Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Advances in Urology
Volume 2018 (2018), Article ID 2375176, 8 pages
Review Article

Adolescent and Young Adult Testicular Germ Cell Tumors: Special Considerations

Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Colorado School of Medicine and Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA

Correspondence should be addressed to Nicholas G. Cost; ude.revnedcu@tsoc.salohcin

Received 5 October 2017; Accepted 27 November 2017; Published 31 January 2018

Academic Editor: Costantine Albany

Copyright © 2018 Amanda F. Saltzman and Nicholas G. Cost. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


While testicular germ cell tumors (T-GCTs) make up only 0.5% of pediatric malignancies and less than 2% of adult malignancies, they comprise 14% of adolescent malignancies, making it the most common solid tumor in this age group. The transition in incidence at this age is also accompanied by a transition in tumor histology with adolescents having mostly pure embryonal carcinoma and mixed nonseminomatous germ cell tumors. Similar to T-GCTs of all ages, surgical excision with orchiectomy is the standard initial step in treatment. Chemotherapy, retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, and targeted treatment of distant metastases make even widely disseminated disease treatable and curable. For this reason, in many ways, the future focus has expanded beyond survival alone to emphasize quality of life issues such as fertility and hypogonadism. However, adolescents remain the age group least studied or understood as they fall in between the ages included in most study designs. Also, they require the most psychosocial support because of the challenges unique to the adolescent period. In this review, we aim to highlight the known outcome data for T-GCTs in this population and also to discuss the unique aspects of treatment and support for this age group.

1. Introduction

In pediatric oncology, significant advances have been made in survival of a variety of malignancies. The OS of children with cancer as a group approaches 80%, largely due to the collaborative efforts of cooperative groups [1]. However, numerous reports have shown that this triumph has not been evenly distributed across patients of all ages—the adolescent age group has not enjoyed the same success as younger children, and this has been specifically demonstrated for T-GCTs [2]. In fact, cancer in those aged 15–29 years kills more patients than any disease except suicide [3]. This is due to a host of reasons: delayed presentation and diagnosis [4], transition between adult and pediatric providers which may limit access to care [5], the disproportionate presence of high-risk pathologic components [6], poor treatment compliance [7], and a paucity of clinical trials and research focused on adolescents specifically. Perhaps the most relevant, however, is the lack of awareness of this age group as being unique [3].

Often, we assess adolescents along with those just slightly older and consider this group as adolescents and young adults (AYAs). The AYA population with cancer is a vulnerable group [4]. Compared with older adults with testicular cancer specifically, survival patterns differ [8], there are insurance coverage issues [5], and these patients are less likely to participate in clinical trials, are more likely to experience delays in diagnosis or treatment [9], and are more likely to suffer psychosocial problems and decreased quality of life related to their diagnosis [10, 11]. Because of these disparities, in 2006, the American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute with help from the LIVESTRONG Young Adult Alliance called for future research to focus on cancer outcomes in AYA patients and established the AYA Oncology Progress Review Group [12]. Similarly, COG and SWOG have established dedicated AYA committees, and recently, the Society for Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology was funded. It is very important to understand that this term is used differently between studies and between large study groups: SEER 15–29 yr, NCI’s AYA Oncology Progress Review Group 15–39 yr, and NCCN guideline 15–39 yr [13].

To properly develop a focus on AYA testicular cancer, there needs to be focus beyond just diagnosis and treatment—and must include a focus on fertility preservation, emotional support for patients and families, socioeconomic support, educational encouragement, palliative care, and survivorship specialists to meet the needs of this unique population [5]. There also must be collaboration and cooperation of providers who care for children and adults and fluid transition between the two.

2. Disease-Specific Aspects Unique to the AYA Population

2.1. Ethnicity

Testicular cancer is the most common urologic cancer in the AYA males [4, 13, 14]. Worldwide, it disproportionately affects men living in developed nations (USA, Canada, Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, etc.), where its incidence is attenuating over recent generations. In contrast, the incidence is rapidly increasing in countries undergoing developmental transition (Croatia, Slovenia, Singapore, the Philippines, China, Costa Rica, etc.) [15]. Testis cancer in general, disproportionately affects white men. While the incidence of testis cancer in AYAs is increasing overall, there has been a very large (58%) increase in the Hispanic population over the non-Hispanic white population (7%) [16]. Also, within the AYA group, in the adolescent population specifically, there appears to be a disproportionate population of Hispanic males affected [17]. While survival after testicular cancer is high, several large population-based studies of men with testicular cancer of all ages have shown that non-Hispanic whites have an increased OS when compared to Hispanic whites [18], African Americans [17, 19], and nonwhites [20]. This has been confirmed in the AYA population, with African Americans and Hispanics having worse OS and CSS than whites, even after adjustment for neighborhood socioeconomic status [21]. When looking at patients with pure seminoma, however, the racial disparities are less impactful for unclear reasons [21].

