Prophylactic Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Patients with Penile Cancer

Contemporary Role of Lymph Node Dissection in Genitourinary Cancers: Where Are We in 2023?

CONTEXT

Lymphadenectomy during surgery for genitourinary malignancies has varying benefits.

OBJECTIVE

To review contemporary evidence on lymph node dissection in genitourinary cancers.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We performed a collaborative review to summarize current evidence supporting lymph node dissection in urothelial, prostate, kidney, penile, and testis cancers. We present the evidence on patient selection and recommended dissection templates, and highlight knowledge gaps and ongoing areas of investigation.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Lymph node dissection remains the reference standard for lymph node staging. Pathologic nodal stage informs prognosis and guides adjuvant treatment. Appropriate template and patient selection are paramount to optimize outcomes and capitalize on the selective therapeutic benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

Accurate staging with lymphadenectomy is contingent on appropriate template selection. The cumulative benefit will depend on judicious patient selection.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We performed a collaborative review by a diverse group of experts in urology. We reviewed current evidence on lymph node dissection.

Management of Lymph Node-positive Penile Cancer: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Lymph node (LN) involvement in penile cancer is associated with poor survival. Early diagnosis and management significantly impact survival, with multimodal treatment approaches often considered in advanced disease.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness of treatment options available for the management of inguinal and pelvic lymphadenopathy in men with penile cancer.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and other databases were searched from 1990 to July 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), nonrandomised comparative studies (NRCSs), and case series (CSs) were included.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We identified 107 studies, involving 9582 patients from two RCTs, 28 NRCSs, and 77 CSs. The quality of evidence is considered poor. Surgery is the mainstay of LN disease management, with early inguinal LN dissection (ILND) associated with better outcomes. Videoendoscopic ILND may offer comparable survival outcomes to open ILND with lower wound-related morbidity. Ipsilateral pelvic LN dissection (PLND) in N2-3 cases improves overall survival in comparison to no pelvic surgery. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in N2-3 disease showed a pathological complete response rate of 13% and an objective response rate of 51%. Adjuvant radiotherapy may benefit pN2-3 but not pN1 disease. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy may provide a small survival benefit in N3 disease. Adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy improve outcomes after PLND for pelvic LN metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

Early LND improves survival in nodal disease in penile cancer. Multimodal treatments may provide additional benefit in pN2-3 cases; however, data are limited. Therefore, individualised management of patients with nodal disease should be discussed in a multidisciplinary team setting.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Spread of penile cancer to the lymph nodes is best managed with surgery, which improves survival and has curative potential. Supplementary treatment, including the use of chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, may further improve survival in advanced disease. Patients with penile cancer with lymph node involvement should be treated by a multidisciplinary team.

Inguinal Lymph-Node Ratio (LNR) as a predictor of Pelvic Lymph-Node Metastasis in squamous cell carcinoma of penis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the predictors of pelvic lymph-node metastasis in cases of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of penis.

METHODS

Data was retrospectively collected from 267 cases of SCC penis that presented at our institute between 2009 and 2019. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify independent significant factors. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine the cut-off of Lymph-Node Ratio (LNR) and discriminative ability of new model. Survival analysis was done using Kaplan Meier Curve.

RESULTS

Pelvic Lymph-Node Metastasis (PLNM) was pathologically detected in 56 groins (29.2%). A cut-off of 0.25 was calculated for LNR based on ROC. LNR >0.25 (p = 0.003), ENE (p = 0.037), and LVI (p = 0.043) were found significant on multivariate logistic regression. 71.5% showed PLNM in groins with positive LN (PLN) </ = 2 but LNR >0.25 whereas no PLNM was seen in groins with PLN >2 but LNR </ = 0.25. The AUC was 0.918 and 0.821 for LNR and PLN respectively. The probability of finding PLNM was 0% for patients with no risk factors which increased to 83% for 3 risk factors. The 5-year survival was 60% if no PLNM was found as compared to 12.7% if PLNM were found. The survival according to risk score was 81%, 43%, 16% and, 13% for 0, 1, 2 and, 3 risk score respectively.

