English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Surveillance after orchiectomy has recently been a management option in patients with stage I seminoma, while it remains controversial in those with stage I nonseminoma, and the risk factor associated with relapse is still a matter of concern in both entities. This study was performed to explore pathological risk factors for post-orchiectomy relapse in patients with stage I seminoma and nonseminoma, and to assess oncological outcomes in those managed with surveillance.    Methods  In this single institution study, 118 and 40 consecutive patients with stage I seminoma and nonseminoma were reviewed, respectively. Of the 118 patients with stage I seminoma, 56 and one received adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy, respectively, and 61 were managed with surveillance. Of the 40 men with stage I nonseminoma, 4 underwent adjuvant chemotherapy and 36 were managed with surveillance.    Results  No patient had cause-specific death during the mean observation period of 104 and 99 months in men with seminoma and nonseminoma, respectively. In men with stage I seminoma, 1 (1.7%) receiving radiotherapy and 4 (6.6%) men managed with surveillance had disease relapse; the 10-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rate was 93.4% in men managed with surveillance, and their RFS was not different from that in patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy (logrank  P =0.15). Patients with tunica albuginea involvement showed a poorer RFS than those without (10-year RFS rate 80.0% vs. 94.1%), although the difference was of borderline significance ( P =0.09). In men with stage I nonseminoma, 9 (22.5%) patients experienced relapse. Patients with lymphovascular invasion seemingly had a poorer RFS than those without; 40.0% and 18.7% of the patients with and without lymphovascular invasion had disease relapse, respectively, although the difference was not significant (logrank  P =0.17).    Conclusion  In both men with stage I seminoma and nonseminoma, surveillance after orchiectomy is a feasible option. However, disease extension through tunica albuginea might be a factor associated with disease relapse in patients with organ-confined seminoma, and those with stage I nonseminoma showing lymphovascular invasion may possibly be at high risk for disease relapse.

diagnostic pathology

Oncological outcomes in patients with stage I testicular seminoma and nonseminoma: pathological risk factors for relapse and feasibility of surveillance after orchiectomy