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

A SEER database retrospective cohort of 547 patients with penile non-squamous cell carcinoma: demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes

Introduction

Little research has investigated the prevalence and distribution of the diverse pathologies of non-squamous cell carcinoma (non-SCC) of the penis. Although rare in clinical practice, these cancers have become a focus of greater importance among patients, clinicians, and researchers, particularly in developing countries. The principal objective of this study was to analyze the major types of penile non-SCC, elucidate common treatment pathways, and highlight outcomes including 5-year survival.

Materials/methods

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was queried between 2000 and 2018 to identify a retrospective cohort of patients with penile non-SCC. Demographic information, cancer characteristics, diagnostic methods, treatments administered, and survival were investigated.

Results

A total of 547 cases of penile non-SCC were included in the analysis. The most prevalent non-SCC cancers included epithelial neoplasms, not otherwise specified (NOS) (15.4%), unspecified neoplasms (15.2%), basal cell neoplasms (13.9%), blood vessel tumors (13.0%), nevi and melanomas (11.7%), and ductal and lobular neoplasms (9.9%). Over half (56.7%) of patients elected to undergo surgical intervention. Patients rarely received systemic therapy (3.8%) or radiation (4.0%). Five-year survival was 35.5%. Patients who underwent surgery had greater annual survival for 0-10 years compared to those who did not have surgery. Significant differences in survival were found between patients who had regional, localized, and distant metastases (p < 0.05). A significant difference in survival was found for patients married at diagnosis versus those who were unmarried at diagnosis (p < 0.05). Lower survival rates were observed for patients older than 70 years.

Discussion

Although less prevalent than SCC, penile non-SCC encompasses a diverse set of neoplasms. Patients in this cohort had a high utilization of surgical management leading to superior outcomes compared to those not receiving surgery. Radiation is an uncommonly pursued treatment pathway. Patient demographics and socioeconomic variables such as marital status may be valuable when investigating cancer outcomes. This updated database analysis can help inform diagnosis, management, and clinical outcomes for this rare group of malignancies.

Surgical templates for inguinal lymph node dissection in cN0 penile cancer: A comparative study

PURPOSE

Modified and superficial inguinal lymph node dissection (MILD and SILD) are the 2 widely used templates for surgical staging of clinically node negative (cN0) penile cancer (PeCa); however, no previous reports have compared their outcomes. We compared these 2 surgical templates for oncological outcomes and complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed records of cN0 PeCa patients who underwent MILD/SILD at our cancer care center from January 2013 to December 2019. Patients who developed a penile recurrence during follow up were excluded from analysis of oncological outcomes. The 2 groups (MILD and SILD) were compared for baseline clinico-pathological characteristics. The primary outcome was the groin recurrence free survival (gRFS). Secondary outcomes included the false negative rate (FNR) and disease free survival (DFS) for both templates and also the post-operative wound related complication.

RESULTS

Of the 146 patients with intermediate and high risk N0 PeCa, 74 (50.7%) and 72 (49.3%) underwent MILD and SILD respectively. The 2 groups were comparable with regards to the distribution of T stage, tumor grade and the proportion of intermediate and high-risk patients. At a median follow up of 34 months (47 for SILD and 23 for MILD), a total of 5 groin recurrences were encountered; all of them occurred in the MILD group. The gRFS and DFS for the MILD group was 93.2% and 91.8% respectively; while that for the SILD group was 100% and 94.4% respectively. Too few events had occurred to determine any statistically significant difference. The FNR for MILD and SILD was 26.3% and 0% respectively. The overall complication rate was significantly higher in the SILD group (46% vs 20.3%, p=0.001), especially for Clavien Dindo 3A complications.

CONCLUSION

MILD can fail to pick up micro-metastatic disease in a small proportion of cN0 PeCa patients, while SILD provides better oncological clearance with no groin recurrences. This oncological superiority comes at the cost of a higher incidence of wound-related complications.

Comparing T2-T3 staging of penile cancer according to the American Joint Committee on cancer 8th edition with two modified staging systems in predicting survival outcome: A single-center experience

Introduction

Penile cancer is a rare malignancy of the genitourinary tract. We aimed to validate the recent changes in the T2 and T3 stages of penile cancer in the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition and to compare its predictive ability with two other modified staging systems for survival outcomes.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of patients diagnosed with penile cancer from June 2015 to March 2020. The AJCC 8th edition and two other newly proposed systems by Li et al. and Sali et al. were used for staging the tumor. All variables were categorized and correlated with lymph node (LN) metastases and overall survival (OS).

Results

Fifty-four patients were eligible for this study. The mean age was 58 years (range 46-72 years). The tumor stage (P = 0.016), clinical LN stage (P = 0.001), the involvement of the spongiosa (P = 0.015) and the cavernosa (P = 0.002), lymphovascular invasion (LVI) (P = 0.000), and PNI (P = 0.021) were found to be the significant predictors of LN metastases. When the 5 year OS was compared between the T2 and T3 stages of the AJCC 8th edition, Li staging and the Sali staging systems, it was 91% and 50.1% (P = 0.001), 97.5% and 10.3% (P = 0.000), 94.4% and 14.7% (P = 0.000), respectively. The presence of LVI (P = 0.001) was the most significant independent predictor of OS.

