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

Robotic or open superficial inguinal lymph node dissection as staging procedures for clinically node negative high risk penile cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate perioperative and oncologic outcomes of a cohort of clinically node negative high-risk penile cancer patients undergoing robotic assisted inguinal lymph node dissection (RAIL) compared to patients undergoing open superficial inguinal lymph node dissection (OSILND).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical characteristics and outcomes of clinically node negative high-risk penile cancer patients undergoing RAIL at MDACC from 2013-2019. We sought to compare this to a contemporary open cohort of clinically node negative patients treated from 1999 to 2019 at MDACC and Moffit Cancer Center (MCC) with an OSILND. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study cohorts. Comparison analysis between operative variables was performed using Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon's rank-sum test. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival endpoints.

RESULTS

There were 24 patients in the RAIL cohort, and 35 in the OSILND cohort. Among the surgical variables, operative time (348.5 minutes vs. 239.0 minutes, P < 0.01) and the duration of operative drain (37 vs. 22 days P = 0.017) were both significantly longer in the RAIL cohort. Complication incidences were similar for both cohorts (34.3% for OSILND vs. 33.3% for RAIL), with wound complications making up 33% of all complications for RAIL and 31% of complications for OSILND. No inguinal recurrences were noted in either cohort. The median follow-up was 40 months for RAIL and 33 months for OSILND.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed similar complication rates and surgical variable outcomes in our analysis apart from operative time and operative drain duration. Oncological outcomes were similar between the two cohorts. RAIL was a reliable staging and potentially therapeutic procedure among clinically node negative patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma with comparable outcomes to an OSILND cohort.

Management of Lymph Node-positive Penile Cancer: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Lymph node (LN) involvement in penile cancer is associated with poor survival. Early diagnosis and management significantly impact survival, with multimodal treatment approaches often considered in advanced disease.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness of treatment options available for the management of inguinal and pelvic lymphadenopathy in men with penile cancer.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and other databases were searched from 1990 to July 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), nonrandomised comparative studies (NRCSs), and case series (CSs) were included.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We identified 107 studies, involving 9582 patients from two RCTs, 28 NRCSs, and 77 CSs. The quality of evidence is considered poor. Surgery is the mainstay of LN disease management, with early inguinal LN dissection (ILND) associated with better outcomes. Videoendoscopic ILND may offer comparable survival outcomes to open ILND with lower wound-related morbidity. Ipsilateral pelvic LN dissection (PLND) in N2-3 cases improves overall survival in comparison to no pelvic surgery. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in N2-3 disease showed a pathological complete response rate of 13% and an objective response rate of 51%. Adjuvant radiotherapy may benefit pN2-3 but not pN1 disease. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy may provide a small survival benefit in N3 disease. Adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy improve outcomes after PLND for pelvic LN metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

Early LND improves survival in nodal disease in penile cancer. Multimodal treatments may provide additional benefit in pN2-3 cases; however, data are limited. Therefore, individualised management of patients with nodal disease should be discussed in a multidisciplinary team setting.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Spread of penile cancer to the lymph nodes is best managed with surgery, which improves survival and has curative potential. Supplementary treatment, including the use of chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, may further improve survival in advanced disease. Patients with penile cancer with lymph node involvement should be treated by a multidisciplinary team.

New EAU/ASCO guideline recommendations on sentinel node biopsy for penile cancer and remaining challenges from a nuclear medicine perspective

INTRODUCTION

The European Association of Urology (EAU) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recently issued updated guidelines on penile cancer, emphasising dynamic sentinel node biopsy (DSNB) as the preferred method for surgical staging among patients with invasive penile tumours and no palpable inguinal lymphadenopathy. This paper outlines the rationale behind this new recommendation and describes remaining challenges, as well as strategies for promoting DSNB worldwide.

MAIN TEXT

DSNB offers high diagnostic accuracy with the lowest postoperative complications compared to open or minimally invasive inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND), prompting its preference in the new guidelines. Nevertheless, despite its advantages, there are challenges hampering the widespread adoption of DSNB. This includes the false-negative rate associated with DSNB and the potential negative impact on patient outcome. To address this issue, improvements should be made in several areas, including refining the timing and interpretation of the lymphoscintigraphy and the single photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography images. In addition, the quantity of tracer employed and choice of the injection site for the radiopharmaceutical should be optimised. Finally, limiting the removal of nodes without tracer activity during surgery may help minimise complication rates.

CONCLUSION

Over the years, DSNB has evolved significantly, related to the dedicated efforts and innovations in nuclear medicine and subsequent clinical studies validating its efficacy. It is now strongly recommended for surgical staging among selected penile cancer patients. To optimise DSNB further, multidisciplinary collaborative research is required to improve SN identification for better diagnostic accuracy and fewer complications.

