Many studies report on QoL in TC. However, reports on long-term QoL are sparse and there are only limited reports on the effects of applied adjuvant therapies [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. Furthermore, many reports are lacking sufficient quality in reporting results, i.e., standardizing the assessment of QoL or testing multiple times. We hereby present a study with the so far longest follow-up in terms of QoL in TC survivors.

According to our study, all investigated adjuvant therapies for the treatment of TC impact long-term QoL even though different aspects of QoL are affected. Additionally, the tumour type, probably confounded by the difference in applied adjuvant therapies, impacts long-term QoL. The clinical stage and prognosis group had an only minor impact on long-term QoL.

After a median follow-up of 13 years, RT compared to RPLND was associated with impairment of emotional function and nausea, independently of age and length of follow-up. With a longer median follow-up of 26 years, there was an impairment in physical function. In the long run, RPLND compared to RT was associated with a higher impairment of sexual enjoyment.

Most studies on the emotional function of TC survivors report moderate to high levels of stress, depression and anxiety [20]. However, there only exist a few reports on the effects of the applied adjuvant treatments on later emotional well-being [11, 21, 22]. When comparing to other treatment modalities, Rudberg et al. reported that TC survivors treated with CT reported lower emotional well-being after a median follow-up of 8 years [11]. Fossa et al. reported similar results 3 years after therapy, in patients who were treated with both CT and RT [21]. Stuart et al. found a higher rate of depression in TC survivors who received RT [22]. According to our results, only TC survivors who received RT reported worse emotional well-being 13 years after treatment. All these studies differed in the length of follow-up. However, our study was the only one that corrected for age and length of follow-up.

Both CT and RT are well known to be associated with nausea as an acute side effect. However, the long-term and late outcome may also be affected. Fossa et al., already in 1988, reported a higher amount of nausea and vomiting in RT patients compared to those receiving surgery alone or CT 3 years after therapy [21]. We observed the same in our study, even after a median follow-up of 13 years regarding TC survivors. Of interest, Fossa et al. reported a raised death rate in germ cell tumour survivors due to benign gastrointestinal disorders [23]. Abdominal RT contributed considerably to this risk [23, 24]. They found out that gastroduodenal ulcers, as a long-term toxicity of RT, not only represent a significant morbidity but may also be a cause of death [23].

Interestingly, we found a reduction in physical function even 26 years after treatment in the RT group. It is well known that RT may lead to a reduction in physical function, mainly because the body is exposed to large amounts of cell debris and degradation products [25]. Nevertheless, it is astonishing that this phenomenon is detectable more than 25 years after the completion of treatment. However, late effects of treatment are generally considered irreversible and progressive over time [26].

We noticed a significantly worse outcome for RPLND compared to RT TC survivors in terms of sexual enjoyment 26 years after treatment. RPLND may be associated with andrological complications, the most important being retrograde ejaculation [27]. In terms of primary RPLND, the percentage of retrograde ejaculation ranges between 1 and 61% [27]. Erectile dysfunction after TC treatment seems to be a temporary impairment, as Capogrosso et al. reported a median time of erectile function recovery of 60, 60 and 70 months respectively for CT, RT and RPLND [28]. Aspects of sexual function, such as sexual activity or sexual problems, did not significantly differ between the adjuvant treatment modalities in our study. Nevertheless, it is likely that such problems may have an impact on sexual enjoyment and that this would affect primary RPLND more seriously than RT TC survivors. Rudberg et al. reported deteriorated sexual functioning in 14% of TC survivors after a mean follow-up of 8 years. Additionally, they found significantly lower sexual interest and a lower ability to enjoy sex in survivors who had undergone the treatment combination of RT plus CT and/or RPLND compared to other treatments [11]. Kim et al., after a median follow-up of 14 years, reported that CT increased the risk of sexual dysfunction in terms of delayed ejaculation, problem assessment and erectile dysfunction compared to non-cancer controls [29].

CT compared to RPLND, after a median follow-up of 26 years, was associated with a higher impairment of role and social function, insomnia and concerns about infertility.

We found role function, which is the ability to engage in work/household as well as leisure activities, to be significantly impaired in TC survivors receiving CT compared to RPLND. Van Leeuwen et al. reported on a significant minority of TC survivors who experienced work-related changes, especially affecting survivors with mental and physical health problems [30]. In contradiction to our own findings, Arai et al. reported a better working ability in survivors receiving CT and RT compared to those on surveillance at a median follow-up of 8 years. Moreover, survivors who underwent CT and RPLND reported the best working ability [31]. However, no standardized questionnaire was used. Kaasa et al. found no differences according to the treatment group at a mean of 5 years after therapy [32]. Ozen et al. reported a worse professional life for 17% of TC survivors when treated with RT and of 6% when treated with CT at a median follow-up of 5 years. However, a statistically significant effect of treatment modality was not observed [33].

