Risk factors and negative consequences of patient's delay for penile carcinoma

Penile cancer awareness and knowledge among adult patients in an ambulatory urology clinic

Penile cancer (PeCa) is a rare urologic malignancy in the United States, and public awareness remains low. In this brief report, we design and execute a survey to evaluate knowledge and awareness of PeCa focusing on general PeCa knowledge, treatment options, and willingness to recommend a preventative intervention. Study participants were recruited with a study flyer from the waiting room of two Los Angeles community-based urology clinics. All patients were English-speaking and over 18 years old. Study recruitment took place from October 2021 to June 2022 and 83 participants were included. The majority of respondents were men (90%) and white (87%), with a mean age 63 years. Ninety-eight percent of respondents reported either knowing "nothing" or "a little" about PeCa; 69% of respondents did not know a person could get cancer on the penis. Knowledge of risk factors for PeCa was particularly poor, with respect to phimosis (5% correctly identified this as a risk factor), balanitis (28%), and human papilloma virus (HPV) (44%). The majority of respondents, however, reported that they would recommend administration of an HPV vaccine for the prevention of PeCa (89%) once informed of HPV as a risk factor. Our findings underscore the lack of knowledge and awareness of PeCa, which may contribute to future delays in care.

Follow Up Care After Penile Sparing Surgery for Penile Cancer: Current Perspectives

Penile cancer (PeCa) is a rare urologic tumor worldwide. In 2024, 2100 new cases and 500 deaths are estimated in the United States. Radical surgery via total penectomy has historically been the cornerstone of treatment, since it provides excellent long-term oncological control. The rationale of surgery for penile cancer was to achieve a 2 cm macroscopic surgical margin that is historically advocated to reduce recurrences. Over time, numerous studies have demonstrated that resection margin status does not affect patients' survival. Different penile-sparing techniques are currently recommended in the European Association of Urology-American Society of Clinical Oncology (EAU-ASCO) guidelines for the treatment of localized primary PeCa. Centralization of care could yield multiple benefits, including improved disease awareness, higher rates of penile-sparing surgery, enhanced detection rates, increased utilization of less invasive lymph node staging techniques, enhanced quality of specialized histopathological examinations, and the establishment of specialized multidisciplinary teams. Compared to more aggressive treatments, the higher recurrence rates after penile-sparing surgery do not hamper neither the metastasis-free survival nor the overall survival. Repeated penile-sparing surgery could be considered for selected cases. The psychological impact of penile cancer is not negligible since the perceived loss of masculinity might adversely affect mental health and overall well-being. Quality of life may be compromised by sexual and urinary dysfunction which may be the result either of the loss of penile tissue or the psychological status of the patient. It is of utmost importance to offer rehabilitative treatment as sexual therapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy, family and peer counseling.

Penile carcinoma: A retrospective analysis of 93 patients at a tertiary care center in Jakarta, Indonesia

OBJECTIVES

Penile carcinoma (PC) is a rare disease with considerable physical and psychological impact. To date, there is no data regarding PC prevalence and characteristics in Indonesia. This study aimed to analyze the characteristics of patients with PC in Indonesia and determine cumulative survival rates and time to disease progression.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of all patients diagnosed with PC at Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital from 1995 to 2014, with a minimum of 1 year follow-up. The outcomes of the study were cumulative survival rates and time-to-disease progression.

RESULTS

Ninety-three subjects were recruited, with a mean age of 49.44 ± 13.62. Inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) was performed in 49 (53%) patients. The mean survival in the ILND group was better compared to the non-ILND group (80.7 months vs. 67.1 months; p = 0.032). Time-to-progression in the ILND group was significantly longer than in the non-ILND group (71.7 months vs. 54.3 months; p = 0.022). No significant difference in survival between the total and partial penectomy (PP) groups was observed (p = 0.701). Time-to-progression in total penectomy (TP) was significantly longer than in PP (68 months vs. 56.0 months; p = 0.023). In Cox-regression analysis, after adjustment of other variables, history of ILND, higher stage of cancer, and older age were found to affect the survival of patients.

CONCLUSION

ILND in PC led to better survival and reduced disease progression. The type of penectomy is only associated with progression but not survival. TP had a longer time to disease progression compared to PP.

Penile cancer in younger men-A more aggressive disease?