2.2. Neighborhood/Socioeconomic Status

A recent study using the California Cancer Registry examined the association between the patients’ sociodemographic factors (race/ethnicity and neighborhood socioeconomic status) and survival of AYAs with testicular cancer from 1998 to 2000 [21]. They identified just over 14,000 patients and found that AYAs from middle and low socioeconomic neighborhoods had a much lower OS and cancer-specific survival than AYAs from high socioeconomic neighborhoods, even when controlling for race/ethnicity. This difference was seen in both patients with seminoma and those with nonseminoma [21]. This trend, worse outcomes in lower socioeconomic neighborhoods, has been well described in the oncologic literature, across various cancers and in both children and adults [17, 22, 23]. It has been suggested that neighborhood socioeconomic status is an independent risk factor for survival, not just a surrogate for individual socioeconomic status, and it mediates poorer outcomes through neighborhood level factors, such as social environment, reduced quality and availability of healthcare and support services, and chronic stress [21].

2.3. Age

Patients aged 15–24 years with T-GCTs had an improved OS, but not cancer-specific survival, than those aged 25–39 years [21]. However, when comparing patients aged 15–19 years to those <15 years, there are significant decreases in OS [1]. When examining event free survival (EFS), patients aged 13–19 years have been shown to have a 3-year EFS of 60%, significantly worse than patients aged < 13 years (87%) and patients aged >19 years (80%) [2]. The seeming contradictions of these studies are apparent; however, it is very important to identify the endpoint specified, because a disease like T-GCTs is very salvageable, even after metastasis and recurrence. Thus, differences in OS may not be appreciated despite difference in EFS and other measures. There can also be differences in histology (high incidence of embryonal component and rare seminomas) as well as more advanced disease at presentation for adolescents. Specifically, it appears that the incidence of clinical stage I disease decreases with age: 70–80% of prepubertal children with T-GCT, 50–60% of adolescents with T-GCT, and 40–50% of adults with NSGCT [2427]. Another factor associated with age is marital status. Married AYAs with testicular cancer had improved OS and cancer-specific survival than their unmarried counterparts [17, 21].

2.4. Histology

Interestingly, T-GCTs in prepubertal males are usually pure yolk sac tumors, which rarely metastasize [28], and pure teratoma, which is benign in this age group [29]. Pure seminoma is rare in the pediatric and adolescent population. When compared to pure seminoma, nonseminoma is most common in the AYA population and generally is of mixed histology, more frequently involves metastatic disease at presentation, and has a higher rate of relapse [30]. These mixed tumors, especially with embryonal components, are the most common seen in AYAs [31].

Stokes et al. [32] recently performed an analysis of the NCDB looking at patterns of care and survival outcomes for AYAs (age ≥ 15 years) with seminoma treated with primary surgery, known histology, and known outcomes. They identified 12,880 AYAs and compared this group to both adults aged 40–55 years (8,022) and >55 years (1,459). Compared to their adult counterparts, AYAs in this cohort were more likely to be nonwhite/nonblack, be uninsured, have fewer comorbidities, have clinical stage 1 disease at presentation, receive care at a high-volume institution, forego RPLND, and undergo surveillance over adjuvant therapy. Unadjusted 5- and 10-year OS was significantly better for AYAs than their older counterparts (98% and 96.1%, resp.). Factors associated with improved OS included AYA age, private insurance, high facility volume, stage 1 disease, and receipt of radiation therapy. Even controlling for other factors, AYA status remains significantly associated with improved OS. Interestingly, race was not significantly associated with OS, unlike previous studies, while socioeconomic factors (insurance status) were associated with OS. The authors suggest that the less frequent use of adjuvant therapy by AYAs than older adults highlights progress for these patients; judicious use of these therapies, all of which carry significant side effects over the long term, has still allowed an extremely high OS [32]. This study mirrors findings from a SEER database analysis and European registry data [33].

A complementary paper on NSGCT in the AYA population investigated the SEER database to evaluate the association between age and outcomes [17]. The authors identified 1,496 adolescents (13–19 years) and 12,467 adults (>19 years) with a median follow up of 71 months. 5-year OS for adolescents was 94% and adults was 92% () with 5-year CSS of 95% and 94%, respectively (). Age was a significant predictor of both OS and CSS when controlling for other factors. They also found that, despite presenting more often with metastatic disease, adolescents had improved OS and CSS than adults.

