The Absolute Effect / Evidence / MRC TE08
Germ Cell Tumours · Medical Oncology · Imaging

MRC TE08

Clinical question

Can CT imaging be safely reduced during surveillance of stage I non-seminoma?

Trial context
Population
414 patients with stage I NSGCT choosing surveillance
Intervention
Two CT scans vs five CT scans during surveillance
Key endpoint
Intermediate/poor prognosis at relapse
Time horizon / follow-up
Median follow-up 40 months
Absolute Effect

What changes for patients?

Reducing surveillance CT from five to two did not materially increase the proportion of relapses presenting with intermediate or poor prognosis: 0.8% vs 0.6%, difference 0.2 percentage points. No poor-prognosis relapse occurred. This supports less intensive CT surveillance and illustrates an Imaging setting rather than a treatment-efficacy question.

NNT: Not applicable; non-inferiority/safety-of-reduced-imaging question

Treatment burden / harm

Radiation exposure from CT

NNH: Not applicable as a clinical harm NNH; the relevant harm is cumulative radiation exposure and scan burden

Relative effect

NON-INFERIOR; absolute difference: Intermediate-prognosis relapse 0.8% vs 0.6%

90% CI for difference -1.2% to 1.6%; no poor-prognosis relapses

Clinical interpretation

A structured surveillance protocol with fewer CT scans reduced imaging exposure without a meaningful increase in intermediate/poor-prognosis relapse presentation.

Primary publication

← Return to The Absolute Effect

Current-practice context · reviewed 14 October 2026

MRC TE08 supports reducing the number of surveillance CT scans for stage I NSGCT when using a structured protocol, without a meaningful increase in intermediate/poor-prognosis relapse presentation in the trial. Surveillance remains an accepted option only when patients can adhere to follow-up; use contemporary guideline schedules and balance radiation exposure, relapse detection, access to markers/ultrasound and patient anxiety.

MRC TE08 primary source ↗ · Current guideline guidance ↗