Does the Identification of a Minimum Number of Cases Correlate With Better Adherence to International Guidelines Regarding the Treatment of Penile Cancer? Survey Results of the European PROspective Penile Cancer Study (E-PROPS)

Preoperative platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio as a predictor of inguinal lymph node metastasis in penile cancer

BACKGROUND

Penile cancer (PC) is a rare malignancy with poor prognosis. To date, reliable preoperative biomarkers for lymph node status and prognosis are still lacking. This study aims to explore the potential role of preoperative platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) as a predictor of inguinal lymph node invasion in PC patients.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was conducted on anamnestic, clinical, and laboratory data of PC patients who underwent surgical treatment between January 2016 and October 2023. Inguinal lymphadenectomy was performed as per EAU guidelines. PLR, calculated as the ratio between platelet-to-lymphocyte values obtained from preoperative blood analyses, was assessed within 30 days before surgery. Patients were categorized into pN- (no lymph node metastasis) and pN+ (lymph node metastasis confirmed pathologically). Statistical analyses included Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests, univariate logistic regression, and ROC curve analysis with Youden index, assuming p<0.05 as statistically significant.

RESULTS

Overall, 60 PC patients were retrospectively involved in the study. A total of 36 (60%) patients reported ILN metastases, confirmed by inguinal lymphadenectomy (pN+), while no ILN metastases (pN-) were reported in 24 (40%) patients. The AUC for predicting ILN metastasis by preoperative PLR was 0.71 (p=0.014). According to the ROC curve analysis and the Youden Index, a cut-off for PLR was set at 122.4. On Univariable logistic regression analysis, the presence of T stage ≥ 2 (OR = 3.21; 95% CI: 1.43-7.47, p=0.011), lymphovascular invasion (OR = 3.78; 95% CI: 1.56-5.90, p=0.003), clinical node-positive disease (OR = 19.86; 95% CI: 5.91-41.03, p<0.001) and PLR ratio > 122.4 (OR = 7.22; 95% CI: 1.41-22.71, p=0.0148) were independent predictors of pN+ disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study confirms the relationship between cancer and inflammation. When elevated preoperatively, PLR may be associated with inguinal lymph node invasion in PC patients.

Demographic analysis of penectomies in France from 2019 to 2022

INTRODUCTION

Penectomy, whether partial (PP) or radical (RP), are mainly performed for oncological reason. It is a rare but impactful surgery, with significant bio-psycho-social consequences. As some countries moves towards centralization to improve patient outcomes, a demographic analysis of current management in France is needed. This study provides a demographic analysis of partial and total penectomies performed in France from 2019 to 2022.

METHODS

All 2150 total and partial penectomies performed in French healthcare facilities from 2019 to 2022 were included. Data were extracted from Visuchir, an Assurance Maladie data-visualization tool.

RESULTS

Incidence and ratio are stable, around 100 RP and 400 PP per year. The median age of patients was 78. Half of all penectomies were performed in private facilities (n=1115, 51.9%), with a higher rate of PP in these centers (55%, P<0.05). The rate of RP was significantly higher in comorbid patients than the fitter ones. In total, 423 centers reported at least one penectomy over the period, with significant variations in volume. In total, 251 facilities performed less than one procedure per year (59%), while larger centers performed up to 85 over the 4-year period. Length of stay was significantly shorter in high-volume centers.

CONCLUSION

This study shows the heterogeneous distribution and management of penectomies in France. Although there is no official centralization, the data reveal a "reference center" trend. Further data could help determine whether management in high-volume centers improves survival and quality of care for patients requiring penectomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2

Complex Decision Making for Individual Patients With Penile Cancer: Benchmarking Divergent Practices in European High-Volume Reference Centers: Results From eUROGEN Survey

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Penile cancer (PeCa) remains a challenge due to its rarity and the lack of prospective studies, leading to treatment challenges and controversies. Guidelines offer recommendations, but discrepancies with clinical practice persist. This study analyzed treatment practices among specialists managing high-risk PeCa in European reference centers.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey included 39 PeCa specialists from 13 European countries representing high-volume centers. Descriptive analysis assessed (neo)adjuvant therapy preferences, systemic regimen choices, immunotherapy use, and next-generation sequencing (NGS) integration.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

Variations in managing high-risk PeCa, especially in (neo)adjuvant therapy utilization, were noted among participants. The differences highlight the influence of professional backgrounds and variations in treatment approaches between participants. Systemic regimen preferences and immunotherapy utilization also varied. Limited NGS integration indicated gaps in precision medicine adoption. Limitations included sample size, self-reported data, and cross-sectional design.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

This study offered insights into PeCa management by specialists in high-volume European reference centers, stressing the need for evidence-based recommendations, guideline adherence, and collaboration to enhance PeCa care.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Managing PeCa is complex due to its rarity and treatment controversies. This study examined practices among specialists in European reference centers, revealing treatment variations. The findings emphasize the importance of evidence-based care and collaboration in optimizing PeCa management.

Preoperative Albumin-to-Alkaline Phosphatase Ratio as an Independent Predictor of Lymph Node Involvement in Penile Cancer

Background and Objectives: To investigate the role of preoperative albumin-to-alkaline phosphatase ratio (AAPR) in predicting pathologic node-positive (pN+) disease in penile cancer (PC) patients undergoing inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND). Materials and Methods: Clinical data of patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) PC + ILND at a single high-volume institution between 2016 and 2021 were collected and retrospectively analyzed. An AAPR was obtained from preoperative blood analyses performed within 30 days from their scheduled surgery. A ROC curve analysis was used to assess AAPR cutoff, in addition to the Youden Index. Logistic regression analysis was utilized for an odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI) calculations, and an estimate of pN+ disease. A p value < 0.05 was considered to be as statistically significant. Results: Overall, 42 PC patients were included in the study, with a mean age of 63.6 ± 12.9 years. The AAPR cut-off point value was determined to be 0.53. The ROC curve analysis reported an AUC of 0.698. On multivariable logistic regression analysis lymphovascular invasion (OR = 5.38; 95% CI: 1.47-9.93, p = 0.022), clinical node-positive disease (OR = 13.68; 95% CI: 4.37-43.90, p < 0.009), and albumin-to-alkaline phosphatase ratio ≤ 0.53 (OR = 3.61; 95% CI: 1.23-12.71, p = 0.032) were predictors of pN+ involvement. Conclusions: Preoperative AAPR may be a potentially valuable prognostic marker of pN+ disease in patients who underwent surgery for PC.

The landscape of penile cancer research in Germany and Austria: a survey among professors in academic centers holding chair positions and results of a literature search

BACKGROUND

Research on penile cancer (PeCa) is predominantly conducted in countries with centralized treatment of PeCa-patients. In Germany and Austria (G + A), no state-regulated centralization is established, and no information is available on how PeCa-research is organized.

METHODS

Current research competence in PeCa was assessed by a 36-item questionnaire sent to all chairholders of urological academic centers in G + A. Based on PubMed records, all scientific PeCa-articles of 2012-2022 from G + A were identified. Current research trends were assessed by dividing the literature search into two periods (P1: 2012-2017, P2: 2018-2022). A bibliometric analysis was supplemented.

RESULTS

Response rate of the questionnaire was 75%, a median of 13 (IQR: 9-26) PeCa-patients/center was observed in 2021. Retrospective case series were conducted by 38.9% of participating clinics, while involvement in randomized-controlled trials was stated in 8.3% and in basic/fundamental research in 19.4%. 77.8% declared an interest in future multicenter projects. 205 PeCa-articles were identified [median impact factor: 2.77 (IQR: 0.90-4.37)]. Compared to P1, P2 showed a significant increase in the median annual publication count (29 (IQR: 13-17) vs. 15 (IQR: 19-29), p < 0.001), in multicenter studies (79.1% vs. 63.6%, p = 0.018), and in multinational studies (53% vs. 28.9%, p < 0.001); the proportion of basic/fundamental research articles significantly declined (16.5% vs. 28.9%, p = 0.041). Four of the top-5 institutions publishing PeCa-articles are academic centers. Bibliometric analyses revealed author networks, primary research areas in PeCa, and dominant journals for publications.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the lack of centralization in G + A, this analysis highlights the need for research coordination within multicenter PeCa-projects. The decline in basic/fundamental research should be effectively addressed by the allocation of funded research projects.

Centralizing Penile Cancer Care in Germany and Austria: Just a Dream or a Fast-Approaching Reality? Results of a Survey Study among Urological Department Chairs and Modeling of Real Treatment Numbers of Penile Cancer Patients

INTRODUCTION

In countries characterized by a centralization of therapy management, patients with penile cancer (PeCa) have shown improvements in guideline adherence and ultimately, improved carcinoma-specific survival. Germany and Austria (G + A) have no state-regulated centralization of PeCa management, and the perspectives of urological university department chairs (UUDCs) in these countries, who act as drivers of professional and political developments, on this topic are currently unknown.

METHODS

Surveys containing 36 response options, including specific questions regarding perspectives on PeCa centralization, were sent to the 48 UUDC in G + A in January 2023. In addition to analyzing the responses, closely following the CROSS checklist, a modeling of the real healthcare situation of in-house PeCa patients in G + A was conducted.

RESULTS

The response rate was 75% (36/48). 94% and 89% of the UUDCs considered PeCa centralization meaningful and feasible in the medium term, respectively. Among the UUDCs, 72% estimated centralization within university hospitals as appropriate, while 28% favored a geographically oriented approach. Additionally, 97% of the UUDCs emphasized the importance of bridging the gap until implementation of centralization by establishing PeCa second-opinion portals. No country-specific differences were observed. The median number of in-house PeCa cases at the university hospitals in G + A was 13 (interquartile range: 9-26). A significant positive correlation was observed between the annual number of in-house PeCa cases at a given university hospital and the perspective of the UUDCs that centralization as meaningful by its UUDC (0.024). Under assumptions permissible for modeling, the average number of in-house PeCa cases in academic hospitals in G + A was approximately 30 times higher than in nonacademic hospitals.

CONCLUSION

This study provides the first data on the perspectives of UUDCs in G + A concerning centralization of PeCa therapy management. Even without state-regulated centralization in G + A, there is currently a clear focusing of PeCa treatments in university hospitals. Further necessary steps toward a structured PeCa centralization are discussed in this manuscript.

[Are there any volume-related effects on treatment options for patients with penile cancer? Results of a survey among university hospitals in Germany and Austria]

BACKGROUND

Currently, 959 men in Germany and 67 in Austria are diagnosed with penile cancer each year, with an increase of approximately 20% in the last decade [RKI 2021, Statcube.at 2023]. Despite the rising incidence, the number of cases per hospital remains low. The median annual number of penile cancer cases at university hospitals in the DACH region was 7 patients (IQR 5-10) in 2017 [E-PROPS group 2021]. The compromised institutional expertise due to low case numbers is compounded with inadequate adherence to penile cancer guidelines, as shown in several studies. The centralization, which is rigorously implemented in countries such as the UK, enabled a significant increase in organ-preserving primary tumor surgery and stage-adapted lymphadenectomies, as well as improved patient survival in cases of penile cancer, resulting in a claim for a similar centralization in Germany and Austria. The aim of this study was to determine the current effects of case volume on penile cancer related treatment options at university hospitals in Germany and Austria.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In January 2023, a survey was sent to the heads of 48 urological university hospitals in Germany and Austria, including questions regarding case volume in 2021 (total number of inpatient and penile cancer cases), treatment options for primary tumors and inguinal lymphadenectomy (ILAE), the availability of a designated penile cancer surgeon, and the professional responsibility for systemic therapies in penile cancer. Correlations and differences related to case volume were statistically analyzed without adjustments.

RESULTS

The response rate was 75% (n=36/48). In total, 626 penile cancer patients were treated at the 36 responding university hospitals in 2021, representing approximately 60% of the expected incidence in Germany and Austria. The annual median total number of cases was 2807 (IQR 1937-3653), and for penile cancer, it was 13 (IQR 9-26). There was no significant correlation between the total inpatient and penile cancer caseloads (p=0.34). The number of organ-preserving therapy procedures for the primary tumor, the availability of modern ILAE procedures, the presence of a designated penile cancer surgeon, and the responsibility for systemic therapies were not significantly influenced by the total inpatient or penile cancer case volume of the treating hospitals, regardless of whether the case volumes were dichotomized at the median or upper quartile. No significant differences between Germany and Austria were observed.