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.

Penile cancer: long-term infectious and thromboembolic complications following lymph node dissection - a population-based study (Sweden)

PURPOSE

To assess the long-term risks of infectious and thromboembolic events following inguinal (ILND) and pelvic (PLND) lymph node dissection in men with penile cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 364 men subjected to ILND with or without PLND for penile cancer between 2000 and 2012 were identified in the Swedish National Penile Cancer Register. Each patient was matched based on age and county of residence with six penile cancer-free men. The Swedish Cancer Register and other population-based registers were used to retrieve information on treatment and hospitalisation for selected infectious and thromboembolic events. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazard models with multiple imputation.

RESULTS

The risk of infectious events remained increased for more than five years postoperatively in men with penile cancer compared with matched controls. The palpable nodal disease was the only predictor of these events, with risk increasing with the cN stage. The HR at one, three and five years and six months postoperatively was 8.60 (95% CI 5.16-14.34), 4.02 (95% CI 2.65-6.09) and 1.93 (95% CI 1.11-3.38), respectively. An increased risk of thromboembolic events persisted for three years postoperatively. The HR at one and three years postoperatively was 13.51 (95% CI 6.53-27.93) and 2.12 (95% CI 1.07-4.20). The results correspond well with the over-prescription of anticoagulants observed during this period. An association with bulky disease (cN3) was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Lymph node dissection for penile cancer is associated with an increased risk of infectious and thromboembolic events. The findings of this population-based study show that the risks of these events remain increased more than five years for infectious and three years for thromboembolic events. Improved awareness of long-term complications following ILND is of importance both among patients and care givers to ensure early detection and treatment.

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.

European Association of Urology-American Society of Clinical Oncology Collaborative Guideline on Penile Cancer: 2023 Update

CONTEXT

Penile cancer is a rare disease but has a significant impact on quality of life. Its incidence is increasing, so it is important to include new and relevant evidence in clinical practice guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To provide a collaborative guideline that offers worldwide physician and patient guidance for the management of penile cancer.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Comprehensive literature searches were performed for each section topic. In addition, three systematic reviews were conducted. Levels of evidence were assessed, and a strength rating for each recommendation was assigned according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Penile cancer is a rare disease but its global incidence is increasing. Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the main risk factor for penile cancer and pathology should include an assessment of HPV status. The main aim of primary tumour treatment is complete tumour eradication, which has to be balanced against optimal organ preservation without compromising oncological control. Early detection and treatment of lymph node (LN) metastasis is the main determinant of survival. Surgical LN staging with sentinel node biopsy is recommended for patients with a high-risk (≥pT1b) tumour with cN0 status. While (inguinal) LN dissection remains the standard for node-positive disease, multimodal treatment is needed in patients with advanced disease. Owing to a lack of controlled trials and large series, the levels of evidence and grades of recommendation are low in comparison to those for more common diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

This collaborative penile cancer guideline provides updated information on the diagnosis and treatment of penile cancer for use in clinical practice. Organ-preserving surgery should be offered for treatment of the primary tumour when feasible. Adequate and timely LN management remains a challenge, especially in advanced disease stages. Referral to centres of expertise is recommended.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Penile cancer is a rare disease that significantly impacts quality of life. While the disease can be cured in most cases without lymph node involvement, management of advanced disease remains challenging. Many unmet needs and unanswered questions remain, underlining the importance of research collaborations and centralisation of penile cancer services.

Recent developments in the diagnosis and management of N1 penile cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article presents a critical review of the current literature to provide a brief update on the contemporary advances in diagnosing and managing N1 penile cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Penile squamous cell carcinoma (pSCC) has evolved from being an orphan field for cancer innovation. Advances in the understanding tumour biology have enabled sophisticated diagnostics and predictive modelling to better characterize inguinal disease. Minimally invasive inguinal lymph node dissection is emerging as a technique that reduces morbidity while maintaining oncological safety. Furthermore, robust clinical trials are underway ,which will provide level one evidence to guide treatment decisions. Exciting advances in the field of immune-oncology offer promise as adjuvant therapies. International collaboration and centralisation of care will be essential to driving translational research and equitable evidence-based care.

SUMMARY

Improving outcomes for men with pSCC remains a global challenge. Radical inguinal lymph node dissection remains the gold standard for diagnosing and curing N1 disease. Although many promising developments are on the horizon, high-level evidence is required to guide therapy.

