Comparison of clinical feasibility and oncological outcomes between video endoscopic and open inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparing open and video endoscopic lymphadenectomy for penile cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies

OBJECTIVE

To conduct the first meta-analysis using only prospective studies to evaluate whether video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) offers advantages in perioperative outcomes compared to open IL (OIL) in patients with penile cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted across multiple databases, including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Latin America and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Scopus, Web of Science, and several trial registries up to June 2024. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies were included. Data extraction focused on operative time, perioperative complications, drainage time, hospital stay, number of nodes retrieved and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Four prospective studies, including three RCTs and one non-randomised study, were included in the analysis, totalling 95 patients and 174 operated limbs. VEIL demonstrated significantly fewer wound infections (P < 0.001; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01-0.18; I2 = 0), skin necrosis (P = 0.002; 95% CI 0.04-0.49; I2 = 0), and lymphoedema (P = 0.05; 95% CI 0.09-0.99; I2 = 27%) compared to OIL. The VEIL group also had a shorter drainage period (P = 0.001; mean difference [MD] -1.94, 95% CI -3.15 to -0.74) and hospital stay (P < 0.01; MD -5.48, 95% CI -6.34 to -4.62). Pain intensity and operative time were lower in the VEIL group, contributing to fewer postoperative complications overall. Oncological outcomes showed no significant differences between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis indicates that VEIL offers significant advantages over OIL in terms of reducing wound infections, skin necrosis, and lymphoedema, leading to shorter hospital stays and overall improved perioperative outcomes. However, the limited sample of 95 patients across four studies underscores the need for further randomised trials and a cautious interpretation of the results, which currently support the use of VEIL in managing patients with penile cancer.

Comparing the safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery and open inguinal lymph node dissection in penile cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) with open inguinal lymph node dissection (O-ILND) in penile cancer.

METHODS

We performed a systematic reviews and cumulative meta-analyses of primary results of interest according to PRISMA criteria, and quality assessment followed AMSTAR. The system searched five databases, including Zhiwang, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The search period ranged was from database creation until September 2023. The statistical analysis software used Stata16.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies, including 898 patients. Compared to O-ILND, MIS is superior in length of stay (WMD = -2.96, 95%CI [-4.38, -1.54], P < 0.05), drainage time (WMD = -3.24, 95%CI [-4.70, -1.78], P < 0.05) and estimated blood loss (WMD = -35.70, 95%CI [-46.27, -25.14], P < 0.05), while operation time, recurrence rate and 5-year overall survival rate are the same. The number of lymph nodes dissection between the two groups are not statistically significant. Subgroup analyses found that there are more lymph nodes dissection in robotic-assisted inguinal lymph nodes dissection (WMD = 0.50, 95%CI [0.20, 0.80], P < 0.05). The overall complication rate of MIS was lower (OR = 0.26, 95%CI [0.09, 0.70], P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive inguinal lymph nodes dissection appears to be a better option for penile cancer cases. But more large samples and multicenter studies are needed to further confirm.

Characteristics, trends, and management of Penile cancer in the United States: A population-based study

BACKGROUND

Penile cancer (PeCa) is a rare disease. HPV infection, smoking, phimosis, and lichen sclerosus represent well-known associated risk factors.

OBJECTIVES

Primary aim of our study is to evaluate the incidence and risk factors of PeCa and to outline the adopted diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Secondary aim is to investigate risk factors associated with aggressive disease and to identify the complications arising from its surgical treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis using the PearlDiver™ Mariner database, from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2021, identifying all patients diagnosed with PeCa and PeIN, evaluating comorbidities, risk factors, and social and economic conditions. We evaluated the imaging modalities employed for staging as well as the treatment strategies. Finally, we evaluated the most frequent complications associated with inguinal lymphadenectomy (ILND).