CONCLUSION

LNR >0.25, LVI and, ENE are independent predictors of PLNM. The discriminative ability of LNR was better than PLN. PLND could be avoided if no risk factors are present.

European Association of Urology-American Society of Clinical Oncology Collaborative Guideline on Penile Cancer: 2023 Update

CONTEXT

Penile cancer is a rare disease but has a significant impact on quality of life. Its incidence is increasing, so it is important to include new and relevant evidence in clinical practice guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To provide a collaborative guideline that offers worldwide physician and patient guidance for the management of penile cancer.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Comprehensive literature searches were performed for each section topic. In addition, three systematic reviews were conducted. Levels of evidence were assessed, and a strength rating for each recommendation was assigned according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Penile cancer is a rare disease but its global incidence is increasing. Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the main risk factor for penile cancer and pathology should include an assessment of HPV status. The main aim of primary tumour treatment is complete tumour eradication, which has to be balanced against optimal organ preservation without compromising oncological control. Early detection and treatment of lymph node (LN) metastasis is the main determinant of survival. Surgical LN staging with sentinel node biopsy is recommended for patients with a high-risk (≥pT1b) tumour with cN0 status. While (inguinal) LN dissection remains the standard for node-positive disease, multimodal treatment is needed in patients with advanced disease. Owing to a lack of controlled trials and large series, the levels of evidence and grades of recommendation are low in comparison to those for more common diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

This collaborative penile cancer guideline provides updated information on the diagnosis and treatment of penile cancer for use in clinical practice. Organ-preserving surgery should be offered for treatment of the primary tumour when feasible. Adequate and timely LN management remains a challenge, especially in advanced disease stages. Referral to centres of expertise is recommended.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Penile cancer is a rare disease that significantly impacts quality of life. While the disease can be cured in most cases without lymph node involvement, management of advanced disease remains challenging. Many unmet needs and unanswered questions remain, underlining the importance of research collaborations and centralisation of penile cancer services.

Patterns of Recurrence and Survival After Pelvic Treatment for Locally Advanced Penile Cancer

Background

Penile cancer (PeCa) is rare, and the survival of patients with advanced disease remains poor. A better understanding of where treatment fails could aid the development of new treatment strategies.

Objective

To describe the disease course after pelvic lymph node (LN) treatment for PeCa.

Design setting and participants

We retrospectively analysed 228 patients who underwent pelvic LN treatment with curative intent from 1969 to 2016. The main treatment modalities were neoadjuvant chemotherapy, chemoradiation, and pelvic LN dissection.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

In the case of multiple recurrence locations, the most distant location was taken and recorded as follows: local (penis), regional (inguinal and pelvic LN), and distant (any other location). A competing risk analysis was used to calculate the time to recurrence per location, and a Kaplan-Meier analysis was used for overall survival (OS).

Results and limitations

The median follow-up of the surviving patients was 79 mo. The reason for pelvic treatment was pelvic involvement on imaging (29%), two or more tumour-positive inguinal LNs (61%), or inguinal extranodal extension (52%). More than half of the patients (61%) developed a recurrence. The median recurrence-free survival was 11 mo. The distribution was local in 9%, regional in 27%, and distant in 64% of patients. The infield control rate of nonsystemically treated patients was 61% (113/184). From the start of pelvic treatment, the median OS was 17 mo (95% confidence interval 12-22). After regional or distant recurrence, all but one patient died of PeCa with median OS after a recurrence of 4.4 (regional) and 3.1 (distant) mo. This study is limited by its retrospective nature.

Conclusions

The prognosis of PeCa patients treated on their pelvis who recur despite locoregional treatment is poor. The tendency for systemic spread emphasises the need for more effective systemic treatment strategies.

Patient summary

In this report, we looked at the outcomes of penile cancer patients in an expert centre undergoing various treatments on their pelvis. We found that survival is poor after recurrence despite locoregional treatment. Therefore, better systemic treatments are necessary.

Case report of penile cancer recurrence treated with cetuximab combined with anlotinib

Penile squamous cell carcinoma with pelvic lymph node metastases/recurrence has a poor prognosis. We reported a case with recurrent pSCC was administered cetuximab and anlotinib after failure of first‐line treatment and achieved an effective response. Cetuximab combined with anlotinib may be a new choice for relapsed pSCC.

