PURPOSE Previous studies suggested that serum levels of microRNA (miR)-371a-3p (so-called M371 test) have a much higher sensitivity and specificity than the classic markers of testicular germ cell tumors (GCTs) and are applicable toward both seminoma and nonseminoma. We sought to confirm the usefulness of this test as a novel biomarker for GCT. PATIENTS AND METHODS In a prospective, multicentric study, serum samples of 616 patients with testicular GCTs and 258 male controls were examined for serum levels of miRNA-371a-3p (miR levels) by quantitative polymerase chain reaction. The GCT population encompassed 359 patients with seminoma and 257 with nonseminoma; 371 had clinical stage I disease, 201 had systemic disease, and 46 had relapses. Paired measurements before and after orchiectomy were performed in 424 patients; 118 with systemic disease had serial measurements during treatment. miR levels were compared with those of β-human chorionic gonadotropin, α-fetoprotein, and lactate dehydrogenase. RESULTS For the primary diagnosis of GCT, the M371 test showed a sensitivity of 90.1%, a specificity of 94.0%, an area under the curve of 0.966 upon receiver operating characteristic analysis, and a positive predictive value of 97.2%. α-Fetoprotein, β-human chorionic gonadotropin, and lactate dehydrogenase had sensitivities of less than 50% in seminoma and slightly higher sensitivities in nonseminomas. miR levels were significantly associated with clinical stage, primary tumor size, and response to treatment. Relapses had elevated miR levels that subsequently dropped to normal upon remission. Teratoma did not express miR-371a-3p. CONCLUSION The M371 test outperforms the classic markers of GCT with both a sensitivity and a specificity greater than 90%. All histologic subgroups, except teratoma, express this marker. The test could be considered for clinical implementation after further validation.

In November 2011, the Third European Consensus Conference on Diagnosis and Treatment of Germ-Cell Cancer (GCC) was held in Berlin, Germany. This third conference followed similar meetings in 2003 (Essen, Germany) and 2006 (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) [Schmoll H-J, Souchon R, Krege S et al. European consensus on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus Group (EGCCCG). Ann Oncol 2004; 15: 1377–1399; Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon R et al. European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus group (EGCCCG): part I. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 478–496; Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon R et al. European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus group (EGCCCG): part II. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 497–513]. A panel of 56 of 60 invited GCC experts from all across Europe discussed all aspects on diagnosis and treatment of GCC, with a particular focus on acute and late toxic effects as well as on survivorship issues.The panel consisted of oncologists, urologic surgeons, radiooncologists, pathologists and basic scientists, who are all actively involved in care of GCC patients. Panelists were chosen based on the publication activity in recent years. Before the meeting, panelists were asked to review the literature published since 2006 in 20 major areas concerning all aspects of diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of GCC patients, and to prepare an updated version of the previous recommendations to be discussed at the conference. In addition, ∼50 E-vote questions were drafted and presented at the conference to address the most controversial areas for a poll of expert opinions. Here, we present the main recommendations and controversies of this meeting. The votes of the panelists are added as online supplements.

Summary We studied 228 consecutive stem cell transplant recipients, screened for reactivation of human herpesvirus‐6 (HHV‐6) in peripheral blood and other specimens as clinically indicated by means of qualitative polymerase chain reaction. Among them, 197 received an allograft and 31 autograft. Ninety‐six of 228 patients (42·1%) showed HHV‐6 reactivation in peripheral blood and 129 of 228 (56·6%) demonstrated HHV‐6 in at least one of the specimens tested. 41·9% of patients were asymptomatic when HHV‐6 was identified. Clinical features, noted when HHV‐6 was detected, included interstitial or alveolar pneumonia, gastroduodenal and colorectal disease, bone marrow suppression and liver disease. However, based on clinical and histopathological criteria, HHV‐6 was considered a causal agent in only a minority of patients, in particular, those suffering from bone marrow suppression (n = 11), gastroduodenitis (five), colitis (three), interstitial/alveolar pneumonia (five), skin rash (one), pericarditis (two) and encephalitis (one). HHV‐6 reactivation was significantly associated with the occurrence of graft‐versus‐host disease [odds ratio (OR) 5·31], Epstein–Barr virus coinfection (OR 8·89) and unrelated donor transplantation (OR 5·67) indicating an increased stage of immunosuppression.

This guideline is an evidence-based approach to the diagnosis, management and prevention of CRI in cancer patients.

PURPOSE The classification of the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG) plays a pivotal role in the management of metastatic germ cell tumors but relies on data of patients treated between 1975 and 1990. MATERIALS AND METHODS Data on 9,728 men with metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumors treated with cisplatin- and etoposide-based first-line chemotherapy between 1990 and 2013 were collected from 30 institutions or collaborative groups in Europe, North America, and Australia. Clinical trial and registry data were included. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The survival estimates were updated for the current era. Additionally, a novel prognostic model for PFS was developed in 3,543 patients with complete information on potentially relevant variables. The results were validated in an independent data set. RESULTS Compared with the original IGCCCG publication, 5-year PFS remained similar in patients with good prognosis with 89% (87%-91%) versus 90% (95% CI, 89 to 91), but the 5-year OS increased from 92% (90%-94%) to 96% (95%-96%). In patients with intermediate prognosis, PFS remained similar with 75% (71%-79%) versus 78% (76%-80%) and the OS increased from 80% (76%-84%) to 89% (88%-91%). In patients with poor prognosis, the PFS increased from 41% (95% CI, 35 to 47) to 54% (95% CI, 52 to 56) and the OS from 48% (95% CI, 42 to 54) to 67% (95% CI, 65 to 69). A more granular prognostic model was developed and independently validated. This model identified a new cutoff of lactate dehydrogenase at a 2.5 upper limit of normal and increasing age and presence of lung metastases as additional adverse prognostic factors. An online calculator is provided ( https://www.eortc.org/IGCCCG-Update ). CONCLUSION The IGCCCG Update model improves individual prognostication in metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumors. Increasing age and lung metastases add granularity to the original IGCCCG classification as adverse prognostic factors.