RESULTS

During the study period, 17,494 patients were diagnosed with PeCa and 5,965 with penile intraepithelial neoplasia (PeIN). US was the most frequently utilized imaging modality, followed by PET and PET/CT. Use of CT and MRI was around 5%. Surgical treatment was the predominant strategy, utilized in 31.3% of PeCa and 22.9% of PeIN. Wide Local Excision/Glansectomy emerged as the most common surgical procedures. MLR analysis identified smoking as a risk factor for metastatic PeCa (OR; 95% CI = 1.49; 1.379-1.609), HPV infections were associated with a 35% decrease in risk (OR; 95% CI = 0.65; 0.562-0.744) (all P < 0.001). Lichen sclerosus and phimosis were associated with a doubled risk of demolitive surgery. Approximately 40% of patients experienced complications associated with ILND.

CONCLUSION

Despite advances in PeCa management, there's no significant move toward more conservative treatments. Surgical treatments are still marked by high rates of complications, potentially affect the sexual and psychosocial health of patients. These issues may foster a tendency toward avoidance behaviors, contributing to a delayed clinical presentation and treatment.

Penile cancer: ESMO-EURACAN Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up

•This ESMO CPG provides recommendations for diagnosis, staging, pathology, treatment and follow-up of penile cancer. •Algorithms for the management of primary penile tumours and inguinal lymph nodes are provided. •The author group encompasses a multidisciplinary group of experts from different institutions and countries in Europe. •Recommendations are based on available scientific data and the authors’ collective expert opinion. •In clinical practice, all recommendations provided need to be discussed with patients in a shared decision-making approach.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Minimally Invasive Procedures for Surgical Inguinal Nodal Staging in Penile Carcinoma

CONTEXT

There are several procedures for surgical nodal staging in clinically node-negative (cN0) penile carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, perioperative outcomes, and complications of minimally invasive surgical procedures for nodal staging in penile carcinoma.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review of the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane controlled trials databases and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted. Published and ongoing studies reporting on the management of cN0 penile cancer were included without any design restriction. Outcomes included the false negative (FN) rate, the number of nodes removed, surgical time, and postoperative complications.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Forty-one studies were eligible for inclusion. Four studies comparing robot-assisted (RA-VEIL) and video-endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) to open inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) were suitable for meta-analysis. A descriptive synthesis was performed for single-arm studies on modified open ILND, dynamic sentinel node biopsy (DSNB) with and without preoperative inguinal ultrasound (US), and fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC). DSNB with US + FNAC had lower FN rates (3.5-22% vs 0-42.9%) and complication rates (Clavien Dindo grade I-II: 1.1-20% vs 2.9-11.9%; grade III-V: 0-6.8% vs 0-9.4%) in comparison to DSNB alone. Favourable results were observed for VEIL/RA-VEIL over open ILND in terms of major complications (2-10.6% vs 6.9-40.6%; odds ratio [OR] 0.18; p < 0.01). Overall, VEIL/RA-VEIL had lower wound-related complication rates (OR 0.14; p < 0.01), including wound infections (OR 0.229; p < 0.01) and skin necrosis (OR 0.16; p < 0.01). The incidence of lymphatic complications varied between 20.6% and 49%.

CONCLUSIONS

Of all the surgical staging options, DSNB with inguinal US + FNAC had the lowest complication rates and high diagnostic accuracy, especially when performed in high-volume centres. If DSNB is not available, favourable results were also found for VEIL/RA-VEIL over open ILND. Lymphatic-related complications were comparable across open and video-endoscopic ILND.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed studies on different surgical approaches for assessing lymph node involvement in cases with penile cancer. The results show that a technique called dynamic sentinel node biopsy with ultrasound guidance and fine-needle sampling has high diagnostic accuracy and low complication rates. For lymph node dissection in penile cancer cases, a minimally invasive approach may offer favourable postoperative outcomes.