Pelvic lymph node dissection alone versus adjuvant radiotherapy in node positive penile cancer: A systematic review

Introduction:

The management options for regional lymph nodes (LNs) in men with penile cancer include surveillance, surgery, and chemotherapy. The use of radiotherapy (RT) for nodal disease follows tradition and single-institution policies. We aimed to analyse the existing evidence regarding the management of penile cancer patients with suspected or known metastatic pelvic LNs using pelvic LN dissection (PLND) with RT versus PLND or RT alone.

Methods:

A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, with no filters for language or time. The search was conducted in EMBASE, MEDLINE/PubMed, and Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria were adult men with penile cancer and suspected metastatic pelvic LNs, undergoing PLND with or without RT or RT alone. Primary outcomes included disease-specific survival and locoregional recurrence. Secondary outcomes included overall survival and complications of therapy.

Results:

A total of 552 articles were identified. Only eight retrospective studies were eligible for inclusion (including 406 patients). All studies had a high risk of bias. None of the studies reported the use of neoadjuvant RT. Indications for PLND varied but were usually two or more clinically positive inguinal nodes with or without extracapsular extension. Adjuvant RT was mainly used in positive pelvic LNs or pN2/pN3 stages. The rate of locoregional recurrence following adjuvant RT was 70%. Complications of treatment were reported in two studies only.

Conclusions:

There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of adjuvant RT following PLND in penile cancer patients. The quality of evidence is low due to the retrospective design and high risk of bias. Randomized clinical trials are required to assess the efficacy and safety of adjuvant RT and PLND.

Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Penile Cancer With Inguinal Lymph Node Extranodal Extension: A Multicenter Experience

Background: The aim of this study is to determine the necessary extent of penile lymph node dissection (PLND) in penile cancer patients with inguinal lymph node extracapsular extension (ILN-ENE). Methods: Penile cancer patients who underwent PLND in 15 centers from January 2006 to April 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. PLND was performed in patients with ILN-ENE. Results: Sixty-two patients with ILN-ENE were included in the analysis. A total of 51.6% (32/62) of the patients were confirmed to have pelvic lymph node metastasis (PLNM), and 31.3% (10/32) of patients were confirmed to have multiple PLNMs. Of the patients with metastases, 59.4% (19/32) had bilateral inguinal lymph node metastasis (ILNM). According to the anatomical structure, 71.9% (23/32) of the patients had PLNM in the external iliac region, and 56.2% (18/32) had PLNM in the obturator region. Among those with oligo-PLNM, 65.1% (28/43) of the patients had PLNM in the external iliac region and 38.9% (15/43) had PLNM in the obturator region. A significant overall survival difference was observed between patients with the bilateral ILNM and unilateral ILNM (36-month: 21.2 vs. 53.7%, respectively, P = 0.023). Patients with bilateral ILNM had relatively poor metastasis-free survival compared with unilateral ILNM (36-month: 33.0 vs. 13.9%, respectively, P = 0.051). Conclusions: The external iliac and obturator region were the most commonly affected regions in patients with ILN-ENE, and these regions were the only affected regions in patients with oligo-PLNM. Patients with bilateral ILNM had a high risk of PLNM and worse survival.

A novel predictive model for pelvic lymph node metastasis in patients with penile cancer: A multi-institutional study

PURPOSE

We determined whether a clinicopathological nomogram is able to predict the risk of pelvic lymph node metastasis (LNM) in penile cancer patients after inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND).

METHODS

Ninety-eight patients with bilateral ILND who underwent pelvic lymphadenectomy at 10 centers were retrospectively analyzed. The most predictive features in the nomogram were selected by the stepwise logistic regression method and then tested and verified by multivariate logistic regression analyses. The nomogram was assessed using concordance indices and calibration curves.

