Trends in the incidence of germ cell testicular tumors (1976-2005)

Djordje Argirovic ,
Djordje Argirovic
Aleksandar Argirovic
Aleksandar Argirovic

Published: 01.12.2011.

Biochemistry

Volume 28, Issue 3 (2012)

pp. 683-690;

https://doi.org/10.5937/matmed1203683a

Abstract

The aim of the present study is to prospectively investigate the presentation of germ cell testicular tumors (GCCTs) in terms of clinical stage (CS) or histology, as the incidence of this malignancy in increasing. Patients diagnosed with GCTTS between 1976 and 2005 were categorized into 3 period depending on date of diagnosis of GCTTs and presentation characteristics assessed. For purpose of analysis patients were assigned into 1 of 3 similar groups in term of duration (10 years) (1976-1985, 1986-1995, 1996-2005). These 3 periods were compared statistically to identify the possible changes in the presentation of GCTTs. Among 1935 patients, the number diagnosed in each period was 111 (6%), 695 (36%) and 1129 (58%), respectively. There was substantial rise in the percentage of patients with GCTTs during the period of 30 years, particularly in 3rd vs. 2nd and 1st decade (P<0.0001). Overall, 46% of patients were diagnosed with seminoma and 54% with nonseminoma. The greater proportion of the entire cohort of patients presented in CS I (65%). Also, seminoma and nonseminoma occurred more frequently in CS I (78% and 51%, respectively). The median (range) age of the whole cohort of patients was 34 (14-80) years. The median age for developing metastatic seminoma was 4 years more than in CS I disease (38 vs. 42 years, respectively), while the median age for the presentation of CS I and metastatic nonseminoma was identical (31 years). The proportion of seminoma increased significantly in time (40% vs 55%) and this was accompanied by a significant decrease of nonseminoma (60% vs. 45%)(P<0.001). The proportion of patients in CS I disease also increased significantly with time (45% vs. 77%), while the proportion of patients with metastatic disease decreased (55% vs. 23%)(P<0.001). There was a significant rise in proportion of patients with CS I seminoma (27% vs. 47%) (P<0.001) and nonseminoma (18% vs. 30%) (P<0.001), accompanied by a significant decrease in the proportion of patients presenting with metastatic nonseminoma (46% vs. 15%)(P<0.0001). However, the proportion of patients with metastatic seminoma remained largery unchanged (13% vs. 9%). The present study shows a progressive increase of GCTTs during the observation period of 30 years, with increase in the proportion of patients with GCTTs confined to the testis, as opposed to metastatic disease. The other finding is that there has been an increase in the proportion of patients presenting with seminoma rather than nonseminoma. The reason for this remain unclear and require further investigation.

Keywords

References

1.
Zheng T, Tr H, Ma Z, Ba W, Flannery, Boyle P. Continuing increase in the incidence of germ-cell testis cancer in young adults: experience from Connecticut. Int j Cancer. 1996;723–9.
2.
Ward E. Cancer statistics. Ca Cancer j Clin. 2009;225–49.
3.
Huyghe E, Matsuda T, Thonneau P. Increasing incidence of testicular cancer worlwide: a review. Urol. 2003;5–11.
4.
Drazer G, M, Se E. Global trends in testicular cancer incidence and mortality. Eur Urol. 2011;374–9.
5.
Mc Glynn K. Trens in the incidence of testicular germ cell tumours in the United states. Cancer. 2001;63–70.
6.
Chia V, Quarishi, Purdue M, Cook M, Mc G, Ka. International treens in the incidence of testicular cancer. Cancer Epidemiologic Biomarkers Prev. 1973;1151–9.
7.
Ca C, Chilvers C, Davey G, Pikl M. Oliver rT; Forman dT. risk facors for testicular tumors by histological tumour type. United kingdom Testicular Cancer study Group. Br j Cancer. 1999;1859–63.
8.
Hj H. Van der Graft WT, shuiter Wj, Chraffordt Koops H, sleifer dT. The changing distribution of stage in nonseminomatous germ cell tmors, from 1977 to 1996. BjU Int. 1998;68–74.
9.
Heindal K, Sd F. Increasing incidence and changing stage distribution of testicular carcinoma in Norway 1970-87. Br j Cancer. 1990;277–8.
10.
Powles T, Bhardwa, Mandalia, Oliver T. The changing presentation of germ cell testicular tumours of the testis between. BjU Int. 1983;1197–200.
11.
Enewold L, Erickson Rl Z, Zhu K, Mc G, Ka. Trends in testicular germ cell tumors among U.s. military servicemen, 1990-2003. Mil Med. 2011;1184–7.
12.
Gj B, Nj V, Goldman. Impact of delay in diagnosis on clinical stage testicular cancer. Lancet. 1981;970–3.
13.
Chilvers C, Saunders M, Biss Jm, Nicholls, Horwich. Influnce of delay in diagnosis on progression in testicular teratoma. Br j Cancer. 1989;126–8.
14.
Moul Jw, Paulson W, Pj. delay in diagnosis and survival in testicular cancer: impact of effective therapy and changes during 18 years. j Urol. 1990;520–3.
15.
Weir H, Ld M, Moravan V. Trends in the incidence of testicular germ cell cancer in Ontario by histologic subgroup, 1964-1996. Can Med assoc j. 1999;201–5.
16.
Oliver Rt, Leahey M, Ong J. Combined seminoma/non-seminoma should be considered as intermediate grade germ cell cancer (GCC). Eur j Cancer. 1995;1392–4.
17.
Berney Dm L, Rt O. Tzhe frequency of intratubular embryonal carcinoma: implications for the pathogenesis of germ cell tumors. Histopatology. 2004;155–61.
18.
Bray F, Ekborn L. do testicular seminoma and nonseminoma have the same etiology? Evidence from an age-period-cohort analysis of incidence trends in eight european countries. Cancer Epidemiologic Biomarkers rev. 2006;652–8.
19.
Pearce N, Howard Jk F, Lilley B. Time trends and occupational differences in cancer of the testis in New Zeland. Cancer. 1987;1677–82.
20.
Pukkala E, Weiderpass E. socio-economic differences in incidence rates of cancer of the male genital organs in Finland, 1975-95. Int j Cancer. 2002;643–8.

Citation

Copyright

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. 

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Most read articles

Partners