MP76-01 THE CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF SEMINOMA COMPONENT IN TESTICULAR MIXED GERM CELL TUMOUR

You have accessJournal of UrologyPenile & Testicular Cancer: Penile & Testicular Cancer III (MP76)1 Apr 2020MP76-01 THE CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF SEMINOMA COMPONENT IN TESTICULAR MIXED GERM CELL TUMOUR Serkan Akan*, Hasan Hüseyin Tavukçu, Caner Ediz, Alpaslan Ozgun, and Omer Yilmaz Serkan Akan*Serkan Akan* More articles by this author , Hasan Hüseyin TavukçuHasan Hüseyin Tavukçu More articles by this author , Caner EdizCaner Ediz More articles by this author , Alpaslan OzgunAlpaslan Ozgun More articles by this author , and Omer YilmazOmer Yilmaz More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000962.01AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Mixed germ cell tumours (MGCT) contain multiple non-seminoma components. Cases that show the presence of both seminoma and non-seminoma components are still classified as MGCT, even if the seminoma is the main component. In the present study, a 10-year case series was retrospectively scanned to examine the clinical/pathological characteristics, prognosis and tendency to metastasise of all MGCTs, including those with a seminoma component. METHODS: A total of 221 testicular cancer cases that underwent radical inguinal orchiectomy between 2008 and 2018 were retrospectively scanned at our clinic, which is considered as a reference centre for testicular cancer because of its history as a military medical academy. Of these 221 cases, only 111 with fully accessible data were included in the study. The following patient information was examined: age, complaints at admission to our clinic, primary tumour localisation, primary tumour size, preoperative testicular tumour markers, MGCT histopathological components and percentages, lymphovascular invasion, pathological tumour stage, postoperative testicular tumour markers, presence of lymph node involvement in abdominal tomography, lung involvement based on thorax tomography, clinical tumour stage, adjunctive therapies performed, state of recurrence and survival. The histopathological examination of all patients was performed by a uropathologist experienced in testicular tumours. The patients were examined after being divided into two groups, one of which consisted of MGCT cases without a seminoma component (Group 1), while the other consisted of MGCT cases with a seminoma component (Group 2). RESULTS: The age range of the patients was between 18 and 41 and mean age was 24.51 ± 4.79. The mean follow-up period was 45.06 months (6–313), during which two patients passed away because of testicular cancer. The most common complaint at admission was swollen testicle for Group 1 patients (38.2%) and palpable mass in the testicle for Group 2 patients (37.2%). No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of primary tumour localisation, primary tumour size, preoperative testicular tumour markers, lymphovascular invasion presence, pathological tumour stage and postoperative testicular tumour markers. In the screening for metastasis performed following orchiectomy, rates of lymph involvement and lung metastasis were found to be higher in Group 2 compared with Group 1, although these differences were not statistically significant. Pathological evaluations of the primary and post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node excisions revealed higher ratios of live tumour cells in Group 2 compared with Group 1. CONCLUSIONS: Although the word ’seminoma’ may be initially interpreted as an indication of good prognosis, involvement of a seminoma component in MGCTs is actually not a good prognostic factor. MGCTs that contain seminoma component can be of more advanced stage, present lymph node involvement and have a tendency for lung metastasis. The prognostic impact of the seminoma component in MGCTs should be re-examined with case series involving a larger patient population. Source of Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020Page: e1151-e1151 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Serkan Akan* More articles by this author Hasan Hüseyin Tavukçu More articles by this author Caner Ediz More articles by this author Alpaslan Ozgun More articles by this author Omer Yilmaz More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...