RESULTS

Of the 181 pelvic basins, pelvic LNM was observed in 52 packages (43 patients). Bilateral pelvic LNM was present in 9 patients (9/43, 20.9%). There was no crossover metastatic spread from one inguinal side to the other pelvic side. Age, previous resection, the biopsy procedure for inguinal lymph nodes, vascular invasion, and ipsilateral inguinal lymph node status were all independent risk factors for pelvic LNM (all P < 0.05) in the multivariate logistic regression analysis. The nomogram exhibited a good probability for survival agreement, with a concordance index of 0.868 (95% CI: 0.813-0.922).

CONCLUSIONS

A novel nomogram suggests that the risk of pelvic LNM can be effectively predicted in penile carcinoma patients and may provide a useful guide for clinicians. Further external validation is needed.

Is There an Oncological Benefit of Performing Bilateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Patients with Penile Cancer and Inguinal Lymph Node Metastasis?

We aim to review the literature for studies investigating the oncological outcomes of patients with penile cancer (PC) undergoing bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in the presence of inguinal lymph node metastasis (LNM) who are at risk of harboring pelvic metastasis. A search of English language literature was performed using the PubMed-MEDLINE database up to 3 December 2020 to identify articles addressing bilateral PLND in PC patients. Eight articles investigating bilateral PLND met our inclusion criteria. Patients with pelvic LNM have a dismal prognosis and, therefore, PLND has an important role in both the staging and treatment of PC patients. Ipsilateral PLND is recommended in the presence of ≥2 positive inguinal nodes and/or extranodal extension (ENE). Significant survival improvements were observed with a higher pelvic lymph node yield, in patients with pN2 disease, and in men treated with bilateral PLND as opposed to ipsilateral PLND. Nevertheless, the role of bilateral PLND for unilateral inguinal LNM remains unclear. Although the EAU guidelines state that pelvic nodal disease does not occur without ipsilateral inguinal LNM, metastatic spread from one inguinal side to the contralateral pelvic side has been reported in a number of studies. Further studies are needed to clarify the disseminative pattern of LNM, in order to establish PLND templates according to patients’ risk profiles and to investigate the benefit of performing bilateral PLND for unilateral inguinal disease.

Identification of a methylation panel aid in risk stratification in node-positive penile squamous cell carcinoma

Molecular prognostic factors for individualized treatment of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) are poorly defined. Our study developed and validated a novel molecular tools aid in preinguinal and postinguinal lymphadenectomy risk stratification in node-positive penile SCC. Patients with node-positive penile SCC who underwent inguinal or ilioinguinal lymphadenectomy were divided into three cohorts: a discovery set, a development set and a validation set. The local ethics committee approved the study. The primary endpoint was cancer-specific survival (CSS). At the discovery stage, 17 CpG sites were significantly associated with CSS. In the development set, we constructed a 3-CpG-based prognostic score for survival prediction. The hazard ratio (HR) of the panel (dichotomized using the optimal cutoff) was 5.8 in the multivariate analyses (P < .001). The addition of the methylation score significantly improved the pN-stage C-index from 0.70 to 0.79 (incremental C = 0.09, P < .001). In the validation set, the methylation panel showed a HR of 9.9 in the multivariate analyses. The addition of the molecular marker improved the pN-stage C-index from 0.69 to 0.78 (incremental C = 0.09, P < .001). The methylation score remarkably separated survival curves in different pN stages, which indicate that the tool can be applied to tailor the treatment in both preinguinal and postinguinal lymphadenectomy settings. We developed and validated a prognostic methylation panel for node-positive penile SCC. The tool may aid in the risk stratification of the population with heterogeneous outcomes and needs prospective validation. Patients in high-risk group may benefit from more aggressive therapy or clinical trials.

Management of the penile squamous cell carcinoma patient after node positive radical inguinal lymph node dissection: current evidence and future prospects

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The level of evidence for current (adjuvant) treatment strategies after node positive inguinal lymphadenectomy is relatively low because of a paucity of prospective studies and controversy exist between the two major guidelines. The present review aims to provide a review of current literature on the available treatment options of patients after a tumor positive inguinal lymph node dissection.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients without inguinal extranodal extension or less than two tumor positive inguinal nodes are at low risk of ipsilateral pelvic nodal disease. Patients with pN1 disease are unlikely to benefit from adjuvant treatment, whereas patients with pN2 disease might benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy. For patients with high risk of pelvic nodal disease, prophylactic pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is advised by current guidelines. The InPACT study investigates whether adjuvant chemoradiotherapy could be used instead of prophylactic PLND. Subgroup analyses of retrospective cohorts suggest that patients with pN3 disease based on tumor positive pelvic nodes may benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy or chemotherapy. Given the weak level of evidence and substantial toxicity associated with current regimens, adjuvant chemotherapy cannot be generally recommended.