Long-term oncological and surgical outcomes after Video Endoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy (VEIL) in patients with penile cancer

OBJECTIVE

To report outcomes from the largest multicenter series of penile cancer patients undergoing video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective multicenter analysis. Authors of 21 centers from the Penile Cancer Collaborative Coalition-Latin America (PeC-LA) were included. All centers performed the procedure following the same previously described standardized technique. Inclusion criteria included penile cancer patients with no palpable lymph nodes and intermediate/high-risk disease and those with non-fixed palpable lymph nodes less than 4 cm in diameter. Categorical variables are shown as percentages and frequencies whereas continuous variables as mean and range.

RESULTS

From 2006 to 2020, 210 VEIL procedures were performed in 105 patients. Mean age was 58 (45-68) years old. Mean operative time was 90 minutes (60-120). Mean lymph node yield was 10 nodes (6-16). Complication rate was 15.7%, including severe complications in 1.9% of procedures. Lymphatic and skin complications were noted in 8.6 and 4.8% of patients, respectively. Histopathological analysis revealed lymph node involvement in 26.7% of patients with non-palpable nodes. Inguinal recurrence was observed in 2.8% of patients. 10y- overall survival was 74.2% and 10-y cancer specific survival was 84.8%. CSS for pN0, pN1, pN2 and pN3 were 100%, 82.4%, 72.7% and 9.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

VEIL seems to offer appropriate long term oncological control with minimal morbidity. In the absence of non-invasive stratification measures such as dynamic sentinel node biopsy, VEIL emerged as the alternative for the management of non-bulky lymph nodes in penile cancer.

Inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer patients: a comparison between open and video endoscopic approach in a multicenter setting

OBJECTIVES

To compare differences of operative outcomes, post-operative complications and survival outcomes between open and laparoscopic cases in a multicenter study.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study performed at three European centers from September 2011 to January 2019. The surgeon decision to perform open inguinal lymphadenectomy (OIL) or video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) was done in each hospital after patient counselling. Inclusion criteria regarded a minimum follow-up of 9 months since the inguinal lymphadenectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 55 patients with proven squamous cell penile cancer underwent inguinal lymphadenectomy. 26 of them underwent OIL, while 29 patients underwent VEIL. For the OIL and VEIL groups, the mean operative time was 2.5 vs. 3.4 h (p=0.129), respectively. Hospital stays were lower in the VEIL group with 4 vs. 8 days in OIL patients (p=0.053) while number of days requiring drains to remain in situ was 3 vs. 6 days (p=0.024). The VEIL group reported a lower incidence of major complications compared to the OIL group (2 vs. 17%, p=0.0067) while minor complications were comparable in both groups. In a median follow-up period of 60 months, the overall survival was 65.5 and 84.6% in OIL and VEIL groups, respectively (p=0.105).

CONCLUSIONS

VEIL is comparable to OIL regarding safety, overall survival and post-operative outcomes.

Modified videoendoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy through suprafascial approach: Technical description and preliminary surgical outcomes

INTRODUCTION

The videoendoscopic approach to inguinal lymph node dissection (VEIL) has been suggested as an excellent alternative carrying lower morbidity but equivalent oncological control. One of its most difficult steps is the development of an appropriate plane of dissection. A suprafascial approach would allow for better exposure. The objective of this study is to determine the feasibility, in terms of safety and oncological control, of a technical modification to the classical VEIL technique using a suprafascial plane of dissection in an initial series of patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A single institution retrospective review of patients undergoing VEIL technique using our modified suprafascial approach was conducted. A step-by-step surgical description is provided. Data collected included demographics; comorbid conditions; disease characteristics; intraoperative factors; and postoperative factors.

RESULTS

A total of 7 patients (12 procedures) were included. Average age was 64.42 years old, and 71.42% of the patients were male. The procedure was performed bilaterally in 71.4% of the cases. Median estimated blood loss was 10 mL (range 10-25). Mean operative time was 185 min (range 120-170). Median number of nodes removed was 10.25 nodes (range 7-11). Only one of the patients (8.3%) experienced a Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa complication requiring delayed percutaneous drainage replacement. Median time until drainage removal was 13 days (range 10-16). Median length of stay was 48 hours but ranged from 24-96 hours within the series.