Nursing of Vulvar Cancer Radical Operation Combined with Laparoscopic Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection

Purpose. The application, development, and care of radical surgery combined with laparoscopic inguinal lymph node dissection for vulvar cancer. Methods. We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases for published literature on the care of radical surgery combined with laparoscopic inguinal lymph node dissection for vulvar cancer up to June 2022. We used the following search terms and terms: “vulvar cancer,” “injury,” “radical vulvar cancer surgery,” “laparoscopic inguinal lymph node dissection,” and “care.” Results. Laparoscopic inguinal lymph node dissection has become a new surgical method for the treatment of vulvar cancer, and it effectively avoids all the problems associated with traditional surgery. In addition, radical vulvar cancer surgery and laparoscopic inguinal lymph node dissection combined with high-quality nursing interventions can promote patients’ recovery and reduce the occurrence of complications, which has important clinical significance. Conclusion. This article reviews the application, development, and nursing care of radical vulvar cancer surgery combined with laparoscopic inguinal lymph node dissection.

Robot-Assisted Video Endoscopic Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection for Carcinoma Penis

Inguinal lymph node status is the single most important prognostic factor for survival in patients with carcinoma penis. Various modifications and alternatives to open inguinal lymph node dissection have been developed as the same is associated with high postoperative morbidity such as wound infection, skin flap necrosis, lymphorrhea, and lymphedema. Robot-assisted video endoscopic inguinal lymph node dissection (RA-VEIL) has the potential to accomplish thorough inguinal lymph node dissection with definitively reduced postoperative morbidity. In this video, we demonstrate our technique of RA-VEIL: The fascia lata first approach and highlight our technical modifications of the conventionally described procedure.

Clinical Application of Noninflating Video-Endoscopic Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection

Objective

To assess the safety and efficacy of the application of self-made non-inflating suspension technique in video endoscopic inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND).

Methods

We collected 8 patients with penile carcinoma who underwent noninflating video-endoscopic ILND in the Department of Urology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, from May 2019 to March 2021. Then, surgical duration, blood loss, drainage tube indwelling time, hospital stay, number of dissected lymph nodes, and complications in the patients were analyzed.

Results

All patients (n = 8) finished the surgery successfully, with an average surgical duration of 125 (105-145) minutes, blood loss of 41 (25-50) mL, indwelling time of drainage tube of 7 (5-12) days, and a hospital stay of 14.8 (9-21) days. Additionally, 8.8 (3-14) left side and 7.3 (2-17) right side lymph nodes were dissected on average. Complications occurred in 3 patients during a perioperative period. The patients were followed up for 6-24 months, and none suffered recurrence or metastasis.

Conclusion

The efficacy of noninflating video-endoscopic ILND is good. Patients who have undergone the surgery not only have few postoperative complications but also have a good prognosis, suggesting the safety and availability of the clinical application.

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.

Saphenous-sparing Ascending Video Endoscopic Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection Using a Leg Approach: Surgical Technique and Perioperative and Pathological Outcomes

Background

Open inguinal lymph node dissection (oILND) has high morbidity. Ascending saphenous-sparing video endoscopic ILND (VEILND-AS+) represents a minimally invasive alternative with potential benefits.

Objective

To describe our VEILND-AS+ technique and compare outcomes to oILND.

Design, setting, and participants

This was a retrospective cohort study of penile cancer patients.

Surgical procedure

VEILND-AS+ was performed according to the technique described in the supplementary video.

Measurements

We compared perioperative and pathological outcomes between the two procedures.

Results and limitations

In the study cohort of 206 men we performed 40 VEILND-AS+ and 251 oILND procedures. In comparison to oILND, VEILND-AS+ had a longer operation time (185 vs 120 min; p < 0.01) but a shorter hospital stay (2 vs 4 d; p < 0.01). A median of eight resected lymph nodes with a median of one affected node per groin was observed in both groups. Extranodal extension was found in 30% of cases after VEILND-AS+ and 35% after oILND. In both groups the median drainage time was 13 d. Wound infections were observed in 38% of cases after VEILND-AS+ and 27% after oILND (p = 0.19). Skin necrosis or wound breakdown occurred in 0% and 6% of cases after VEILND-AS+ and oILND (p < 0.01), while lymphoceles were drained in 18% and 7% of cases, respectively(p = 0.03). Following VEILND-AS+ and oILND, 20% and 14% of patients, respectively, were referred to a lymph oedema clinic (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

VEILND-AS+ is a safe procedure and offers shorter hospital stays and possibly a lower risk of skin necrosis and wound breakdown in comparison to oILND. Further improvements in the VEILND-AS+ technique are required to reduce complications associated with dead space and injury to lymphatic vessels.

Patient summary

For patients undergoing surgery on lymph nodes in the groin, a minimally invasive approach instead of open surgery led to discharge 2 days earlier and may have lower rates of severe wound complications.