2.5. Risk Factors for Metastatic Disease

Active surveillance is the current recommendation for both adults and children [34] with clinical stage 1 T-GCTs. However, we know that a significant proportion (20–30%) will harbor occult disease. In the adult population, the identification of high-risk features for harboring of occult metastases—lymphovascular invasion and an increasing component of embryonal carcinoma for NSGCT [35] and size > 4 cm and rete testis invasion for seminoma [36]—has allowed a risk-stratified treatment approach to be employed [34]. Cost et al. [37] reviewed 23 patients aged 7–21 years and found that about half of all patients had high-risk features (≥40% embryonal carcinoma or lymphovascular invasion), and almost 60% with high-risk features harbored occult metastatic disease. No patients without high-risk features had metastatic disease. This confirmed that these same high-risk features for NSGCT in the adult population confer a similar risk for harboring occult metastatic disease in the pediatric and AYA population. While all relapses were successfully managed with 100% survival, the validation of these same high-risk features in the AYA population may lend themselves to counseling points for families and perhaps future incorporation into treatment strategies; however, they are currently not part of any treatment guidelines.

2.6. Surgery

Traditional teaching calls for radical orchiectomy for all testicular masses concerning for malignancy. Recent data suggest that partial orchiectomy/excisional biopsy via an inguinal incision may be safe in certain highly selected patients, and this has become common practice for the management of prepubertal pediatric testis tumors, regardless of the preoperative suspicion of teratoma [38]. For postpubertal boys, the authors’ current practice involves performing a partial orchiectomy if patients have a mass < 2 cm and normal tumor markers, regardless of suspected pathology (manuscript in submission). Intraoperative frozen section is then utilized; if there is any concern for T-GCT, a radial orchiectomy is completed at the same setting. However, if the pathology returns benign or not concerning for T-GCT, the partial orchiectomy is completed and that testis has retained fertility and hormonal function [39]. Partial orchiectomy is not being advocated for or used to treat T-GCTs, but rather it is proposed as an initial step to preserve gonadal function in patients with small testicular masses and normal tumor markers due to the associated high rate of benign pathology. Although unilateral radical orchiectomy preserves contralateral testicular function, Leydig cell dysfunction and hypogonadism may develop prematurely, making T-GCT survivors at risk for androgen deficiency into adulthood [40].

2.7. Treatment

Because of similar tumor biology, postpubertal T-GCTs are best managed using adult algorithms. Individual pubertal status needs to be determined before discussing any treatment. Traditional pediatric regimens have been thought to undertreat adolescents with T-GCTs and may contribute to worse outcomes in adolescents over adults [6]. Indeed, the staging is different for patients with T-GCTs that are prepubertal (COG staging system) compared to postpubertal (AJCC TNMS system and IGCCCG system for metastatic disease), and the emphasis on postchemotherapy surgery differs. These differences are highlighted in Table 1. Additionally, COG remains concerned about long-term effects of cisplatin exposure (ototoxicity, nephrotoxicity, peripheral neuropathy, etc.) and is investigating the role of carboplatin versus cisplatin for children with T-GCTs. While adult studies have demonstrated a superior effect of cisplatin, pediatric studies have shown that higher dose carboplatin is associated with similarly good outcomes for children with T-GCTs [41]. Many adult urologic oncologists may be hesitant to place patients onto this COG study given their belief that randomization to the carboplatin arm is substandard of care therapy. COG protocols generally target patients aged 15 years and younger, with most postpubertal patients, which would include AYAs, being treated per adult algorithms [5].

Table 1: AJCC versus COG staging for testicular tumors [5].

The vast majority of adolescents and AYAs with clinical stage I disease should undergo active surveillance, per NCCN guidelines. The relapse rate is 20–30%, with excellent survival after salvage therapy. Even in the presence of high-risk features and high risk of relapse, the potential for morbidity with overtreatment of 70–80% of patients without a clear survival advantage makes an aggressive upfront treatment approach less desirable [42]. This approach prevents overtreatment and associated side effects while reserving highly effective salvage therapy for those who truly need it.

2.8. Long-Term Outcomes

There have been huge advances with long-term survival of AYAs with testicular cancer, so there has been a focus shift towards quality of life and late effects of treatment. A recent review of quality of life outcomes has shown that long-term testicular cancer survivors were comparable to age-matched controls, including mental health and sexual function, and that any decreases in quality of life were not related to treatment modality [43, 44]. For those treated during adolescence, however, lower rates of fertility, body image, and sexual function have been described [45].

3. Late Effects

Important to consider is that this group of patients has a longer life expectancy than older adults. Thus, the long-term sequelae of systemic treatments (radiation, chemotherapy, and surgery) should be seriously considered, and monitoring for these complications is necessary. The NCCN has published a clinical guideline for AYA oncology patients, which all providers caring for this group of patients should review and have readily available. This nicely summarizes risks specific to this patient population as well as screening guidelines for survivors [13].