SUMMARY

Despite current treatment strategies, patients with pN2-pN3 disease still have a poor prognosis. Prospective international multicenter studies are necessary to identify the best treatment options for patients with advanced node positive penile squamous cell carcinoma.

Current management and future perspectives of penile cancer: An updated review

Penile cancer (PeCa) is a rare disease worldwide, accounting for less than one percent of all malignancies in men. It usually presents as a painless ulcer or lump on the head of the penis. Squamous cell carcinoma represents the most common histological subtype of PeCa, with pathogenesis intimately linked to chronic Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) infection. Surgery is the cornerstone for the treatment of primary PeCa with potential mutilating outcome depending on the nodal extension of the disease. However, in case of extensive lymph node involvement, multidisciplinary treatment including perioperative chemotherapy and inclusion in clinical trial should be considered. To date, advanced or metastatic disease still have poor prognosis and are a therapeutic challenge with limited options, highlighting the need of new treatments and further investigations. Growing efforts to identify molecular alterations, understand the role of HPV and characterize immune contexture have expanded over the past years, providing further perspectives in prognostication, predictive biomarkers and therapeutic intervention. In this review, we provide an updated overview of current management of PeCa focusing on perioperative strategy. We discuss about new insights of the biology of PeCa and comment future directions in the field.

Management of clinically node-negative groin in patients with penile cancer

Malignant penile neoplasms are commonly squamous etiology, with the inguinal nodes being the first echelon of spread. The disease spreads to the pelvic lymph nodes only after metastases to the groin nodes, and this is the most important prognostic factor in penile carcinoma. While treatment of penile carcinoma with proven metastases to the inguinal lymph nodes mandates ilioinguinal lymph node dissection, the treatment of patients with impalpable nodes is more controversial. Overtreatment leads to excessive treatment-related morbidity in these patients, while a wait-and-see policy runs the risk of patients presenting with inguinal and distant metastases, which would have been curable at presentation. Unfortunately, no single imaging modality has been proved to be convincingly superior in the staging, and hence, management of the clinically negative groin has been subject to debate. While some high volume centers have promoted the use of dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy, others advocate the use of the modified inguinal lymph node template to stage the groin adequately. Newer techniques such as video endoscopic inguinal lymph node dissection have been introduced as an alternative to the original radical inguinal lymphadenectomy to reduce morbidity.

Adherence to the EAU guidelines on Penile Cancer Treatment: European, multicentre, retrospective study

PURPOSE

The European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines for penile cancer (PC) are exclusively based on retrospective studies and have low grades of recommendation. The aim of this study was to assess the adherence to guidelines by investigating the management strategies for primary tumours and inguinal lymph nodes.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical charts of 176 PC patients who underwent surgery in eight European centres from 2010 to 2016. The stage and grade were assessed according to the 2009 AJCC-UICC TNM classification system. To assess adherence rates, we compared theoretical and practical adherence to the EAU guidelines.

RESULTS

Overall, 176 patients were enrolled. Partial amputation was the most frequent surgical approach (39%). 53.7% of tumours were stage Tis-T1b and the remaining 46.3% were stage T2-T4. Palpable lymph nodes were detected in 30.1% of patients and 45.1% underwent lymphadenectomy (LY). A sizeable group of tumours (43.2%) were N0. For primary treatment, adherence to the EAU guidelines was good (66%). In non-adherent cases, reasons for discrepancy were patient's choice (17%), surgeon's preference (36%), and other causes (47%). For LY, the guideline adherence was 70%, with either patient's or surgeon's choice or other causes accounting for discrepancy in 28, 20, and 52% of non-adherent cases, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Adherence to the EAU guidelines for PC was quite high across the eight European centres involved in the study. This notwithstanding, strategies for further improvement should be developed and evenly adopted.

Current controversies and developments on the role of lymphadenectomy for penile cancer

Penile squamous cell carcinoma is a rare cancer in men. The main prognosticators of survival for penile cancer patients remain the presence and the extent of lymph node metastasis. While radical inguinal lymphadenectomy has been the cornerstone of regional lymph node management for many years, it is still associated with significant morbidity and psychological distress. Recent developments in penile squamous cell carcinoma management have been met with some controversy in the urologic oncology community. Herein, we review the current controversies and developments on the role of inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile cancer.

Contemporary management of patients with penile cancer and lymph node metastasis

Penile cancer is a rare disease that causes considerable physical and psychological patient morbidity, especially at advanced stages. Patients with low-stage nodal metastasis can achieve durable survival with surgery alone, but those with extensive locoregional metastasis have overall low survival. Contemporary management strategies for lymph node involvement in penile cancer aim to minimize the morbidity associated with traditional radical inguinal lymphadenectomy through appropriate risk stratification while optimizing oncological outcomes. Modified (or superficial) inguinal lymph node dissection and dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy are diagnostic modalities that have been recommended in patients with high-risk primary penile tumours and nonpalpable inguinal lymph nodes. In addition, advances in minimally invasive and robot-assisted lymphadenectomy techniques are being investigated in patients with penile cancer and might further decrease lymphadenectomy-related adverse effects. The management of patients with advanced disease has evolved to include multimodal treatment with systemic chemotherapy before surgical intervention and can include adjuvant chemotherapy after pelvic lymphadenectomy. The role of radiotherapy in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting remains largely unclear, owing to a lack of high-level evidence of possible benefits. New targeted therapies have shown efficacy in squamous cell carcinomas of other sites and might also prove effective in patients with penile cancer.

Pathophysiological basis of human papillomavirus in penile cancer: Key to prevention and delivery of more effective therapies

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the penis is a rare malignancy in the United States, with a significantly higher incidence-up to 20 to 30 times greater-in areas of Africa and South America. This can be explained in part by the significantly greater prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases among high-risk males often having unprotected sex with multiple sexual partners. Human papillomavirus (HPV) has been implicated as the infectious pathway by which several these penile neoplasms originate from precursor lesions. In this regard, a fundamental understanding of HPV in penile carcinogenesis can have meaningful implications in understanding 1) the diagnosis of HPV-related precursor penile lesions, 2) targeting HPV-specific molecular pathways, and 3) cancer prevention. Using vaccination programs not only may improve patient outcomes but also may minimize the need for highly aggressive and often debilitating surgical resection. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:481-495. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection for Chinese patients with penile cancer: a multicenter collaboration study

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend pelvic lymphadenectomy (PLND) for patients with pelvic lymph node metastasis and special state. However, these data and recommendations do not distinguish the role of PLND in different patient groups and confirm the final benefits. The aim of this study was to confirm the efficacy of pelvic lymphadenectomy (PLND) for the different groups of patients.

METHODS

Data obtained from 7 centers were retrospectively analyzed. Of the patients, 190 pN2-3 penile carcinoma patients confirmed by bilateral inguinal lymph node excision were included in this study. Sixty-nine and 121 of these patients did and did not undergo bilateral PLND, respectively. The baseline differences from the patients were matched by propensity score analysis.

RESULTS

In this study, the Kaplan-Meier estimated disease-specific survival (DSS) was not significantly different between the PLND and no-PLND groups (P = 0.796). According to the propensity score matching for T stage, N stage, grade, adjuvant therapies, and lymph node stage (number of inguinal lymph node metastasis and extranodal extension), 48 patients were selected for each group. Among the pN2 patients, the PLND group showed higher DSS rates than the no-surgery group (P = 0.030). However, even after matching, survival did not differ between the PLND and no-PLND patients among all patients (P = 0.609) and pN3 patients (P = 0.417) with comparable DSS.

CONCLUSION

Bilateral PLND may improve survival in pN2 patients. Men with pN3 may not benefit from bilateral PLND.