CONCLUSIONS

The modified VEIL technique using a suprafascial plane of the dissection, allows a bilateral ILND in highly competitive operative times and with limited morbidity, without compromising its oncological efficacy.

Modified Video Endoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy: a deep-first approach

OBJECTIVES

To describe our modified technique of performing video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) with the proposed benefits of a shallow learning curve and better ergonomics.

METHODS

We describe our modified VEIL technique: the deep first approach, in a squamous cell carcinoma penis patient with a pathological T3 disease and bilateral palpable, mobile inguinal lymph nodes post penectomy.

RESULTS

The surface markings and the port incision sites for the procedure were conventional. However, in contrast to the standard superficial dissection plane development below the Scarpa's fascia at the initial camera port site, our technique commenced with a deep dissection plane just above the fascia lata. The dissection limits were directly identified: the sartorius muscle laterally, the inguinal ligament superiorly, and the adductor longus muscle medially. The saphenous vein was identified early and close to the saphenofemoral junction, allowing undemanding dissection. The superficial flap dissection was done entirely under direct vision, with better ergonomics owing to a continuous counter-traction by the pressure of insufflated gas. Deep inguinal nodal dissection then concluded the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The described technique is surmised to be easier to perform, given the lack of ambiguity in the correct initial dissection plane, direct visualization of surgical landmarks early in the procedure, and early identification of the saphenous vein close to the SFJ. It may improve the learning curve allowing for a wider acceptance of VEIL.

Comparison of different surgical methods and strategies for inguinal lymph node dissection in patients with penile cancer

To compare the clinical feasibility and oncological outcome of different surgical techniques for inguinal lymphadenectomy (ILND) in patients suffering from penile cancer. This study included data from 109 cN_0-2 patients diagnosed with penile cancer who received ILND. 80 laparoscopic ILND were performed on 40 patients, while 138 open surgeries were performed on 69 patients. Perioperative complications and prognosis were compared between different surgical techniques. Compared with the open surgery group, the laparoscopy group had a shorter hospital stay (8.88 ± 7.86 days vs. 13.94 ± 10.09 days, P = 0.004), and a lower wound healing delay rate (8.75% vs. 22.46%, P = 0.017), but also had longer drainage time (10.91 ± 9.66 vs. 8.70 ± 4.62, P = 0.002). There were no significant differences in terms of other intraoperative parameters, complications, and survival between open and laparoscopic group. Compared with saphenous vein ligated subgroup, preserved subgroup showed no significant reducing of complication rate. There was no significant difference among complication between different open surgery subgroup. Immediate ILND showed no prognostic advantage over delayed ILND regardless of clinical lymph node status. Compared with open surgery, the minimally invasive ILND technique has similar oncological efficiency and a lower complication rate. Saphenous vein preservation has limited value in reducing complications. Delayed lymphadenectomy might be a more reasonable option for ILND.

Robotic-Assisted Video-Endoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy (RAVEIL) and Video-Endoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy (VEIL) versus Open Inguinal Lymph-Node Dissection (OILND) in carcinoma of penis: Comparison of perioperative outcomes, complications and oncological outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the peri-operative outcomes, complications, and oncological outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Video-Endoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy (RAVEIL)/Video-Endoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy (VEIL) with Open Inguinal Lymph-Node Dissection (OILND) for management of inguinal lymph-nodes in carcinoma of the penis.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed in January 2021 using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Data from human studies comparing RAVEIL/VEIL vs. OILND in carcinoma of penis published in English was extracted and analyzed by two independent authors.

