Background/Objectives: Testicular germ cell tumors (TGCTs) represent the most common solid malignancies in young adult men, with cure rates exceeding 95% under modern cisplatin-based therapy, yet a clinically relevant subset of patients still experiences treatment failure or long-term toxicity. This systematic review synthesizes peer-reviewed evidence, from database inception through 6 July 2026, on prognostic and predictive molecular markers in developmental and endocrine-sensitive testicular carcinogenesis. Methods: A PRISMA 2020-aligned search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Library was supplemented by registry-based evidence, reference-list screening, and contemporary guidelines to capture diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive biomarkers in TGCTs. The strategy encompassed classical serum markers, tissue-based molecular and immunohistochemical markers, miRNA/cfDNA liquid-biopsy assays, immune and resistance-related features, and validated clinicopathological risk models. Results: The review integrates classical serum biomarkers, pluripotency transcription factors, surface and oncofetal antigens, yolk-sac and trophoblastic markers, circulating microRNAs, methylated cell-free DNA, immune features, and updated clinicopathological risk models. Markers are graded as established, validated research, or emerging candidates. miR-371a-3p shows a high accuracy for active non-teratomatous TGCT, with pooled sensitivity of about 0.90 and specificity of approximately 0.86, but is negative in pure teratoma. AFP, β-hCG, and LDH are still required for staging and IGCCCG risk assignment. Conclusions: Despite the growing promise of biomarker-driven approaches in TGCT, no single serum, tissue, liquid-biopsy, immune, or resistance-associated marker has yet demonstrated sufficient clinical utility to replace comprehensive evaluation based on morphology, staging, histology, imaging, standard serum markers, and established clinicopathological risk assessment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cutitaru et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: