Despite its relative rarity compared with the common adult cancers, scientific and clinical interest in germ cell cancer is increasing. From the point of view of epidemiology, the controversy about the relative importance of intrauterine versus postpubertal risk factors has continued. Evidence to support the importance of intrauterine factors comes from reports from Norway, Canada, and the US, confirming the Danish observation that the rising incidence of germ cell cancer is linked to a birth cohort effect; evidence in support of the importance of postpubertal risk comes from three case/control studies demonstrating increased risk linked to postpubertal exposures such as pesticides, plastics, electromagnetic radiation, trauma, and infections. There has been increasing interest in human endogenous retrovirus K10 as a possible factor explaining genetic susceptibility and providing a linkage between the two groups of risk factors. In cytogenetics, progress was reported in identifying the deletion point of the suspected tumor suppressor gene responsible for the i12p marker chromosome abnormality and development of FISH probes for diagnostic purposes. In molecular biology, the importance of DNA repair deficiency in normal germ cells as a factor in the exquisite chemosensitivity of germ cell cancer has been high-lighted by a report demonstrating a low level of the xeroderma pigmentosa group A (XPA) protein and induction of resistance in vitro by adding XPA. In the clinic, progress in positron emission tomography scanning and laparoscopic lymph node staging are leading to changes in outlook on management of stage 1 cases and patients with small residual masses postchemotherapy. Salvage chemotherapy regimens integrating dose dense and vertical dose intensification strategies reported 60% progression-free survival. New drugs such as gemcitabine demonstrated continued therapeutic potential for chemotherapy in these tumors. A report demonstrating the inadequacies of hormone replacement after bilateral orchidectomy and a report of the first child born after testis-conserving therapy highlight the need for more attention to testis conservation as a quality of life issue. With the cure rates so high, the need for central referral is once again debated both for stage 1 and metastatic disease. With new ways of defining poor risk stage 1 patients and reports on impact of experience highlighting the worse outcome of patients treated in centers treating small numbers, views on this issue remain clearcut.