INTRODUCTION

Penile cancer (PC) in men under 45 is very rare with an incidence of 0.1 to 0.8/100,000. There is little published data on disease characteristics and outcomes of PC in younger men. Herein, we evaluate the disease characteristics and outcomes of penile cancer in younger men compared to an older cohort.

METHODS

This study included all men diagnosed with PC at our institution from 2016 to 2021. Primary outcomes included overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included disease characteristics and surgical management. Men aged ≤45 years (Group A) were compared with men aged >45 years (Group B) at diagnosis.

RESULTS

There were 90 patients treated for invasive PC over the study period. The median age at diagnosis was 64 (26-88). The mean length of follow-up was 27 (±18) months. There were 12 (13%) in Group A, and 78 (87%) patients in Group B. Group A had a worse cancer-specific survival compared to Group B (39 months vs. not reached, HR 0.1 (95%CI 0.02-0.85, P = 0.03). There was no significant difference in overall or disease-free survival between both groups. More men in Group A had lymph node metastases at the time of diagnosis (58% vs. 19%, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in histopathological features including tumor subtype, grade, T stage, p53 status or presence of lymphovascular or perineural invasion.

CONCLUSION

In our study, younger men were more likely to have nodal involvement at time of diagnosis and had a worse cancer-specific survival.

Impact of COVID-19 on Uro-Oncological Patients: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature

Background: The aim of this paper is to discuss the impact of COVID-19 on patients with urological malignancies (prostate cancer, bladder and upper tract urothelial cancer, kidney cancer, penile and testicular cancer) and to review the available recommendations reported in the literature. Methods: A review was performed, through the PubMed database, regarding available recommendations reported in the literature, to identify studies examining the impact of COVID-19 on treatment and clinical outcomes (including upstaging, recurrence, and mortality) for uro-oncological patients. Results: The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically changed the urological guidelines and patients' access to screening programs and follow-up visits. Great efforts were undertaken to guarantee treatments to high-risk patients although follow up was not always possible due to recurrent surges, and patients with lower risk cancers had to wait for therapies. Conclusions: Physically and mentally, uro-oncological patients paid a heavy price during the COVID-19 pandemic. Long term data on the "costs" of clinical decisions made during the COVID-19 pandemic are still to be revealed and analyzed.

Combination of Durvalumab and Chemotherapy to Potentially Convert Unresectable Stage IV Penile Squamous Cell Carcinoma to Resectable Disease: A Case Report

Penile squamous cell carcinoma is a rare disease entity with poor overall survival in an advanced stage. Few studies have investigated the role of immunotherapy in advanced penile squamous cell carcinoma. Herein, we report a case of stage IV unresectable penile squamous cell carcinoma presenting with anal bleeding and urethra obstruction who responded dramatically to combination therapy of durvalumab and cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The patient had HPV-positive penile squamous cell carcinoma, cT3N3M0, with concomitant anus squamous cell carcinoma. After 2 months of the combination treatment, almost all bulky inguinal lymph nodes shrank, and the main tumor of the anus and penis responded completely. A durable response was seen 16 months after initiating the combination therapy. This case report highlights the potential role of the combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy in patients with advanced penile cancer. The promising results of this combination resulted in the conversion of unresectable disease to a potentially curable disease.

Patterns of Treatment and Outcomes in Older Men With Penile Cancer: A SEER Dataset Analysis

Purpose

To evaluate clinicopathologic and treatment characteristics from a population-based cohort of penile cancer, with an emphasis in older adults, due to incomplete evidence to guide therapy in this age subgroup.

Materials and Methods

Patients with malignant penile tumors diagnosed 2004-2016 were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program (SEER)-18 dataset. Demographic and treatment characteristics were obtained. Population was analyzed by age at diagnosis (<65 vs ≥65 years). We examined univariate associations between age groups with Chi-square analysis. To study survival, we calculated Kaplan-Meier survival curves, but due to the high number of competing events, we also performed a univariate competing risk analysis using the cumulative incidence function, and a multivariate analysis using the Fine-Gray method. We also described competing mortality due to penile cancer and other causes of death.

