The Value of Tumour Markers in the Detection of Relapse-Lessons Learned from the Swiss Austrian German Testicular Cancer Cohort Study.

The tumour markers alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), beta human chorionic gonadotropin (ßHCG), and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) have established roles in the management and follow-up of testicular cancer. While a tumour marker rise can serve as an indicator of relapse, the frequency of false-positive marker events has not been studied systematically in larger cohorts. We assessed the validity of serum tumour markers for the detection of relapse in the Swiss Austrian German Testicular Cancer Cohort Study (SAG TCCS). This registry was set up to answer questions on the diagnostic performance and impact of imaging and laboratory tests in the management of testicular cancer, and has included 948 patients between January 2014 and July 2021.A total of 793 patients with a median follow-up of 29.0 mo were included. In total, 71 patients (8.9%) had a proven relapse, which was marker positive in 31 patients (43.6%). Of all patients, 124 (15.6%) had an event of a false-positive marker elevation. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the markers was limited, highest for ßHCG (33.8%) and lowest for LDH (9.4%). PPV tended to increase with higher levels of elevation. These findings underline the limited accuracy of the conventional tumour markers to indicate or rule out a relapse. Especially, LDH as part of routine follow-up should be questioned. Patient summary: With the diagnosis of testicular cancer, the three tumour markers alpha-fetoprotein, beta human chorionic gonadotropin, and lactate dehydrogenase are routinely measured during follow-up to monitor for relapse. We demonstrate that these markers are often falsely elevated, and, by contrast, many patients do not have marker elevations despite a relapse. The results of this study can lead to improved use of these tumour markers during follow-up of testis cancer patients.

Impact of differing methodologies for serum miRNA-371a-3p assessment in stage I testicular germ cell cancer recurrence.

Introduction: Current evidence shows that serum miR-371a-3p can identify disease recurrence in testicular germ cell tumour (TGCT) patients and correlates with tumour load. Despite convincing evidence showing the advantages of including miR-371a-3p testing to complement and overcome the classical serum tumour markers limitations, the successful introduction of a serum miRNA based test into clinical practice has been impeded by a lack of consensus regarding optimal methodologies and lack of a universal protocol and thresholds. Herein, we investigate two quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) based pipelines in detecting disease recurrence in stage I TGCT patients under active surveillance, and compare the sensitivity and specificity for each method. Methods: Sequential serum samples collected from 33 stage I TGCT patients undergoing active surveillance were analysed for miR-371a-3p via qRT-PCR with and without an amplification step included. Results: Using a pre-amplified protocol, all known recurrences were detected via elevated miR-371a-3p expression, while without pre-amplification, we failed to detect recurrence in 3/10 known recurrence patients. For pre-amplified analysis, sensitivity and specificity was 90% and 94.4% respectively. Without amplification, sensitivity dropped to 60%, but exhibited 100% specificity. Discussion: We conclude that incorporating pre-amplification increases sensitivity of miR-371a-3p detection, but produces more false positive results. The ideal protocol for quantification of miR-371a-3p still needs to be determined. TGCT patients undergoing active surveillance may benefit from serum miR-371a-3p quantification with earlier detection of recurrences compared to current standard methods. However, larger cross-institutional studies where samples are processed and data is analysed in a standardised manner are required prior to its routine clinical implementation.

Metastatic Potential of Small Testicular Germ Cell Tumors: Implications for Surveillance of Small Testicular Masses.

Incidental detection of urogenital tumors has increased in recent decades owing to the greater use of ultrasonography and cross-sectional imaging. For patients with low-risk prostate cancer or small renal masses, active surveillance represents a valid treatment option. Similarly, for men with small testicular masses <10 mm, active surveillance has been discussed as an alternative to surgery, although little is known regarding the behavior of small testicular germ cell tumors (GCTs). In the Swiss Austrian German Testicular Cancer Cohort Study we identified 849 patients (546 seminoma, 303 nonseminoma) treated with radical inguinal orchiectomy for GCT with a median tumor diameter of 35 mm. A tumor diameter <10 mm was observed in 25 patients (13 seminoma, 12 nonseminoma). Of these, five patients (20%) presented with primary metastatic disease, all of whom had elevated tumor markers and nonseminomatous GCTs. Two patients (8%) with initially localized disease (1 seminoma, 1 nonseminoma) and without elevated tumor markers experienced relapse at 4 mo (nonseminoma) and 14 mo (seminoma) after orchiectomy, despite the fact that the latter had received adjuvant chemotherapy. These findings highlight the metastatic potential of small testicular GCTs and raise the question of whether active surveillance for small testicular masses is safe. Patient summary: This study on testicular cancer assesses the metastatic potential of small testicular germ cell tumors. Men with small testicular masses should be counseled about the malignant potential of small testicular germ cell tumors.

