Adherence to Guideline Recommendations for Perioperative Chemotherapy in Patients with pN2-3 M0 Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Penis: Temporal Trends and Survival Outcomes

Surveillance or Dynamic Sentinel Lymph-Node Biopsy in Low-Risk Clinically N0 Penile Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Single-Institution Real World Data

INTRODUCTION

Surveillance is the standard management in low-risk cN0 penile squamous cell carcinoma (peSCC) patients. However, no previous analysis focused on early and long-term outcomes of these patients. We report on main oncological outcomes of a large series of low-risk cN0 peSCC patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 1980 and 2017 included, 93 evaluable consecutive low-risk (ie, pT1a G1 cN0M0) peSCC patients underwent primary tumor surgery and either observation (74) or dynamic sentinel node biopsy (DSNB) (19) following a clinical diagnosis of T1 in 66 (71%), T2 in 15 (16.1%) and Tx in 12 (12.9%) patients, respectively. The statistical significance of differences in medians and proportions was tested with the Kruskal-Wallis and chi-square tests. Kaplan-Meier plots illustrated 5-year inguinal relapse (IR)-free survival rates.

RESULTS

Median age was 60 years (IQR: 50-69 years). Median follow-up was 92 months (IQR 54-133 months). Surveillance was more frequently adopted in clinical (c)T1 than in cT2 tumors (79.7% vs. 36.8%). None of 19 patients who had DSNB had nodal metastasis. Overall, 7 (7.5%) out of 93 pT1aG1cN0 peSCC patients had IR after a median interval of 9 months. Of note, 1 patient only relapsed after 12 months of surveillance. After stratification according to IR, relapses occurred more frequently in younger patients (59 vs. 64 years, P < .001). The 5-year IR-free survival rates for the entire cohort was 92% (95% Confidence interval [CI] 87-98%).

CONCLUSIONS

Observation is a safe and effective management for low-risk peSCC patients. Younger patients may be offered a mini-invasive staging as an alternative.

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.

[Systemic treatment of penile cancer: New concepts? New achievements?]

Systemic chemotherapy has been in use for metastatic penile carcinoma for years, but its success is limited. Its significance is largely associated with its role in multimodal treatment for lymphatic metastasis in the context of radical lymph node surgery. In cases of limited lymph node involvement, the combination of surgical treatment plus cisplatin- and taxane-based triple combinations may be curative. Advances in the understanding of molecular changes in penile cancer and the search for potential therapy targets have led to numerous studies. Although there is evidence of efficacy of immunotherapeutics, no significant therapeutic improvements have been seen in the clinical routine.

Nationwide Data Support Centralised Decision-making in Penile Cancer Care: A Before-and-After Study on Guideline Adherence and Disease-specific survival for Patients with an Indication for Perioperative Oncological Treatment

Background

The benefit of perioperative oncological treatment in men with penile cancer is uncertain. In 2015, treatment recommendations were centralised in Sweden and treatment guidelines were updated.

Objective

To evaluate if the use of oncological treatment in men with penile cancer increased after the introduction of centralised recommendations, and whether such therapy is associated with better survival.

Design setting and participants

This was a retrospective cohort study including a total of 426 men diagnosed with penile cancer with lymph node or distant metastases in Sweden during 2000-2018.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

We first assessed the change in the proportion of patients with an indication for perioperative oncological treatment who actually received such treatment. Second, we used Cox regression to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for disease-specific mortality associated with perioperative treatment. Comparisons were made for both all men without perioperative treatment and for those who did not receive treatment but who lacked apparent contraindications for treatment.

Results and limitations

The use of perioperative oncological treatment increased from 2000 to 2018, from 32% of patients with an indication for treatment during the first 4 yr to 63% during the last 4 yr. In comparison to patients potentially eligible for oncological treatment who did not receive it, those who were treated had a 37% lower risk of disease-specific death (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40-0.98). Stage migration because of improvements in diagnostic tools over time may have inflated the more recent survival estimates. An influence of residual confounding due to comorbidity and other potential confounders cannot be excluded.

Conclusions

The use of perioperative oncological treatment increased after the centralisation of penile cancer care in Sweden. Although the observational study design precludes causal inference, the findings suggest that perioperative treatment in patients with penile cancer eligible for treatment may be associated with better survival.

Patient summary

In this study, we looked at the use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy for men with penile cancer and lymph node metastases in Sweden during 2000-2018. We found an increase in the use of cancer therapy and an increase in survival for patients who received such therapy.

[Quality of care criteria in the treatment of penile cancer]

BACKGROUND

Penile cancer is a rare malignancy and the wide range of quality of care associated with it often results in inferior oncologic and functional treatment outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

Assessment of the current healthcare situation in clinical routine and identification of the relevant key features and reference values for quality of care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Search for relevant peer-reviewed articles and published congress abstracts in Medline, Embase and other databases as well as Google web search engine.

RESULTS

Key quality features of penile cancer management include organ-sparing surgery of the primary tumor, invasive inguinal lymph node staging and systemic treatment. Adherence to treatment guidelines is currently low. Centralization of care has already led to a considerable improvement in the quality of care in some areas and increasing conformity with the guidelines' recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Centralization of care and networks based on this can significantly improve patient outcomes. Thus, reference values for core parameters of quality cancer care can be generated and validated. Moreover, organ-sparing surgery, invasive lymph node staging and systemic therapy should be increasingly utilized. As a reference value, 90% adherence to the guidelines for these three features is recommended. However, before centralization of care can be introduced, aspects relevant to practical implementation must be addressed, such as the reimbursement of travel costs for those affected, infrastructure costs and instruments to measure quality of life and patient satisfaction after centralization.

Management of penile cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: An eUROGEN accelerated Delphi consensus study

Objectives

To develop an international consensus on managing penile cancer patients during the COVID-19 acute waves. A major concern for patients with penile cancer during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is how the enforced safety measures will affect their disease management. Delays in diagnosis and treatment initiation may have an impact on the extent of the primary lesion as well as the cancer-specific survival because of the development and progression of inguinal lymph node metastases.

Materials and methods

A review of the COVID-19 literature was conducted in conjunction with analysis of current international guidelines on the management of penile cancer. Results were presented to an international panel of experts on penile cancer and infection control by a virtual accelerated Delphi process using 4 survey rounds. Consensus opinion was defined as an agreement of ≥80%, which was used to reconfigure management pathways for penile cancer.

Results

Limited evidence is available for delaying penile cancer management. The consensus rate of agreement was 100% that penile cancer pathways should be reconfigured, and measures should be developed to prevent perioperative nosocomial transmission of COVID-19. The panel also reached a consensus on several statements aimed at reconfiguring the management of penile cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusions

The international consensus panel proposed a framework for the diagnostic and invasive therapeutic procedures for penile cancer within a low-risk environment for COVID-19.