3.1. Fertility

All adjunctive treatment strategies beyond radical orchiectomy (chemotherapy, RPLND, and radiation) are associated with potential fertility issues, either transient or permanent. A recent survey of cancer survivors ranked fertility questions as the second most common concern behind mortality [46]. Every effort should be made to perform nerve sparing RPLND when necessary, and some advocate for referral to high-volume centers. Sperm cryopreservation is the most effective method to maintain fertility potential, but this must be initiated prior to treatment for testicular cancer. There are a host of issues surrounding cryopreservation, including young age and collection methods, anxiety associated with cancer diagnosis, and high cost of preservation. AYA patients and their families may not immediately think of fertility to be important given a diagnosis of malignancy and the patient’s current life stage, so it is the responsibility of the provider to address this issue head on, prior to treatment initiation. Early involvement of an oncofertility specialist can help patients and families work through banking [5].

3.2. Secondary Malignancy

For at least 35 years after treatment, patients who have received chemotherapy or radiation are at higher risk of developing a secondary malignancy over the general population who has not been exposed to these agents [47]. The relative risk of development of a secondary malignancy is 1.8 for radiation, 2 for chemotherapy, and 2.9 for a combination of chemotherapy and radiation [48]. Etoposide specifically carries a risk of developing a secondary leukemia that is highly resistant to available therapies. This risk is correlated with total dose received and is increased in combination with radiation exposure [49]. Smoking and excessive alcohol consumption, common behaviors in AYA cancer survivors, has been shown to increase the risk of malignancy in bladder/prostate rhabdomyosarcoma patients, who are also at increased risk of secondary malignancy due to the chemotherapeutic agents and radiation used to treat their disease [50]. Patients with T-GCTs may receive similar therapies to the rhabdomyosarcoma population, albeit with differing doses, fields, and agents. However, they too are at higher risk for secondary malignancies and probably also engage in cigarette use and excessive alcohol consumption. It is not unreasonable to infer that these patients may be further increasing their risk of malignancy with these behaviors and should be counseled to avoid these activities.

3.3. Chemotherapy

Cisplatin-related nephrotoxicity via proximal tubular dysfunction is well described. Decreases in glomerular filtration rate, hypomagnesemia, and proteinuria have all been reported with this drug that is highly effective for T-GCTs. A recent study calculated a 10% risk of stage 3 chronic kidney disease for those exposed to a median of 4 cycles of cisplatin during treatment, and rate of progression increased with more cycles of chemotherapy [51]. Another review of 63 children treated with cis- or carboplatin showed no significant change in renal function over time, measured 10 years after completion of therapy. However, 11% of patients had an eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, which is not insignificant. Older age at the initiation of therapy was associated with a lower GFR [52].

About 1 in 6 patients will report peripheral neuropathy, and this is due to cisplatin exposure [53]. Similarly, high-frequency hearing loss is seen in 20–40% of patients exposed to cisplatin (dose-dependent), and this is usually permanent [54]. Other long-term effects of cisplatin exposure include cardiovascular disease, paresthesia, hypogonadism, hypercholesterolemia, and hypertension. Interestingly, studies have confirmed that platinum and platinum-based residuals remain in circulation up to 20 years, and it is thought that perhaps these contribute to long-term complications [55]. In this same study, renal function 1 year after treatment was associated with the level of platinum remaining, meaning that the relationship between renal function and drug goes both ways—the drug damages the kidneys, and because of this, there is more drug left in the system, perpetuating its effects [55]. It is postulated that there may be therapy-related vascular changes that could contribute to the increased cardiovascular disease and increased incidence (6%) of myocardial infarction in these patients, illustrating that the implication of a single agent/therapy as the cause for a specific complication has been difficult to determine thus far [56].

Bleomycin has been linked to lung disease in a dose-related fashion, with about 5% of patients developing pulmonary fibrosis. Risk factors for bleomycin toxicity include increased age, concomitant chest radiation, decreased renal function, and elevated concentrations of inspired oxygen. Unfortunately, radiographic evidence of bleomycin toxicity may be seen as pleural-based nodules, which may be mistaken for relapsed or refractory disease (these resolve over time) [54].

Metabolic syndrome has been reported to occur in about 25% of T-GCT survivors. The exact mechanism for this is unknown, but testosterone and Leydig cell function have been implicated, although not uniformly across studies [57].

Hypogonadism is estimated to occur in 10–15% of patients after unilateral orchiectomy [58, 59], resulting in the need for androgen replacement. Preserving gonadal function may also reduce the clinically underrecognized but real rates of osteopenia and osteoporosis in these patients [60].