RESULTS

Two Randomised Controlled Trials and 6 cohort studies were included in the meta-analysis. RAVEIL/VEIL group exhibited increased operative time (Mean Difference [MD] = 15.28 [14.19; 16.38], P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (MD = -1.06 [-1.14; -0.98], P < 0.001), and decreased duration of drainage (MD = -2.82 [-3.21; -2.43], P < 0.001), wound infection (Odds Ratio [OR] = 0.15 [0.08; 0.27], P < 0.001), skin necrosis (OR = 0.12 [0.05; 0.28], P < 0.001), lymphedema (OR = 0.41 [0.24; 0.72], P = 0.002), and major complications (OR = 0.11 [0.05; 0.24], P < 0.001) as compared to OILND group. Recurrence rate and number of deaths were comparable in both the groups. RAVEIL/VEIL groups showed slightly larger lymph-node yield (MD = 0.44 [0.18; 0.70], P < 0.001) as compared to OILND group.

CONCLUSION

RAVEIL/VEIL has lesser skin complications, lymphedema, and better lymph-node yield as compared to OILND. It is comparable in terms of lymphocele and recurrence. It has lesser hospital stay and duration of drainage but owing to heterogeneity, the results should be interpreted with caution. Further studies are required to determine long-term oncological outcomes like overall survival and disease-specific survival.

Comparative study of perioperative and survival outcomes after video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) and open inguinal lymph node dissection (O-ILND) in the management of inguinal lymph nodes in carcinoma of the penis

Open inguinal lymph node dissection (O-ILND) is the gold standard in the management of lymph nodes in carcinoma penis; however, video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) is performed in some centers. Our primary objective is to compare perioperative and survival outcomes in patients undergoing VEIL with O-ILND, as very few studies have reported long-term survival outcomes till date. We analyzed patients who underwent O-ILND and VEIL (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) from January 2009 to January 2020 in our institute for carcinoma of the penis. Patient details, perioperative complications, and survival outcomes were analyzed. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed by logistic regression and survival outcomes by log-rank and Cox regression methods. We analyzed 79 patients (32 O-ILND, 47 VEIL) with a median follow-up of 51 (IQR 25.5-75.5) and 42 months (IQR 21-62). Wound complications were common in O-ILND group (65.6%) compared to VEIL group (27.7%) (p = 0.001), predominantly skin flap necrosis in 14 groins (23.73%) after O-ILND and none after VEIL. Median overall survival was 80 and 88 months (p = 0.840) with five-year survival of 65% and 66.8% (p = 0.636) and five-year DSS of 76.6% and 73.9% (p = 0.96) in O-ILND and VEIL, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that grade and pathological node status were significant (HR-2.650, p = 0.040; HR-3.218, p = 0.024) factors for survival. The retrospective nature of the study design is the limitation. Management of inguinal lymph nodes in carcinoma penis by VEIL is safe, associated with lesser wound-related complications, and equivalent survival outcomes compared to O-ILND. It should be considered as an alternative option for inguinal lymph node dissection.

Utility of Minimally Invasive Technology for Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection in Penile Cancer

Our aim is to review the benefits as well as techniques, surgical outcomes, and complications of minimally invasive inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) for penile cancer. The PubMed, Wiley Online Library, and Science Direct databases were reviewed in March 2020 for relevant studies limited to those published in English and within 2000–2020. Thirty-one articles describing minimally invasive ILND were identified for review. ILND has an important role in both staging and treatment of penile cancer. Minimally invasive technologies have been utilized to perform ILND in penile cancer patients with non-palpable inguinal lymph nodes and intermediate to high-risk primary tumors or patients with unilateral palpable non-fixed inguinal lymph nodes measuring less than 4 cm, including videoscopic endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) and robotic videoscopic endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (RVEIL). Current data suggest that VEIL and RVEIL are feasible and safe with minimal intra-operative complications. Perhaps the strongest appeal for the use of minimally-invasive approaches is their faster post-operative recovery and less post-operative complications. As a result, patients can tolerate this procedure better and surgeons can offer surgery to patients who otherwise would not be a candidate or personally willing to undergo surgery. When compared to open technique, VEIL and RVEIL have similar dissected nodal count, a surrogate metric for oncological adequacy, and a none-inferior inguinal recurrence rate. Larger randomized studies are encouraged to investigate long-term outcome and survival rates using these minimally-invasive techniques for ILND.