Results

We included 3,784 patients. Median age was 68 years, 58.7% were aged ≥65. Older patients were less likely to have received chemotherapy (p<0.001), primary site surgery (p = 0.002), or therapeutic regional surgery (p <0.001). Median overall survival (OS) in patients <65 years was not reached (95% CI incalculable) vs 49 months in those ≥65 years (95% CI 45-53, p <0.0001). On univariate analysis, age was associated with a lower incidence of penile cancer death. On multivariate analysis, stage at diagnosis, and receipt of primary site surgery were associated with a higher incidence of penile cancer death. Estimated penile cancer-specific mortality was higher in patients <65 years in stages II-IV. Estimated mortality due to other causes was higher in older patients across all stages.

Conclusions

Older patients are less likely to receive surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy for penile cancer. Primary surgical resection was associated with better penile cancer-specific mortality on multivariate analysis. Competing mortality risks are highly relevant when considering OS in older adults with penile cancer. Factors associated with undertreatment of older patients with penile cancer need to be studied, in order to develop treatment strategies tailored for this population.

Triaging urological surgeries to cope with the coronavirus-19 pandemic

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to strains on hospital resources and difficulties in safely and effectively triaging surgical procedures. In this article, we discuss the important considerations for triaging urologic surgeries during a global pandemic, mitigating factors on how to perform surgeries safely, and general guidelines for specific surgeries.

RECENT FINDINGS

Many urological procedures have been cut back due to the pandemic, with benign disease states being most affected whereas oncology cases affected least. Current recommendations in urology triage life-threatening conditions, or conditions that may lead to life-threatening ailments as a priority for treatment during the pandemic. Additionally, published recommendations have been put forth recommending all surgical patients be screened for COVID-19 to protect staff, prevent disease dissemination, and to educate patients on worse outcomes that can occur if infected with COVID-19 in the postoperative period.

SUMMARY

COVID-19 has caused worldwide shortages of healthcare resources and increased the need to ethically triage resources to adequately treat the urologic community. These resource limitations have led to increased wait times and cancellations of many urology surgeries that are considered 'elective'.

Systemic treatment of penile squamous cell carcinoma-hurdles and hopes of preclinical models and clinical regimens: a narrative review

Despite contemporary research efforts, the prognosis of penile squamous cell carcinoma (PeSCC) has not significantly improved over the past decade. Despite frequently encountered patient-related delayed medical consultations impairing outcomes, several other aspects contribute to the lack of advancement in the treatment of this condition. One essential reason is that translational research, a prerequisite for the clinically successful disease management, is still at an early stage in PeSCC as compared to many other malignancies. Preclinical experimental models are indispensable for the evaluation of tumor biology and identification of genomic alterations. However, since neither commercial PeSCC cell lines are available nor xenograft models sustainably established, such analyses are challenging in this field of research. In addition, systemic therapies are less effective and toxic without decisive breakthroughs over recent years. Current systemic management of PeSCC is based on protocols that have been investigated in small series of only up to 30 patients. Thus, there is an unmet medical need for new approaches necessitating research efforts to develop more efficacious systemic strategies. This review aims to highlight the current state of knowledge in the molecular alterations involved in the etiology and ensuing steps for cancer progression, existing preclinical models of translational research, clinically relevant systemic protocols, and ongoing clinical trials.

The Evolving Clinical Management of Genitourinary Cancers Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), a disease caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, has become an unprecedented global health emergency, with fatal outcomes among adults of all ages throughout the world. There is a high incidence of infection and mortality among cancer patients with evidence to support that patients diagnosed with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 have an increased likelihood of a poor outcome. Clinically relevant changes imposed as a result of the pandemic, are either primary, due to changes in timing or therapeutic modality; or secondary, due to altered cooperative effects on disease progression or therapeutic outcomes. However, studies on the clinical management of patients with genitourinary cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic are limited and do little to differentiate primary or secondary impacts of COVID-19. Here, we provide a review of the epidemiology and biological consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection in GU cancer patients as well as the impact of COVID-19 on the diagnosis and management of these patients, and the use and development of novel and innovative diagnostic tests, therapies, and technology. This article also discusses the biomedical advances to control the virus and evolving challenges in the management of prostate, bladder, kidney, testicular, and penile cancers at all stages of the patient journey during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Underutilization of Surgical Standard of Care for Insured Men with Invasive Penile Cancer

PURPOSE

Prior studies of mixed insurance populations have demonstrated poor adherence to surgical standard of care (SOC) for penile cancer. We used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry linked to Medicare to calculate SOC adherence to surgical treatment of penile cancer in insured men over the age of 65, focusing on potential social and racial disparities.

METHODS

This is an observational analysis of patients with T2-4 penile cancer of any histologic subtype without metastasis in the SEER-Medicare database (2004-2015). SOC was defined as penectomy (partial or radical) with bilateral inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. We calculated proportions of those receiving SOC and constructed multivariate models to identify factors associated with receiving SOC.

RESULTS

A total of 447 men were included. Of these men, 22.1% (99/447) received SOC while 18.8% (84/447) received no treatment at all. Only 23.3% (104/447) had ILND while 80.9% (362/447) underwent total or partial penectomy. Race and socioeconomic status (SES) were not associated with decreased SOC. Increasing age (OR 0.93, 95%CI:0.89-0.96), Charlson Comorbidity Index score ≥ 2 (OR 0.53, 95%CI:0.29-0.97), and T3-T4 disease (OR 0.34, 95%CI:0.18-0.65) were associated with not receiving SOC on adjusted analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of SOC are low among insured men 65 years of age or older with invasive penile cancer, regardless of race or SES. This finding is largely driven by low rates of ILND. Strategies are needed to overcome barriers to SOC treatment for men with invasive penile cancer.

Cancer diagnostic tools to aid decision-making in primary care: mixed-methods systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Tools based on diagnostic prediction models are available to help general practitioners diagnose cancer. It is unclear whether or not tools expedite diagnosis or affect patient quality of life and/or survival.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to evaluate the evidence on the validation, clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and availability and use of cancer diagnostic tools in primary care.

METHODS

Two systematic reviews were conducted to examine the clinical effectiveness (review 1) and the development, validation and accuracy (review 2) of diagnostic prediction models for aiding general practitioners in cancer diagnosis. Bibliographic searches were conducted on MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) in May 2017, with updated searches conducted in November 2018. A decision-analytic model explored the tools' clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in colorectal cancer. The model compared patient outcomes and costs between strategies that included the use of the tools and those that did not, using the NHS perspective. We surveyed 4600 general practitioners in randomly selected UK practices to determine the proportions of general practices and general practitioners with access to, and using, cancer decision support tools. Association between access to these tools and practice-level cancer diagnostic indicators was explored.

RESULTS

Systematic review 1 - five studies, of different design and quality, reporting on three diagnostic tools, were included. We found no evidence that using the tools was associated with better outcomes. Systematic review 2 - 43 studies were included, reporting on prediction models, in various stages of development, for 14 cancer sites (including multiple cancers). Most studies relate to QCancer® (ClinRisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and risk assessment tools.

DECISION MODEL

In the absence of studies reporting their clinical outcomes, QCancer and risk assessment tools were evaluated against faecal immunochemical testing. A linked data approach was used, which translates diagnostic accuracy into time to diagnosis and treatment, and stage at diagnosis. Given the current lack of evidence, the model showed that the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools in colorectal cancer relies on demonstrating patient survival benefits. Sensitivity of faecal immunochemical testing and specificity of QCancer and risk assessment tools in a low-risk population were the key uncertain parameters.

SURVEY

Practitioner- and practice-level response rates were 10.3% (476/4600) and 23.3% (227/975), respectively. Cancer decision support tools were available in 83 out of 227 practices (36.6%, 95% confidence interval 30.3% to 43.1%), and were likely to be used in 38 out of 227 practices (16.7%, 95% confidence interval 12.1% to 22.2%). The mean 2-week-wait referral rate did not differ between practices that do and practices that do not have access to QCancer or risk assessment tools (mean difference of 1.8 referrals per 100,000 referrals, 95% confidence interval -6.7 to 10.3 referrals per 100,000 referrals).

LIMITATIONS

There is little good-quality evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools. Many diagnostic prediction models are limited by a lack of external validation. There are limited data on current UK practice and clinical outcomes of diagnostic strategies, and there is no evidence on the quality-of-life outcomes of diagnostic results. The survey was limited by low response rates.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base on the tools is limited. Research on how general practitioners interact with the tools may help to identify barriers to implementation and uptake, and the potential for clinical effectiveness.