3.4. Psychosocial Effects

Adolescence is a tumultuous time in life, where all changes and experiences are amplified. Most teenagers feel that even ordinary challenges are difficult to overcome and that they are facing these challenges alone. On top of this baseline feeling, a cancer diagnosis clearly radically changes the patient’s life and their needs when confronted with cancer are greater than older patients. The AYA population has a significant need for psychosocial support; cancer and subsequent therapy will create significant change in their social lives and interactions, which are central to being a teenager. There are obvious changes that will occur; self-image will be affected by hair loss, weight changes, mood alterations, nausea, febrile illness and hospitalizations, isolation due to infectious risk, etc. Impaired sexual function due to infertility, impotence, and an inability to feel that the patient was having any type of intimate relationship are major issues during this life stage. While these issues are common for an adult urologist to discuss with their patients, regardless of whether the patient has cancer, pediatric patients and providers are often uncomfortable discussing these personal details. Conversely, adult providers rarely acknowledge the impact of adolescence and puberty on a patient's everyday health, attitudes, and compliance [32].

Patients in the AYA age group are often at a cross roads with respect to education and career decisions. Cancer obviously detracts from the attention that is usually paid to these decisions, which seriously impact a person’s identity. Pursuing treatment may affect a patient’s ability to work and earn an income, which may lead to financial challenges that are then augmented by the cost of cancer treatment and insurance issues that are already prevalent in this age group. In addition to the obvious financial implications, this may be associated with guilt about not being able to meet basic expectations. After therapy, in the survivorship stage, resuming normal work or school life activities can be difficult. More than half of cancer survivors have problems continuing work or education after therapy cessation [61]. Expectation for both the patient and employer/school is one of the biggest factors in the success of transitioning back to normal life. Additionally, maintaining some type of involvement in work/school life during therapy, even if minimal, is associated with increased success with reentry long term [61].

Relationships, both with friends and partners, are central to AYA lives and can be severely impacted by cancer diagnosis and treatment. Partners may be lost or have feelings of fear of relapse, guilt, or sympathy. A father or brother with testicular cancer increases a male’s risk of testicular cancer four times over the general population (2 or more relatives, 10x increased risk), and the development of testicular cancer tends to be at a similar age, but not necessarily the same histology [62]. Thus, there are unknown genetics and predisposition for existing children and when considering expanding families, which may result in tension between partners and thus a strained relationship [5]. Additionally, care of young children during cancer treatment can be unpredictable and yet another source of strain on a relationship [13].

These challenges are more than those experienced in either the adult or pediatric population and thus providers are usually unprepared to handle them. Providers generally provide a narrow, focused, technical view of diagnosis and treatment, which may further isolate the patient and his family, marginalizing their concerns. To fix this, early involvement of a multidisciplinary team, including mental health providers, is necessary. Not only will this improve mental health, stress levels, and quality of life, but it will increase compliance and hopefully survival, a central issue with the AYA population. Being aware of the issues, creating a team, and being prepared is the first step to face these issues head on [5].

4. Conclusions and Future Directions

For all the above reasons, the AYA population truly is unique with its own particular set of challenges. While the end goal is to improve outcomes, namely survivorship, there are a host of other issues that need to be addressed. These issues will not be able to be tackled without a multilayered approach to both clinical and translational research. AYA oncology education and awareness need to be increased, areas of research that will most directly lead to improved survivorship or quality of life for need to be prioritized, and there needs to be increased funding for researchers committed to studying this population. Increased awareness on the national level with various new societies and groups is occurring, but urologists need to be advocates at the institutional level to raise awareness and education about this unique population [5].

Recently, novel biomarkers such as microRNA clusters have been identified that are uniformly overexpressed in all malignant GCTs, regardless of patient age, subtype, or site. While these remain a research tool and are not yet prevalent in everyday practice, they remain an exciting possibility for diagnosis (new staging criteria?) and surveillance (instead of CT scans?) of patients with T-GCTs [63].

Patient care collaboration through the development of and referral to highly experienced treatment teams have been shown to improve outcome for patients with T-GCTs. With increasing technology available to share information between centers, expertise can reach farther than a single institution into smaller community practices for advice and allows for improved coordinated referrals to these large volume centers [64]. A huge area in need of improvement for this group is clinical trial participation. More than 90% of children participate in clinical trials, while about 10% of teenagers and even fewer young adults do participate [28]. Providers need to educate patients and families about study trial opportunities that exist and need to create trials that specifically target this population [5].