Detection of recurrences using serum miR-371a-3p during active surveillance in men with stage I testicular germ cell tumours.

BACKGROUND: MiR-371a-3p predicts the presence of a macroscopic non-teratomatous germ cell tumour (GCT). We hypothesised that miR-371a-3p can also detect recurrence during active surveillance (AS) of stage I GCT. METHODS: We prospectively collected serum samples of 33 men. Relative expression of serum miR-371a-3p levels was determined at each follow-up visit using real-time quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: Recurrence was detected using standard follow-up investigations in 10/33 patients (30%) after a median of 7 months. Directly after orchiectomy, miR-371a-3p levels were not elevated in any of the 15 patients with available post-orchiectomy samples. However, all ten recurring patients exhibited increasing miR-371a-3p levels during follow-up, while miR-371a-3p levels remained non-elevated in all but one patient without recurrence. MiR-371a-3p detected recurrences at a median of 2 months (range 0-5) earlier than standard follow-up investigations. CONCLUSIONS: MiR-371a-3p levels immediately post orchiectomy are not predictive for recurrences and unfortunately cannot support decision-making for AS vs. adjuvant treatment. However, miR-371a-3p detects recurrences reliably and earlier than standard follow-up investigations. If this can be confirmed in larger cohorts, monitoring miR-371a-3p could replace surveillance imaging in seminomatous GCT and reduce the amount of imaging in non-seminomatous GCT. Earlier detection of disease recurrence may also reduce the overall treatment burden.

Baseline characteristics and patterns of care in testicular cancer patients: first data from the Swiss Austrian German Testicular Cancer Cohort Study (SAG TCCS).

BACKGROUND: The majority of germ cell tumour (GCT) patients can be cured by orchiectomy followed by active surveillance or subsequent systemic and/or local treatments. There are various guidelines for a structured follow-up including radiographic and clinical examinations. OBJECTIVE: The Swiss Austrian German Testicular Cancer Cohort Study (SAG TCCS) prospectively evaluates follow-up, indicator of relapse and late toxicities. This is a descriptive analysis; we present baseline characteristics and treatment strategies for the first 299 patients with primary GCT or relapsed GCT after completion of treatment. RESULTS: Of the patients included in this study, 192 (64.2%) had seminoma and 107 (35.8%) non-seminoma. Mean age was 41 years (standard deviation [SD] 11.7) for seminoma and 31 (SD 9.3) years for non-seminoma patients. Median tumour size was 3.5 cm (interquartile range 2.5¬â€’5.0 and 2.3‒4.5 in seminoma and non-seminoma, respectively) in both histological groups. Among seminoma patients, 81 (42.2%) had primary tumours >4cm; 154 (80.2%) seminoma patients had stage I, 26 (13.5%) stage II and 12 (6.3%) stage III disease. Fifty-seven (53.3%) non-seminoma tumours were stage I, 29 (27.1%) stage II and 21 (19.6%) stage III. Marker-positive disease was present in 58 (30.2%) seminoma patients and 78 (72.9%) non-seminoma patients. Of 154 stage I seminoma patients, 89 (57.8%) chose active surveillance and 65 (42.2%) adjuvant chemotherapy. Twenty-six (45.6%) stage I non-seminoma patients had high-risk disease; 23 of these were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy and 3 chose active surveillance. Among the 30 (52.6%) low risk stage I patients, all opted for active surveillance. Twelve (46.2%) stage II seminoma patients had radiotherapy, 14 (53.8%) were treated with three to four cycles of chemotherapy. All stage III seminoma patients, and all stage II and III non-seminoma patients were treated with three to four cycles of chemotherapy. Treatment decisions were made at the respective centre. Eleven patients did not receive therapy that conformed with guidelines. CONCLUSION: It is important to enrol GCT patients in prospective studies in general, but also in follow-up studies to assess baseline characteristics, oncological outcome, and long-term toxicity and to validate the performance of follow-up schedules. This is the first time that the distribution of disease, detailed baseline characteristics and the respective treatment of men with GCT is collected in a prospective manner in German speaking countries (Switzerland, Austria and Germany) and therefore patterns of care have been evaluated. SAG TCCS results will inform on future modifications of surveillance schedules and follow-up procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02229916 (Clinicaltrials.gov).