CONCLUSION

Despite a significant increase in the annual number of penile cancer cases at university hospitals in Germany and Austria compared to 2017, we found no case volume-related effects on structural quality with respect to penile cancer therapy. In the light of the proven benefits of centralization, we interpret this result as an argument for the necessity of establishing nationally organized penile cancer centers with even higher case volumes compared to the status quo, in light of the proven benefits of centralization.

[Initial presentation of the Pentafecta score as a quality instrument for outcome evaluation of primary surgical treatment in patients with penile cancer]

BACKGROUND

Recently, the Tetrafecta score has been published as the first instrument for assessing the quality of primary surgical treatment for penile cancer (PECa). An external scientific discussion about the defining criteria is still pending and forms the study objective.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An international working group consisting of 12 urologists and an oncologist with clinical and academic-scientific expertise in penile cancer was established. In a modified four-stage Delphi process, a total of 13 criteria for PECa patients in clinical AJCC stages 1-4 (T1-3N0-3, but M0) were defined, incorporating the Tetrafecta criteria. Each expert had to select five of these criteria in a secret ballot to generate an individual Pentafecta score. Subsequently, the experts' ratings were aggregated and a final Pentafecta score was formed.

RESULTS

None of the original Tetrafecta criteria were included in the final Pentafecta score, which consisted of the following criteria: 1) organ preservation, if possible (≤T2), but always with negative surgical margins, 2) bilateral inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) from ≥pT1G2N0, 3) perioperative chemotherapy if indicated by guidelines, 4) ILND, if indicated, within a maximum of three months after primary tumour resection, and 5) the treating clinic should perform at least 15 primary surgical treatments in PECa patients. Only in seven out of the 13 experts (54%), a strong correlation was found between individual Pentafecta scores and the final Pentafecta score (r_sp >0.60).

CONCLUSION

Based on a moderated voting process among international PECa experts, a Pentafecta score was developed as a quality assurance instrument for primary surgical treatment, which now needs to be validated using patient-relevant and patient-reported endpoints.

The Goal of Achieving High-Quality Surgical First-Line Therapy in Patients with Penile Cancer Is Important; However, Some Collective Efforts Are Still Required in Order to Reach It. Comment on Brassetti et al. Combined Reporting of Surgical Quality and Cancer Control after Surgical Treatment for Penile Tumors with Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection: The Tetrafecta Achievement. Curr. Oncol. 2023, 30, 1882-1892

We read with great interest the manuscript by Brassetti et al. recently published in your journal and hope it will encourage discussion and debate around the optimization of the surgical management of patients with penile cancer (PECa) [...].

Combined Reporting of Surgical Quality and Cancer Control after Surgical Treatment for Penile Tumors with Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection: The Tetrafecta Achievement

BACKGROUND

To optimize results reporting after penile cancer (PC) surgery, we proposed a Tetrafecta and assessed its ability to predict overall survival (OS) probabilities.

METHODS

A purpose-built multicenter, multi-national database was queried for stage I-IIIB PC, requiring inguinal lymphadenectomy (ILND), from 2015 onwards. Kaplan-Meier (KM) method assessed differences in OS between patients achieving Tetrafecta or not. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses identified its predictors.

RESULTS

A total of 154 patients were included in the analysis. The 45 patients (29%) that achieved the Tetrafecta were younger (59 vs. 62 years; p = 0.01) and presented with fewer comorbidities (ASA score ≥ 3: 0% vs. 24%; p < 0.001). Although indicated, ILND was omitted in 8 cases (5%), while in 16, a modified template was properly used. Although median LNs yield was 17 (IQR: 11-27), 35% of the patients had <7 nodes retrieved from the groin. At Kaplan-Maier analysis, the Tetrafecta cohort displayed significantly higher OS probabilities (Log Rank = 0.01). Uni- and multivariable logistic regression analyses identified age as the only independent predictor of Tetrafecta achievement (OR: 0.97; 95%CI: 0.94-0.99; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Our Tetrafecta is the first combined outcome to comprehensively report results after PC surgery. It is widely applicable, based on standardized and reproducible variables and it predicts all-cause mortality.