Postradical orchiectomy hemorrhage: should an alteration in staging strategy for testicular cancer be considered?

Management of Primary Testicular Tumor

In any man with a solid testicular mass, cancer should be considered until proven otherwise. Radical inguinal orchiectomy is the treatment of choice in patients with testis mass. Placement of a testicular prosthesis is safe with a very low complication rate and should be offered to all patients undergoing radical orchiectomy. In patients with widespread or life-threatening advanced disease, delayed orchiectomy following chemotherapy is recommended. Testis-sparing surgery can be performed in highly selected patients with solitary testicle mass, bilateral testicular tumors, or strong suspicion of a benign lesion.

Retroperitoneal hematoma following radical orchiectomy: Two cases

Treatment of testicular cancer is dependent on the stage of disease at presentation. Stage 1 testicular cancer is treated with radical orchiectomy, followed by active surveillance, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy. Occasionally, unusual and unexpected postoperative changes can be seen on computed tomography (CT), and may raise concern for metastatic disease. Here, we present two cases of testicular cancer patients who developed retroperitoneal hematomas post-radical orchiectomy, one as a classical clinical presentation, and the other as an atypical radiological entity only. The first is a case of a 38-year-old male with a non-seminoma testicular cancer, who developed severe flank pain, hemodynamic instability, and progressive anemia from a retroperitoneal hematoma in the immediate (<24 hours) postoperative period, requiring urgent surgical evacuation. The second is a case of a 33-year-old male with a testicular seminoma who had a large, suspicious retroperitoneal mass on a staging CT scan concerning for metastatic disease, which was later diagnosed as a retroperitoneal hematoma. These cases reveal the clinical variability with which a retroperitoneal hematoma post-radical orchiectomy may present. In addition, the second case demonstrates the importance of recognizing radiological postoperative changes and ensuring that these findings are not mistaken for and treated as metastatic disease.

[Hemoperitoneum and death due to hepatoesplenic metastasis rupture in a testicular tumor]

We present a case of a mix germinal testicular tumor, in III-C (AJCC-UICC) stage, at a terminal phase due to massive methastasis rupture at hepatic and splenic methastasis locations.

Short- and long-term complications of therapy for testicular cancer

We review the treatments used for testicular cancer and the complications associated with each modality of therapy. It is imperative the clinician recognize possible treatment-related morbidity when counseling and monitoring testicular cancer patients.

Germ cell tumors of the testis

Testicular cancer is the most common malignancy in men aged 20 to 35 years and accounts for approximately 1% of all male malignancies. Through the appropriate utilization of clinical trials, effective treatment paradigms have been developed for the management of all stages of testicular cancer. The multidisciplinary approach to the management of germ cell tumors of the testis has resulted in survival rates of > 90% overall. This review summarizes the principal management of germ cell tumors of the testis, highlighting the indications for surgery, controversies surrounding the integration of surgery, and alternative management strategies.

A rational approach to managing stage I nonseminomatous germ cell cancer

Regardless of the treatment option selected for management of low-stage germ cell cancer, ultimate survival is nearly identical. Treatment-related morbidity is very low regardless of management modality and the individual patient can expect similar physical limitations owing to therapy. The overall difference in loss of productivity between treatment programs varies by little more than 1 week. The cost of treatment is similar for all methods, although there is a definite financial advantage to surveillance, less so for selective surveillance, when compared with other forms of management. Socioeconomic factors are of importance when managing limited resources for a large population, but are of less concern to an individual, especially when the mean differences in per patient costs vary by only $5000. Because of these close similarities in efficacy, morbidity, and costs treatment decisions should be individualized. A responsible and reliable patient can be managed safely by selective surveillance. Those individuals considered to be less self-motivated to pursue intensive care should be managed by primary therapy. Without more information regarding the long-term outcomes associated with primary adjuvant chemotherapy, primary adjuvant RPLND, where experienced surgical support is available, is the preferred management for low-stage germ cell cancer in patients selected for, or electing, active treatment rather than surveillance. Active investigations examining the role of medical management in this population should be continued. Our preferred choice of initial management is to offer selective surveillance to appropriate patients and modified RPLND to the remainder.