OS:Overall survival
AYA:Adolescent and young adult
NCCN:National Comprehensive Cancer Network
NCI:National Cancer Institute
CSS:Cancer-specific survival
T-GCT:Testicular germ cell tumor
NSGCT:Nonseminomatous germ cell tumor
EFS:Event free survival
NCDB:National Cancer Database
RPLND:Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection
SEER:Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program
COG:Children’s Oncology Group
SWOG:Southwest Oncology Group
AJCC:American Joint Committee on Cancer
TNMS:Tumor, node, metastasis, serum
IGCCCG:International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group
eGFR:Estimated glomerular filtration rate.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


The study was supported by the Etkin Family Fund of the Aspen Community Foundation.


  1. A. Bleyer, “Adolescent and young adult (AYA) oncology: the first A,” Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 325–336, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. N. G. Cost, J. D. Lubahn, M. Adibi et al., “A comparison of pediatric, adolescent, and adult testicular germ cell malignancy: pediatric, adolescent, and adult testicular GCTs,” Pediatric Blood and Cancer, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 446–451, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. V. Subbiah, “Adolescent oncology: who cares?—the new KID on the block,” Supportive Care in Cancer, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 771–773, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. A. Bleyer, R. Barr, B. Hayes-Lattin, D. Thomas, C. Ellis, and B. Anderson, “The distinctive biology of cancer in adolescents and young adults,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 288–298, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. N. G. Cost, C. R. Cost, J. I. Geller, and W. R. DeFoor, “Adolescent urologic oncology: current issues and future directions,” Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 59–69, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. E. C. Grantham, B. T., Caldwell, and N. G. Cost, “Current urologic care for testicular germ cell tumors in pediatric and adolescent patients,” Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 65–75, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. G. Pentheroudakis and N. Pavlidis, “Juvenile cancer: improving care for adolescents and young adults within the frame of medical oncology,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 181–188, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. M. C. DeRouen, S. L. Gomez, D. J. Press, L. Tao, A. W. Kurian, and T. H. M. Keegan, “A population-based observational study of first-course treatment and survival for adolescent and young adult females with breast cancer,” Journal of Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 95–103, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  9. H. M. Parsons, L. C. Harlan, N. L. Seibel, J. L., Stevens, and T. H. M. Keegan, “Clinical trial participation and time to treatment among adolescents and young adults with cancer: does age at diagnosis or insurance make a difference?” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 29, no. 30, pp. 4045–4053, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. K. M. Bellizzi, A. Smith, S. Schmidt et al., “Positive and negative psychosocial impact of being diagnosed with cancer as an adolescent or young adult: impact of cancer,” Cancer, vol. 118, no. 20, pp. 5155–5162, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. A. W. Smith, K. M. Bellizzi, T. H. M. Keegan et al., “Health-related quality of life of adolescent and young adult patients with cancer in the United States: the Adolescent and Young Adult Health Outcomes and Patient Experience study,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 31, no. 17, pp. 2136–2145, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  12. C. Schmidt, “Lack of progress in teen and young adult cancers concerns researchers, prompts study,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 98, no. 24, pp. 1760–1763, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. NCCN Guidelines® and Clinical Resources, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology–Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Oncology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Fort Washington, PA, USA, 2017.
  14. J. S. Townsend, L. C., Richardson, and R. R. German, “Incidence of testicular cancer in the United States, 1999–2004,” American Journal of Men’s Health, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 353–360, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. A. Znaor, J. Lortet-Tieulent, M. Laversanne, A. Jemal, and F. Bray, “International testicular cancer incidence trends: generational transitions in 38 countries 1900–1990,” Cancer Causes and Control, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 151–158, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. F. L. Chien, S. M., Schwartz, and R. H. Johnson, “Increase in testicular germ cell tumor incidence among Hispanic adolescents and young adults in the United States: increasing TGCT Among Hispanic AYAs,” Cancer, vol. 120, no. 17, pp. 2728–2734, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. A. Amini, T. V. Waxweiler, P. D. Maroni et al., “Survival outcomes of adolescent and adult patients with non-seminomatous testicular germ-cell tumors: a population-based study,” Journal of Pediatric Urology, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 405.e1–405.e9, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. T. V. Johnson, W. Hsiao, A., Jani, and V. A. Master, “Increased mortality among Hispanic testis cancer patients independent of neighborhood socioeconomic status: a SEER study,” Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 818–824, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. M., Sun, F. Abdollah, D. Liberman et al., “Racial disparities and socioeconomic status in men diagnosed with testicular germ cell tumors: a survival analysis,” Cancer, vol. 117, no. 18, pp. 4277–4285, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. S. D., Fosså, M. Cvancarova, L. Chen et al., “Adverse prognostic factors for testicular cancer–specific survival: a population-based study of 27,948 patients,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 29, pp. 963–970, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. M. C. DeRouen, M. Mujahid, S. Srinivas, and T. H. M. Keegan, “Disparities in adolescent and young adult survival after testicular cancer vary by histologic subtype: a population-based study in California 1988–2010,” Journal of Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 31–40, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. T. E. Byers, H. J. Wolf, K. R. Bauer et al., “The impact of socioeconomic status on survival after cancer in the United States: findings from the National Program of Cancer Registries Patterns of Care Study,” Cancer, vol. 113, no. 3, pp. 582–591, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. E. E. Kent, R. A. Morris, J. A. Largent, A. Ziogas, L. S. Sender, and H. Anton-Culver, “Socioeconomic impacts on survival differ by race/ethnicity among adolescents and young adults with Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma,” Journal of Cancer Epidemiology, vol. 2010, Article ID 824691, 10 pages, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. M., Schlatter, F. Rescorla, R. Giller et al., “Excellent outcome in patients with stage I germ cell tumors of the testes: a study of the Children’s Cancer Group/Pediatric Oncology Group,” Journal of Pediatric Surgery, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 319–324, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. M. L. Curto, F. Lumia, R. Alaggio et al., “Malignant germ cell tumors in childhood: results of the first Italian cooperative study ?TCG 91?” Medical and Pediatric Oncology, vol. 41, pp. 417–425, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. R. G. Feltbower, C. Siller, E. Woodward et al., “Treatment and survival patterns for germ cell tumors among 13- to 24-year olds in Yorkshire, UK,” Pediatric Blood and Cancer, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 282–288, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. T. B. Powles, J. Bhardwa, J. Shamash, S. Mandalia, and T. Oliver, “The changing presentation of germ cell tumours of the testis between 1983 and 2002,” BJU International, vol. 95, no. 9, pp. 1197–1200, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. R. Haas, P. Schmidt, U. Göbel, and H. Deiter, “Testicular germ cell tumors, an update. Results of the German cooperative studies 1982–1997,” Klinische Pädiatrie, vol. 211, no. 4, pp. 300–304, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  29. U. Gobel, D. T. Schneider, G. Calaminus, R. J. Haas, P. Schmidt, and D. Harms, “Germ cell tumors in childhood and adolescence,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 263–271, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. D. R. Feldman, G. J. Bosl, J. Sheinfeld, and R. J. Motzer, “Medical treatment of advanced testicular cancer,” JAMA, vol. 299, no. 6, pp. 672–684, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. S. Taskinen, R. Fagerholm, J. Aronniemi, R. Rintala, M., and Taskinen, “Testicular tumors in children and adolescents,” Journal of Pediatric Urology, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 134–137, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. W. Stokes, A. Amini, P. D. Maroni et al., “Patterns of care and survival outcomes for adolescent and young adult patients with testicular seminoma in the United States: a National Cancer Database analysis,” Journal of Pediatric Urology, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 386.e1–386.e7, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. R. H. A., Verhoeven, A. Gondos, M. L. G. Janssen-Heijnen et al., “Testicular cancer in Europe and the USA: survival still rising among older patients,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 508–513, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. F. J., Rescorla, J. H. Ross, D. F. Billmire et al., “Surveillance after initial surgery for Stage I pediatric and adolescent boys with malignant testicular germ cell tumors: report from the Children’s Oncology Group,” Journal of Pediatric Surgery, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 1000–1003, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. Y. Vergouwe, E. W. Steyerberg, M. J. C. Eijkemans, P. Albers, and J. D. F. Habbema, “Predictors of occult metastasis in clinical stage I nonseminoma: a systematic review,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 21, no. 22, pp. 4092–4099, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. J. L., Boormans, J. Mayor de Castro, L. Marconi et al., “Testicular tumour size and rete testis invasion as prognostic factors for the risk of relapse of clinical stage I seminoma testis patients under surveillance: a systematic review by the testicular cancer guidelines panel,” European Urology, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  37. N. G., Cost, J. D. Lubahn, M. Adibi et al., “Risk stratification of pubertal children and postpubertal adolescents with clinical stage I testicular nonseminomatous germ cell tumors,” Journal of Urology, vol. 191, no. 5, pp. 1485–1490, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. A. R., Shukla, C. Woodard, M. C. Carr et al., “Experience with testis sparing surgery for testicular teratoma,” Journal of Urology, vol. 171, no. 1, pp. 161–163, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. B. T. Caldwell, D. T. Wilcox, and N. G. Cost, “Current Management for Pediatric Urologic Oncology,” Advances in Pediatrics, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 191–223, 2017. View at Google Scholar
