http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/44146/ List of Publications en http://repub.eur.nl/static-eur/img/logo.png http://repub.eur.nl http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/35011/ 2012-01-10T00:00:00Z Purpose: This is the first randomized phase II/III trial comparing two carboplatin-based chemotherapy regimens in patients with urothelial cancer who are ineligible ("unfit") for cisplatin chemotherapy. Patients and Methods: The primary objective of the phase III part of this study was to compare the overall survival (OS) of chemotherapy-naive patients with measurable disease and an impaired renal function (glomerular filtration rate < 60 but > 30 mL/min) and/or performance score of 2 who were randomly assigned to receive either gemcitabine/carboplatin (GC) or methotrexate/carboplatin/ vinblastine (M-CAVI). To detect an increase of 50% in median survival with GC compared with M-CAVI (13.5 v 9 months) based on a two-sided log-rank test at error rates α .05 and β =.20, 225 patients were required. Secondary end points were overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, and quality of life. Results: In all, 238 patients were randomly assigned by 29 institutions over a period of 7 years. The median follow-up was 4.5 years. Best ORRs were 41.2% (36.1% confirmed response) for patients receiving GC versus 30.3% (21.0% confirmed response) for patients receiving M-CAVI (P=.08). Median OS was 9.3 months in the GC arm and 8.1 months in the M-CAVI arm (P=.64). There was no difference in PFS (P=.78) between the two arms. Severe acute toxicity (death, grade 4 thrombocytopenia with bleeding, grade 3 or 4 renal toxicity, neutropenic fever, or mucositis) was observed in 9.3% of patients receiving GC and 21.2% of patients receiving M-CAVI. Conclusion There were no significant differences in efficacy between the two treatment groups. The incidence of severe acute toxicities was higher for those receiving M-CAVI. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/29675/ 2008-03-01T00:00:00Z Objectives: The first consensus report that had been presented by the European Germ Cell Cancer Consensus Group (EGCCCG) in 2004 has found widespread approval by many colleagues throughout the world. In November 2006, the group met a second time under the auspices of the Department of Urology of the Amsterdam Medical Center, The Netherlands. Methods: Medical oncologists, urologic surgeons, radiation oncologists as well as pathologists from several European countries reviewed and discussed the data that had emerged since the 2002 conference and incorporated the new data into updated and revised guidelines. As for the first meeting the methodology of evidence-based medicine (EBM) was applied. The results of the discussion were compiled by the writing committee. All participants have agreed to this final update. Results: The second part of the consensus paper includes the treatment of metastasised disease, residual tumour resection, salvage therapy, follow-up, and late toxicities. Conclusions: Whereas the vast majority of the recommendations made in 2004 remain valid 3 yr later, refinements in the treatment of early-stage as well as of advanced-stage testicular cancer have emerged from clinical trials. Despite technical improvements, expert clinical skills will continue to be one of the major determinants for the prognosis of patients with germ cell cancer. In addition, the particular needs of testicular cancer survivors have been acknowledged. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/29720/ 2008-03-01T00:00:00Z Objectives: The first consensus report presented by the European Germ Cell Cancer Consensus Group (EGCCCG) in the year 2004 has found widespread approval by many colleagues throughout the world. In November 2006, the group met a second time under the auspices of the Department of Urology of the Amsterdam Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Methods: Medical oncologists, urological surgeons, radiation oncologists as well as pathologists from several European countries reviewed and discussed the data that had emerged since the 2002 conference, and incorporated the new data into updated and revised guidelines. As for the first meeting, the methodology of evidence-based medicine (EBM) was applied. The results of the discussion were compiled by the writing committee. All participants have agreed to this final update. Results: The first part of the consensus paper describes the clinical presentation of the primary tumor, its treatment, the importance and treatment of testicular intraepithelial neoplasia (TIN), histological classification, staging and prognostic factors, and treatment of stage I seminoma and non-seminoma. Conclusions: Whereas the vast majority of the recommendations made in 2004 remain valid 3 yr later, refinements in the treatment of early- and advanced-stage testicular cancer have emerged from clinical trials. Despite technical improvements, expert clinical skills will continue to be one of the major determinants for the prognosis of patients with germ cell cancer. In addition, the particular needs of testicular cancer survivors have been acknowledged.