In our study, social function in TC survivors treated with CT compared to RPLND was significantly impaired after a median follow-up of 26 years. Kim et al. reported the same observation when comparing to non-cancer controls after a median follow-up of 14 years, as assessed by the SF-36 questionnaire. However, in a multivariate analysis, their results could not be confirmed [14]. Vidrine et al. also reported significantly lower social function in patients treated with CT compared to surveillance at 3 and 12 months [13]. Nevertheless, in our evaluation, at only 13 years of follow-up, we found no such association. According to our results, CT treatment may contribute to a decreased ability to integrate and interact with others, even more than 20 years after treatment.

Additionally, survivors treated with CT compared to RPLND reported greater insomnia, even 26 years after treatment. There is some evidence that sleep disturbance negatively affects health and may be associated with increased mortality [34, 35]. Bumbasirevic et al. reported insomnia and financial difficulties as the most important effects that accounted for the worse QoL of TC survivors after a follow-up of 4 years [36]. Douchez et al., after 9 years of follow-up, found that about 30% of an NSGCT survivor collective reported insomnia [37]. Oechsle et al. also reported on sleep disturbances in 36% of TC survivors 12 years after therapy [15]. It is well known that some oncologic treatments may increase the risk of developing insomnia, either because of the emotional impact, the direct physiologic effects or the side effects [34]. Circulating plasma platinum is detectable in TC survivors even 20 years after the administration of CT [38], and there is evidence that cisplatin concentration correlates with the development of late effects including neurologic disturbances in TC survivors [39].

Interestingly, survivors who received CT were more concerned about infertility, even 26 years after treatment, compared to survivors who received RPLND. Yamashita et al. evaluated TC survivors with the QLQ-TC26 questionnaire and noticed a significant reduction in concerns about infertility in CT + RPLND survivors more than 10 years after treatment compared to less than 5 years after treatment [12]. In our survivor collective, we did not notice the same trend when a correlation analysis was performed (data not shown).

NSGCT survivors had less nausea and appetite loss and were less concerned about the future compared to seminoma survivors after a median follow-up of 13 years. However, sexual problems and impairment of sexual enjoyment were more frequent, even at 26 years of follow-up.

Concerning tumour entity, Kim et al. found NSGCT survivors, compared to non-cancer controls, to be at higher risk in terms of sexual, erectile and ejaculatory dysfunction as well as problem assessment [29]. Jovanovski et al. reported on a possible increase in physical function among NSGCT survivors and a decrease in mental function over time since the cancer diagnosis [40]. Possible explanations for the differences in terms of tumour entity include different ages at diagnosis, with seminoma patients being on average older than NSGCT patients, and different applied adjuvant therapies. As we corrected for age and length of follow-up, age as an influencing factor should be of minor importance. Thus, the different treatment regimens applied should best explain our findings. We found NSGCT survivors to have less nausea and appetite loss compared to seminoma survivors, probably due to less RT being used. However, sexual problems and impairment of sexual enjoyment were more frequent in NSGCT survivors, corresponding to the higher amount of RPLND being used. Furthermore, NSGCT survivors were less concerned about the future.

The knowledge on the possible affection of long-term QoL in TC survivors stresses the importance of assessing their long-term QoL. This opens the door to offer supportive care, such as psycho-oncological support or lifestyle modifications. Additionally, it once again emphasizes the importance of a further reduction in treatment-related toxicity of TC patients without compromising cure, whenever possible.

Our study has several limitations. Survivors on surveillance are underrepresented in our study as surveillance regimens only gained importance in Germany after 2004. Thus, conclusions about adjuvant surveillance cannot be drawn from our study. In terms of adjuvant therapies, we did not discriminate between patients who had CT + RPLND (about 50% in each questionnaire group) and patients who only had CT as adjuvant treatment. We did not know the exact amount of radiation and CT applied in the RT and CT survivor collective. Primary RPLND served as the control group when comparing adjuvant treatment modalities. However, only patients in early stages of the disease receive primary RPLND. Nevertheless, in our analysis the impact of clinical stage or prognosis group on QoL was of only minor importance. There was a lack of assessment of sociodemographic parameters such as education, employment or family life as these questions were only implemented in the second questionnaire. We therefore decided not to report on them. The TC module we used as a supplement to the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire was not validated during that time. Later, it was replaced by the validated EORTC QLQ-TC26 questionnaire. There was an essential change to one question: “Was sex less enjoyable for you compared to before your illness?” was changed to “To what extent was sex enjoyable to you?” [41]. The negative phrasing of the former question might have been misunderstood by some patients and thus might have provoked misleading answers.