternative but relapse rates are higher ranging between 15 and 20%. Single agent carboplatin chemotherapy has demonstrated survival data equivalent to radiotherapy but long-term relapse and toxicity data are yet to be confirmed. Routine follow-up after irradiation and the role of risk stratification also remain unclear. Highly curative rates can be attained by all three modalities. Standard treatment with radiotherapy is challenged by surveillance and chemotherapy. Toxicity issues and patients' preferences are considered when management decisions are made.

Clinical Stage I Seminoma

Stage I seminoma is highly curable. There are different treatment options for this disease: radiotherapy, surveillance and chemotherapy. In recent years, adjuvant chemotherapy in particular has been extensively evaluated. This paper offers suggestions about the advantages and disadvantages of the different strategies, which will be discussed considering prognostic factors; future perspectives will also be evaluated. Through a review of the literature and their clinical experience, the authors outline the importance of prognostic factors in the management of patients suffering from seminomas.

Although no treatment modalities have demonstrated survival advantages over others, acute and late side effects, acceptability and quality of life are the main elements of comparison between them. Our findings support the hypothesis that the final decision about the treatment of these tumors depends essentially on three different aspects: risk factors, the patient's own preferences, and single-center expertise. These aspects should play a fundamental role in the final decision-making.

Adjuvant treatment in the management of testis-confined germ cell tumours after orchidectomy

Germ cell tumours are highly curable, especially when still at the localized stage, which is the case for most testicular tumours. Various options are available for organ-confined disease; depending on the histological review, patients with clinical stage I seminomas can be offered radiotherapy, surveillance or chemotherapy, whereas those with clinical stage I nonseminomas can be offered retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, surveillance or chemotherapy. As it is unlikely that any of these approaches will have a clear survival advantage, the most appropriate variables to be considered are acute and late side-effects, acceptability and quality of life. In recent years adjuvant chemotherapy has been extensively evaluated in patients with seminoma or nonseminoma. In this review we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the different strategies for treating seminomas and nonseminomas, and their associated prognostic factors, and then consider future developments.

Controversies in the Management of Clinical Stage I Testis Cancer

During the last two decades, definitive primary treatments and surveillance with definitive treatment deferred until relapse have demonstrated 98% to 99% cure rates in patients with stage I testis cancer, and these options have obtained firm positions in standard management. The development of optimal management strategies in various countries were at least partly guided by available surgical expertise in retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in the United States, and easy access to reference hospitals in densely populated countries in Western Europe that facilitated close surveillance programs; hence, treatment preferences differ on the two sides of the Atlantic. The success of both approaches is highly dependent on the skills of the practitioner, particularly of surgery and of scrutinized surveillance. As a result, local expertise and familiarity with a chosen modality has strengthened over the years, and investigators have been reluctant to embark on randomized trials designed to compare one modality with another. Such expertise with one particular technique, with the other approach being less familiar territory, has created controversy, because both physicians and patients seek evidence-based data coming from randomized clinical trials on which to make management decisions. Moreover, the reduced risk of relapse resulting from the use of radiotherapy or carboplatin in stage I seminoma and of cisplatin-based chemotherapy in stage I nonseminoma must be balanced against the potential long-term adverse effects in this population of patients with a normal life expectancy. The purpose of this review is to present the currently available data and discuss the merits and the disadvantages of the various approaches, yielding to the possible conclusion that all options appear to be equal in terms of efficacy, but that modality-associated adverse effects differ.