  40. C., Nord, T. Bjøro, D. Ellingsen et al., “Gonadal hormones in long-term survivors 10 years after treatment for unilateral testicular cancer,” European Urology, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 322–328, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. F. Shaikh, P. C. Nathan, J. Hale, E. Uleryk, L., and Frazier, “Is there a role for carboplatin in the treatment of malignant germ cell tumors? A systematic review of adult and pediatric trials,” Pediatric Blood and Cancer, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 587–592, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. C. R., Nichols, B. Roth, P. Albers et al., “Active surveillance is the preferred approach to clinical stage I testicular cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 31, no. 28, pp. 3490–3493, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. A. A. Dahl, A. Mykletun, S. D., and Fosså, “Quality of life in survivors of testicular cancer,” Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 193–200, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. A. Mykletun, A. A. Dahl, C. F. Haaland et al., “Side effects and cancer-related stress determine quality of life in long-term survivors of testicular cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 23, no. 13, pp. 3061–3068, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. M. Y., Carpentier, J. D., and Fortenberry, “Romantic and sexual relationships, body image, and fertility in adolescent and young adult testicular cancer survivors: a review of the literature,” Journal of Adolescent Health, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 115–125, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. M. J., Loscalzo, K. L., and Clark, “The psychosocial context of cancer-related infertility,” Cancer Treatment and Research, vol. 138, pp. 180–190, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  47. L. B. Travis, S. D. Fosså, S. J. Schonfeld et al., “Second cancers among 40576 testicular cancer patients: focus on long-term survivors,” JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 97, no. 18, pp. 1354–1365, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. R., Abouassaly, S. D. Fossa, A. Giwercman et al., “Sequelae of treatment in long-term survivors of testis cancer,” European Urology, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 516–526, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. U. B. Chaudhary and J. R. Haldas, “Long-term complications of chemotherapy for germ cell tumours,” Drugs, vol. 63, no. 15, pp. 1565–1577, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. J. A., Punyko, A. C. Mertens, J. G. Gurney et al., “Long-term medical effects of childhood and adolescent rhabdomyosarcoma: a report from the childhood cancer survivor study,” Pediatric Blood and Cancer, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 643–653, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. N. G., Cost, M. Adibi, J. D. Lubahn et al., “Effect of testicular germ cell tumor therapy on renal function,” Urology, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 641–648, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  52. R. Skinner, A. Parry, L. Price, M. Cole, A. W. Craft, and A. D. J. Pearson, “Persistent nephrotoxicity during 10-year follow-up after cisplatin or carboplatin treatment in childhood: relevance of age and dose as risk factors,” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 45, no. 18, pp. 3213–3219, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. C. Fung et al., “Multi-institutional assessment of adverse health outcomes among North American testicular cancer survivors after modern cisplatin-based chemotherapy,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 1211–1222, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  54. B. Hayes-Lattin and C. R. Nichols, “Testicular cancer: a prototypic tumor of young adults,” Seminars in Oncology, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 432–438, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. H., Boer, J. H. Proost, J. Nuver et al., “Long-term exposure to circulating platinum is associated with late effects of treatment in testicular cancer survivors,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 2305–2310, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  56. L. B. Travis, C. Beard, J. M. Allan et al., “Testicular cancer survivorship: research strategies and recommendations,” JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 102, no. 15, pp. 1114–1130, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  57. M. Bandak, N. Jørgensen, A. Juul et al., “Leydig cell dysfunction, systemic inflammation and metabolic syndrome in long-term testicular cancer survivors,” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 84, pp. 9–17, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  58. L. Jacobs, D., and Vaughn, “Hypogonadism and infertility in testicular cancer survivors,” Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 558–563, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  59. M. Sprauten, M. Brydoy, H. Haugnes et al., “Longitudinal serum testosterone, luteinizing hormone, and follicle-stimulating hormone levels in a population-based sample of long-term testicular cancer survivors,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 571–578, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  60. M. Ondrusova, D. Ondrus, L., Dusek, B., and Spanikova, “Damage of hormonal function and bone metabolism in long-term survivors of testicular cancer,” Neoplasma, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 473–479, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. H. M. Parsons, L. C. Harlan, C. F. Lynch et al., “Impact of cancer on work and education among adolescent and young adult cancer survivors,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 30, no. 19, pp. 2393–2400, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  62. E., Kharazmi, K. Hemminki, E. Pukkala et al., “Cancer risk in relatives of testicular cancer patients by histology type and age at diagnosis: a joint study from five Nordic countries,” European Urology, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 283–289, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. M. J. Murray, R. A. Huddart, N., and Coleman, “The present and future of serum diagnostic tests for testicular germ cell tumours,” Nature Reviews Urology, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 715–725, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  64. T., Tandstad, C. K. Kollmannsberger, B. J. Roth et al., “Practice makes perfect:the rest of the story in testicular cancer as a model curable neoplasm,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 35, no. 31, pp. 3525–3528, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar