Time filter

Source Type

Introduction: The objective of this article was to make a focus on pathological, clinical and therapeutic of different forms of adult testicular teratoma. Material and methods: The multidisciplinary working group has conducted a literature search on Pubmed with keywords: adult teratoma; malignant transformation; growing teratoma; chemotherapy; surgery to make a focus on the different forms of adult testicular teratoma. Results: Teratomas of the adults are malignant and subdivided into localized and metastatic forms that may be distinguished under exclusive teratoma form, growing teratoma or teratoma with malignant transformation. The management is based on an enlarged surgical excision (testis and metastasis) with, in metastatic forms, a chemotherapy adjusted with histology. Extended follow-up beyond 10 years is necessary because of the risk of late relapse. Conclusions: Testicular teratoma is a rare tumor, which is considered malignant with a potential of metastasis. The treatment is based mainly on surgical management. © 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS.


Introduction: The objective of this article was to make a focus on pathological, clinical and therapeutic of different forms of adult testicular teratoma. Material and methods: The multidisciplinary working group has conducted a literature search on Pubmed with keywords: adult teratoma; malignant transformation; growing teratoma; chemotherapy; surgery to make a focus on the different forms of adult testicular teratoma. Results: Teratomas of the adults are malignant and subdivided into localized and metastatic forms that may be distinguished under exclusive teratoma form, growing teratoma or teratoma with malignant transformation. The management is based on an enlarged surgical excision (testis and metastasis) with, in metastatic forms, a chemotherapy adjusted with histology. Extended follow-up beyond 10 years is necessary because of the risk of late relapse. Conclusions: Testicular teratoma is a rare tumor, which is considered malignant with a potential of metastasis. The treatment is based mainly on surgical management. © 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.


Chanat C.,Groupe Hospitalier Diaconnesses Croix Saint Simon | Delbaldo C.,Groupe Hospitalier Diaconnesses Croix Saint Simon | Denis J.,Groupe Hospitalier Diaconnesses Croix Saint Simon | Bocaccio F.,Groupe Hospitalier Diaconnesses Croix Saint Simon | And 2 more authors.
Anti-Cancer Drugs | Year: 2015

Docetaxel is an antineoplastic drug from the taxane family that inhibits tubulin polymerization. Its brand name is Taxotere. In mid-2010, the formulation of Taxotere changed from a two-vial preparation needing a predilution (T2V) to a one-vial ready-to-use preparation (T1V). The aim of this study was to compare the toxicity profile of these two formulations. This retrospective observational and monocentric study included all patients who received Taxotere-based chemotherapy (100 mg/m2) as an adjuvant or a neoadjuvant treatment for localized breast cancer, following initial treatment with anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Patients received either T2V or T1V Taxotere depending on the period of treatment. The main endpoint was the ratio of the dose of Taxotere received to that scheduled (R=docetaxel dose received/docetaxel dose scheduled). The secondary endpoint was tolerance. A total of 97 patients were included: 39 in the T2V group and 58 in the T1V group. The ratio of docetaxel received/docetaxel scheduled was significantly lower in the T1V than in the T2V group (0.83 vs. 0.95, respectively; P=0.028). A higher proportion of patients did not receive the totality of the scheduled dose in the T1V than in the T2V group (28 vs. 8%, respectively; P=0.03). Furthermore, the proportion of patients experiencing cutaneous toxicity was significantly higher in the T1V than in the T2V group (50 vs. 15%, respectively; P<0.001) as well as for neurological toxicity (31 vs. 15%, respectively; P=0.03). The frequency of grade 3 toxicities was higher in the T1V than in the T2V group (50 vs. 8%, P=0.016). The frequency of idiosyncratic toxicities was not affected by the change of formulation (4.7 vs. 5.4%, P=0.98). This study shows that patients treated with the T1V formulation received a significantly smaller dose of Taxotere than patients treated with T2V. In this small retrospective study, no conclusions can be drawn as to why a change in formulation would be associated with differences in dose tolerance. However, it does encourage caution and need for clinical data analysis when adopting even minor changes in the formulation of well-known anticancer drugs. Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.


Docetaxel is an antineoplastic drug from the taxane family that inhibits tubulin polymerization. Its brand name is Taxotere. In mid-2010, the formulation of Taxotere changed from a two-vial preparation needing a predilution (T2V) to a one-vial ready-to-use preparation (T1V). The aim of this study was to compare the toxicity profile of these two formulations. This retrospective observational and monocentric study included all patients who received Taxotere-based chemotherapy (100mg/m) as an adjuvant or a neoadjuvant treatment for localized breast cancer, following initial treatment with anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Patients received either T2V or T1V Taxotere depending on the period of treatment. The main endpoint was the ratio of the dose of Taxotere received to that scheduled (R=docetaxel dose received/docetaxel dose scheduled). The secondary endpoint was tolerance. A total of 97 patients were included: 39 in the T2V group and 58 in the T1V group. The ratio of docetaxel received/docetaxel scheduled was significantly lower in the T1V than in the T2V group (0.83 vs. 0.95, respectively; P=0.028). A higher proportion of patients did not receive the totality of the scheduled dose in the T1V than in the T2V group (28 vs. 8%, respectively; P=0.03). Furthermore, the proportion of patients experiencing cutaneous toxicity was significantly higher in the T1V than in the T2V group (50 vs. 15%, respectively; P<0.001) as well as for neurological toxicity (31 vs. 15%, respectively; P=0.03). The frequency of grade 3 toxicities was higher in the T1V than in the T2V group (50 vs. 8%, P=0.016). The frequency of idiosyncratic toxicities was not affected by the change of formulation (4.7 vs. 5.4%, P=0.98). This study shows that patients treated with the T1V formulation received a significantly smaller dose of Taxotere than patients treated with T2V. In this small retrospective study, no conclusions can be drawn as to why a change in formulation would be associated with differences in dose tolerance. However, it does encourage caution and need for clinical data analysis when adopting even minor changes in the formulation of well-known anticancer drugs.

Loading Groupe hospitalier Diaconnesses Croix Saint Simon collaborators
Loading Groupe hospitalier Diaconnesses Croix Saint Simon collaborators