FUTURE WORK

Continued model validation is recommended, especially for risk assessment tools. Assessment of the tools' impact on time to diagnosis and treatment, stage at diagnosis, and health outcomes is also recommended, as is further work to understand how tools are used in general practitioner consultations.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017068373 and CRD42017068375.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

COVID-19 and its impact on genitourinary malignancies

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has emerged as an alarming disease since December 2019, claiming the lives of thousands across the world to date. This pandemic has burdened healthcare systems all over the world due to its heavy death toll. Researchers are actively working on effective treatment strategies, the scope of vaccination and the production of more medical equipment to tackle this crisis. However, it is important to note that the management of patients with malignancy also needs to be prioritized during such times. Some urological malignancies need early diagnosis and treatment while the diagnosis and treatment of several others can be safely delayed. Hence, we searched MEDLINE for evidence on the optimal management of urological cancers during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Studies published from December 2019 to April 2020 were included in the review. Guidelines formulated by international and national urological societies were also included. This review aims to summarize the present evidence on effective triage and safe management of urological cancers amid COVID-19 pandemic to ensure efficient usage of healthcare resources during these unprecedented times.

[Recommendations CCAFU on the management of cancers of the urogenital system during an epidemic with Coronavirus COVID-19]

Objectif

La population française est confrontée à la pandémie de COVID-19 et le système de santé a été réorienté en urgence pour la prise en charge des patients atteints du coronavirus. La prise en charge des cancers de l’appareil urinaire et génital masculin doit être adaptée à ce contexte.

Matériel et méthode

Un avis d’experts documenté par une revue de la littérature a été formulé par le Comité de Cancérologie de l’Association Française d’Urologie (CCAFU).

Résultats

La prise en charge médicale et chirurgicale des patients atteints de cancers de l’appareil urinaire et génital masculin doit être adaptée en modifiant les modalités de consultation, en priorisant les interventions en fonction du pronostic intrinsèque des cancers en tenant compte des comorbidités du patient. La protection des urologues vis-à-vis du COVID-19 doit être prise en considération.

Conclusion

Le CCAFU émet un avis d’experts quant aux mesures à prendre pour adapter la prise en charge des cancers de l’appareil urinaire et génital masculin au contexte de pandémie par COVID-19.

Angiolymphatic invasion and absence of koilocytosis predict lymph node metastasis in penile cancer patients and might justify prophylactic lymphadenectomy

To analyze possible clinical-pathological parameters and predictors of lymph node metastasis and evaluate the impact of lymphadenectomy in the survival of these patients.A retrospective study of patients diagnosed with penile cancer and submitted to regional lymphadenectomy at two reference hospitals in Maranhão, Northeast, Brazil, an area where the disease has a high incidence. We described here clinical and histopathological characteristics of patients diagnosed between January 2009 and September 2017.Fifty-five patients with an average age of 55.4 years (range: 25-84 years) were analyzed, with 24.4 months being the average time between the onset of symptoms and start of treatment. Among patients without palpable lymph nodes at the first examination, 51% were affected by inguinal metastasis. In the multivariate analysis, the presence of angiolymphatic invasion (P = .029) and absence of koilocytosis (P = .001) were found to be predictive factors for lymph node metastasis. Patients submitted to prophylactic lymphadenectomy presented with a disease-free period of 25.4 months (±5.81), whereas those who underwent therapeutic lymphadenectomy presented with a disease-free period of 19.9 months (±3.12).Angiolymphatic invasion and absence of koilocytosis appeared to be predictive factors for lymph node metastasis. Therefore, the submission of patients with metastatic risk to prophylactic lymphadenectomy may improve their survival. Thus, prophylactic lymphadenectomy in patients at risk for inguinal metastasis may create a positive impact in survival rates.

MIR-107, MIR-223-3P and MIR-21-5P Reveals Potential Biomarkers in Penile Cancer

BACKGROUND

Inguinal lymph node involvement is the main prognostic factor in patients with penile cancer. However, there is a lack of marker/s for lymph node metastasis. microRNAs have been investigated as potential markers for prognosis of various types of cancer. Taking this into consideration, our main goal was to determine the association of miR-223-3p, miR-107, and miR-21-5p expression with clinicopathological characteristics, as well as presence of lymph node metastasis in patients with penile cancer.

METHODS

Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded penile squamous cell carcinoma specimens from 50 patients, at diagnosis and prior to any cancer treatment, were obtained. Tissue samples comprising at least 70% malignant cells and adjacent non-tumor tissues were evaluated by using qRT-PCR for expression level of miR-223-3p, miR-107 and miR-21-5p. Additionally, molecular identification of HPV was performed by PCR, and the expression levels of PTEN were analyzed by immunohistochemistry.

