Guideline discordant care in patients with metastatic germ cell tumors

Despite high curability, patients with metastatic germ cell tumors (GCT) in the United States general population persistently face inferior outcomes compared with those treated in specialty referral centers. We characterized guideline discordant management in patients with metastatic GCT who experienced relapse after first-line chemotherapy and compared those who were initially treated in community practices vs. academic referral centers.

Retrospective analysis of 53 patients with relapsed GCT between 2005 and 2018. First-line GCT management was assessed against the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Guideline discordant management, predictors of discordance, and associations with outcomes were assessed.

Of 53 patients with relapsed GCT, 34% received guideline discordant care in the first-line setting. Guideline discordant care was more prevalent in patients initially treated in community practices (12/30, 40%) vs. those initially treated in academic centers (3/22, 14%), though in multivariate logistic regression, this difference was not statistically significant (odds ratio: 4.07, P = 0.08). Most patients in community settings who received guideline discordant care were undertreated (10/12, 83%). There were 3 major reasons for guideline discordant care: (1) failure to resect residual masses after chemotherapy (27%, 4/15), (2) mismanagement of chemotherapy-related adverse events (27%, 4/15), and (3) under staging at diagnosis, resulting either insufficient chemotherapy regimen intensity (13%, 2/15) and/or inappropriately receiving primary surgical resection for metastatic disease (20%, 3/15).

Under treatment was identified in nearly half of patients initially treated in a community setting who later developed relapsed GCT. Referral to specialized centers for a second opinion should be considered for all metastatic GCT patients in the first-line setting and all patients with post-chemotherapy residual disease. More effective methods should be developed to facilitate second opinions from expert centers in the United States.