Conclusions

The recent changes in the AJCC 8th edition pertaining to the T2-T3 stage are relevant, although the other two newly proposed staging systems were more precise in predicting the survival outcomes.

Prophylactic inguinal lymphadenectomy for high-risk cN0 penile cancer: The optimal surgical timing

Background

Few reports have investigated the oncologically safe timing of prophylactic inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile cancer patients with clinically normal inguinal lymph nodes (cN0), particularly those who received delayed surgical treatment.

Methods

The study included pT1aG2, pT1b-3G1-3 cN0M0 patients with penile cancer who received prophylactic bilateral inguinal lymph nodes dissection (ILND) at the Department of Urology of Tangdu Hospital between October 2002 and August 2019. Patients who received simultaneous resection of primary tumor and inguinal lymph nodes were assigned to the immediate group, while the rest were assigned to the delayed group. The optimal timing of lymphadenectomy was determined based on the time-dependent ROC curves. The disease-specific survival (DSS) was estimated based on the Kaplan-Meier curve. Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate the associations between DSS and the timing of lymphadenectomy and tumor characteristics. The analyses were repeated after stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment.

Results

A total of 87 patients were enrolled in the study, 35 of them in the immediate group and 52 in the delayed group. The median (range) interval time between primary tumor resection and ILND of the delayed group was 85 (29-225) days. Multivariable Cox analysis demonstrated that immediate lymphadenectomy was associated with a significant survival benefit (HR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02-0.57; p = 0.009). An index of 3.5 months was determined as the optimal cut-point for dichotomization in the delayed group. In high-risk patients who received delayed surgical treatment, prophylactic inguinal lymphadenectomy within 3.5 months was associated with a significantly better DSS compared to dissection after 3.5months (77.8% and 0%, respectively; log-rank p<0.001).

Conclusions

Immediate and prophylactic inguinal lymphadenectomy in high-risk cN0 patients (pT1bG3 and all higher stage tumours) with penile cancer improves survival. For those patients at high risk who received delayed surgical treatment for any reason, within 3.5 months after resection of the primary tumor seems to be an oncologically safe window for prophylactic inguinal lymphadenectomy.

A global approach to improving penile cancer care

Rare tumours such as penile carcinoma have been largely neglected by the urology scientific community in favour of more common - and, therefore, more easily fundable - diseases. Nevertheless, penile cancer represents a rising burden for health-care systems around the world, because a lack of widespread expertise, ineffective centralization of care and absence of research funds have hampered our ability to improve the global care of these patients. Moreover, a dichotomy has arisen in the field of penile cancer, further impeding care: the countries that are mainly supporting research on this topic through the development of epidemiological studies and design of clinical trials are not the countries that have the highest prevalence of the disease. This situation means that randomized controlled trials in developed countries often do not meet the minimum accrual and are intended to close before reaching their end points, whereas trials are almost completely absent in those areas with the highest disease prevalence and probability of successful recruitment, such as Africa, South America and South Asia. The scientific and organizational inaction that arises owing to this mismatch translates into a burdensome cost for our patients. A global effort to gather experts and pull together scientific data from around the world may be the best way to boost clinical research, to change clinical practice and, ultimately, to improve care for patients and their families.

Lymph Node Dissections for T3T4 Stage Penile Cancer Patients Without Preoperatively Detectable Lymph Node Metastasis Bring More Survival Benefits: A Propensity Matching Analysis

Background and Aims

The current guidelines for the treatment of penile cancer patients with clinically non-invasive normal inguinal lymph nodes are still broad, so the purpose of this study is to determine which patients are suitable for lymph node dissection (LND).

Methods

Histologically confirmed penile cancer patients (primary site labeled as C60.9-Penis) from 2004 to 2016 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Results database were included in this analysis. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were applied to determine an overall estimate of LND on overall survival and cancer-specific survival. A 1:1 propensity matching analysis (PSM) was applied to enroll balanced baseline cohort, and further Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis was used to get more reliable results.

Results

Out of 4,458 histologically confirmed penile cancer patients with complete follow-up information, 1,052 patients were finally enrolled in this analysis. Age, pathological grade, T stage, and LND were identified as significant predictors for overall survival (OS) in the univariate Cox analysis. In the multivariate Cox regression, age, pathological grade, T stage, and LND were found significant. The same results were also found in the univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses for cancer-specific survival (CSS). After the successful PSM, further KM analysis revealed that LND could bring significant OS and CSS benefits for T3T4 patients without lymph node metastasis.

Conclusion

Lymph node dissection may bring survival benefits for penile cancer patients without preoperatively detectable lymph node metastasis, especially for T3T4 stage patients. Further randomized control trial is needed.

Modified "parachute technique" of partial penectomy: A penile preservation surgery for carcinoma penis

Carcinoma penis is a rare malignancy which mostly occurs after the sixth decade of life. It is managed surgically and partial penectomy is the most common procedure done in carcinoma involving the distal penis. Partial penectomy provides the opportunity of preservation of sexual function and enables the patient to micturate in standing position. The conventional technique of neourethra creation in partial penectomy is slitting the urethra dorsally. We propose an alternative approach to neourethra formation. Technique involves ventral slitting of the urethra followed by suturing which begins at the ventral aspect and continued in a parachute fashion toward the dorsal end. This new technique will help primary physicians and surgeons in providing better surgical results in caring for patients with carcinoma penis.

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.