RESULTS

Penile squamous cell carcinoma primary tumors presented higher expression of miR-223-3p, miR-107, and miR-21-5p when compared to non-tumor adjacent tissues. Upregulation of miR-223-3p was associated lymph node metastasis. Higher expression of miR-107 was associated with worsening of prognosis (as observed by histological grade II and III, tumors bigger than 2.0 cm, stage III and IV, and lower disease-free survival). In addition, higher expression of miR-107 and miR-21-5p was correlated to the absence of PTEN protein expression.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrate that higher expression of miR-223-3p, miR-107, and miR-21-5p is correlated with poor prognosis in penile cancer. The upregulation of these microRNAs potentially affect critical cancer pathways and may be important for the prognosis and response to therapy in penile cancer.

Risk factors for the delay in the diagnosis of penile lesions: results from a single center in Italy

BACKGROUND

Early diagnosis is fundamental for the investigation and treatment of penile lesions. There is an unfortunate documented delayed in presentation and diagnosis of penile lesions. Literature is scant regarding the risk factors contributing to this delay in a Mediterranean population. Few previous reports are published in entirely different homogeneous populations. The objective of this study was to provide an analysis of the causes and risk factors related to the delay of the first medical visit in a North Italian population subgroup.

METHODS

From September 2004 to September 2017, 184 consecutive patients were treated at our institute with a surgical approach for a penile lesion. The epidemiological factors and reasons for the delay to diagnosis were recorded during personal or telephonic interviews. Univariate logistic regression models were performed to screen for an effect of the clinical and demographic variables on the delay in diagnosis. Variables with a P value <0.05 were entered into multivariate analysis, where the delay in diagnosis was the dependent variable.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirteen patients were enrolled. The average patient age was fifty-eight. The average delay between the appearance of the lesion and the first medical consultation was fifty-three days. The principal cause of delay was the lack of knowledge of penile lesions and secondly, the feeling of embarrassment of having to visit a doctor. The multivariate analysis reported a significant correlation between the level of education, sexual activity and extramarital affairs on the delay in presentation (P values respectively: 0.01, 0.009 and 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients education regarding this pathology and its potential danger is inadequate and thus it is necessary to implement a campaign of information and prevention in order to reduce delayed diagnosis.

Demographic and socioeconomic predictors of treatment delays, pathologic stage, and survival among patients with penile cancer: A report from the National Cancer Database

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether socioeconomic factors affect pathologic stage, treatment delays, pathologic upstaging, and overall survival (OS) in patients with penile cancer (PC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 13,283 eligible patients diagnosed with PC from 1998 to 2012 were identified from the National Cancer Database. Socioeconomic, demographic and pathologic variables were used in multivariable regression models to identify predictors of pathologic T stage ≥2, pathologic lymph node positivity, cT to pT upstaging, treatment delays, and OS.

RESULTS

A 5-year OS was 61.5% with a median follow-up of 41.7 months. Pathologic T stage ≥2 was identified in 3,521 patients (27.2%), 1,173 (9.2%) had ≥pN1 and 388 (7.9%) experienced cT to pT upstaging. Variables associated with a higher likelihood of pathologic T stage ≥2 included no insurance (OR = 1.79, P<0.001), lower higher education based on zip code (OR = 1.13, P = 0.027), black race (OR = 1.17, P = 0.046) and Hispanic ethnicity (OR = 1.66, P<0.001). Patients with Hispanic ethnicity (OR = 1.46; P<0.001) or living in nonmetropolitan areas were more likely to have ≥pN1 (P = 0.001). Lack of insurance was associated with cT to pT upstaging (OR = 2.05, P = 0.001) as was living in an urban vs. metropolitan area (OR = 1.35, P = 0.031). In addition to TNM stage, black vs. white race (HR = 1.56, P<0.001), living in an urban vs. metropolitan area (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.18, P = 0.022), age (HR = 1.04, P<0.001) and Charlson score (HR = 1.49, P<0.001) were associated with lower OS.

CONCLUSION

Socioeconomic variables including no insurance, lower education, race, Hispanic ethnicity, and nonmetropolitan residence were found to be poor prognostic factors. Increased educational awareness of this rare disease may help reduce delays in diagnosis, improve prognosis and ultimately prevent deaths among socioeconomically disadvantaged men with PC.