4.3 Review

Recent strategy for the management of advanced testicular cancer

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 17, 期 2, 页码 148-157

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2009.02431.x

关键词

induction chemotherapy; residual mass resection; retroperitoneal lymph node dissection; salvage chemotherapy; testicular cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Testicular cancer is the most common cancer in young men and the cure rate has been approximately 80% since the introduction of cisplatin in the 1970s. BEP therapy (including bleomycin, etoposide and cisplatin) has become a standard induction therapy instead of PVB therapy (cisplatin, vinblastin and bleomycin). However, the patients with incomplete responses to cisplatin-based first-line therapy or with relapsed disease have an extremely poor prognosis. For such difficult-to-treat patients, there are some proposed treatment options such as ifosfamide-containing salvage chemotherapy or high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT). HDCT with bone marrow rescue has been carried out as salvage or induction chemotherapy. However, a randomized control trial did not show the superiority to conventional first line therapy or salvage therapy. Therefore, a new anticancer agent was tested for cisplatin-refractory or resistant testicular cancer. The development of combination therapy with new anticancer agents such as paclitaxel and irinotecan seems to be effective for these patients. TIP therapy including paclitaxel, ifosfamide and cisplatin would be a standard second line therapy for the patients with BEP failure. Residual tumor resection including retroperitoneal lymph node dissection integrated with induction and salvage chemotherapy still remains to play an important role to achieving a cure for advanced testicular cancer because there is no modality to predict residual viable cancer cells or teratoma element in the residual tumors. In the present review, we discuss and focus on the recent treatment strategy of advanced testicular cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据