Search

Background: Expression of the RNA-binding motif protein 3 (RBM3) has been shown to correlate with favourable clinicopathological parameters and prognosis in several cancer diseases. The aim of this study was to examine the expression and prognostic ability of RBM3 in patients with testicular non-seminomatous germ cell tumours (NSGCT). Patients and Methods: Immunohistochemical RBM3 expression was analysed in tissue microarrays with tumours from 206 patients. Chi-square test was applied to analyze associations between RBM3 expression and clinicopathological parameters. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess the impact of RBM3 expression on cancer-specific survival (CSS) and failure-free survival (FFS). Cox regression proportional hazards models were used to estimate the relative risk for failure. Results: In the entire cohort, there was a significant association between clinical stage (p=0.044) and RBM3 expression. Weak RBM3 expression correlated with a significantly reduced FFS [79.3% versus 90.4%(p=0.019)] and CSS [87.5% versus 97.3% (p=0.047)]. For patients with metastatic disease (n = 88), significant associations were found between RBM3 expression and IGCCC group (p=0.007). The FFS was significantly inferior for patients with low tumour-specific RBM3 expression [59.3% versus 79.0% (p=0.013)], and this association remained significant in a multivariable model for patients with metastatic disease (HR=3.67; 95% CI 1.14, 11.89). Conclusion: Low RBM3 expression is an independent predictor of treatment failure in metastatic NSGCT, in relation to the prognostic factors included in the International Germ Cell Consensus Classification (IGCCC). These findings suggest that RBM3 may be a potential biomarker for treatment stratification in patients with metastatic non-seminomatous germ cell tumours, and therefore merit further validation., QC 20150527

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. © The Author 2012. Published by Oxford Univer