ArticleCentral European journal of urology2016
Controversies in the management of clinical stage I testicular seminoma.
Article in Central European journal of urology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Best treatment option for clinical stage I seminoma patients.Central European journal of urology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFollowing orchiectomy patients with clinical stage I (CSI) testicular seminoma may be managed by active surveillance (AS) or adjuvant treatment (radiotherapy or chemotherapy). In view of the published data on long-term toxicity, mainly second malignant neoplasms (SMNs), adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) is currently no longer recommended as adjuvant therapy for these patients. The purpose of our recent study was to compare the impact of two selected treatment approaches - AS versus adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) on survival in patients with CSI testicular seminoma. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe cross-sectional study analyzed a total of 106 patients collected at a single centre between 4/2008-8/2015, with CSI testicular seminoma, stratified into two groups according to risk-adapted therapeutic approaches.
resultsIn group A (low-risk), consisting of 84 patients, who underwent AS, relapse occurred in 10 (11.9%) patients after a mean follow-up of 13.8 months. In group B (high-risk), consisting of 22 patients, who were treated with ACT, relapse occurred in two (9.1%) patients after a mean follow-up of 13.8 months. Overall survival of patients in both groups was 100% with a mean follow-up of 25.3 months. The statistically significant difference in progression-free survival (PFS) between these two groups was not found.
conclusionsACT seems to be adequate treatment for patients with high-risk of relapse, as well as AS for those with low-risk of relapse. Despite its excellent prognosis, optimal management of CSI testicular seminoma remains controversial, with variations in expert opinion and international guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.