Abstract
Penile cancer is a rare tumor.
The organ preservation perspective makes the treatment challenging.
For early stage, conservative brachytherapy achieved excellent oncological outcome.
Conservative brachytherapy reported encouraging functional results.
HDR brachytherapy represents an attractive therapeutic option.
Purpose
To analyze the oncological outcome and toxicity profile after conservative treatment based on multicatheter interstitial high-dose rate brachytherapy (MHB) for patients presenting a localized penile cancer.
Materials and methods
Patients with histologically proven, non-metastatic (T1-T2 N0-N2 M0) localized penile cancer were treated with MHB. Needles were placed under general anesthesia into the target volume using a dedicated template. Treatment planning was performed using a post-implant CT-scan to deliver 35 Gy or 39 Gy (9f, 5d) for adjuvant or definitive treatment respectively. Five-year oncological outcome was evaluated with local relapse-free (LRFS), regional relapse-free (RRFS), and metastasis-free survival (MFS), specific (SS) and overall survival (OS). In pre-treatment and follow-up consultations, skin, urinary and sexual toxicities were investigated using CTCAEv4.0 classification, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and International Index of Erectile Function 5-items (IIEF-5). Dosimetry data were also analyzed.
Results
From 03/2006 to 05/2020, with a median follow-up of 72.4 months [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], 29 pts, mainly T1 (75.9%) and N0 (89.7%), underwent MHB. Eleven (38%) and 18 pts (62%) received MHB as adjuvant or definitive treatment respectively. Five-year LRFS, RRFS, MFS, SS and OS were 82%, 82%, 89%, 88% and 73% respectively. Six patients (20.7%) experienced local relapse and underwent salvage penectomy leading to a penile preservation rate of 79.3%. Acute skin toxicity was reported 1 month after MHB, with 28% G1, 66% G2 and 6% G3. Late skin complications were telangiectasia for 5 pts (17%) and necrosis for 3 pts (10.3% requiring hyperbaric oxygen therapy). Comparing pre- and post-treatment status, no significant change was observed for skin appearance, IPSS and IIEF-5.
Conclusion
MHB represents an efficient first line conservative treatment option for early penile cancers. Oncological outcome and late toxicity profile appear encouraging. However, larger-scale cohorts with longer follow-up are needed to more accurately precise the features of the best candidate to MHB.
Collapse