Centralization and Equitable Care in Rare Urogenital Malignancies: The Case for Penile Cancer

Phallus preservation and reconstruction: 5-year outcomes of national penile cancer centralisation in the Republic of Ireland

INTRODUCTION

Penile cancer is a rare urological malignancy with an age-standardised incidence of 0.8 per 100,000 person-years [1]. Given this low incidence it has been suggested that centralised care may improve patient outcomes in relation to phallus sparing surgery and nodal assessment [2]. We aim to assess the outcomes after 5-years of national centralisation of penile cancer care.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed. All patients undergoing penile cancer surgery from January 2018 to December 2022 following centralisation of care were included. The primary outcome was proportion of phallus sparing procedures performed. Secondary outcomes were patient characteristics, histologic outcomes and procedures performed.

RESULTS

124 patients underwent surgery in the study period. Mean age was 64.49 (±13.87). Overall, 82.3% of patients underwent phallus sparing surgery. This remained stable over the 5-year period from 2018 to 2022 ​at 92%, 85%, 76%, 79% and 78% respectively (p ​= ​0.534). 62.7% had reconstruction performed, including split-thickness skin graft neoglans formation, (57.8% [n ​= ​37]), preputial flap (32.8% [n ​= ​21]), glans resurfacing (4.7% [n ​= ​3]), shaft advancement flap (1.6% [n ​= ​1]), penile shaft skin graft (1.6% [n ​= ​1]), and partial penectomy with urethral centralisation (1.6% [n ​= ​1]). Phallus preservation was not affected by positive nodal status (OR 0.75 [95% CI 0.249-2.266], p ​= ​0.564) or T-stage ≥1b (OR 0.51 [95% CI 0.153-1.711], p ​= ​0.276). There has been a significant reduction in Nx nodal status from 64% in 2017 to 15% in 2021 (p ​= ​0.009).

CONCLUSION

Centralisation of treatment for rare malignancies such as penile cancer may improve oncologic outcomes and rates of phallus preservation. This study has shown centralisation to has a high rate of phallus preservation. Further long-term analysis of outcomes in Ireland is required.

Incidence, risk factors, and temporal trends of penile cancer: a global population-based study

OBJECTIVES

To examine the global disease burden and country-specific trends of penile cancer incidence by age group and investigate its associations with several factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Global Cancer Observatory database was interrogated for penile cancer incidence. The 10-year cancer incidence rates were collected from the Cancer Incidence in Five Continents Plus. The country-specific data were extracted from the World Health Organization Global Health Observatory and Global Burden of Disease databases for conducting risk factors analysis. The penile cancer incidence was presented using age-standardised rates. Its associations with various factors were examined by linear regression, while the incidence trend was estimated using joinpoint regression and presented as average annual percentage change with 95% confidence intervals in different age groups.

RESULTS

There were an estimated 36 068 new cases of penile cancer in 2020. There was a considerable geographical disparity in the disease burden of penile cancer, with South America reporting the highest incidence. Overall, alcohol drinking, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, and unsafe sex were positively associated with a higher penile cancer incidence, while circumcision was found to be a protective factor. There has been a mixed trend in penile cancer incidence overall, but an increasing trend was found among younger males.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a global variation in the penile cancer burden associated with prevalence of alcohol drinking, HIV infection, unsafe sex, and circumcision. The increasing penile cancer incidence in the younger population is worrying and calls for early detection and preventive interventions.

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.

Impact of the Standardization of Penile Cancer Care on the Quality of Care, Outcomes, and Academic-driven Centralization in a Single eUROGEN Referral Center

BACKGROUND

Penile cancer (PeCa) represents a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge given the low patient volume, which may result in inadequate physician expertise and poor guideline adherence. Since 2015, we have developed a specific care pathway for PeCa in our tertiary referral center.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of a dedicated PeCa care pathway on patient management, the adequacy of pathological reporting, and oncological outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We retrospectively queried our institutional registry (S-66482) to identify patients who were surgically treated for PeCa between January 1989 and April 2022. The patient numbers were evaluated within a broader national context.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

We compared patient, surgery, tumor, and pathological data before and after 2015. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare local and regional recurrence rates and cancer-specific survival (CSS).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Overall, 313 patients were included, of whom 204 (65.1%) were surgically treated after 2015. The median number of patients treated yearly was significantly higher after 2015 (26 vs 5; p < 0.01). Patients treated after 2015 more frequently had no palpable lymph nodes at diagnosis, despite similar primary tumor stage. After adoption of the PeCa care pathway, organ-sparing surgery (OSS) was more commonly performed (79.9% vs 57.8%; p < 0.01) despite local staging being similar and without observing a significant increase in positive margins. Surgical staging in patients with European Association of Urology intermediate- or high-risk tumors was conducted more frequently after 2015 (90% vs 41%; p < 0.01). Pathology reporting was standardized, and there was more frequent reporting of p16 staining status (81.4% vs 8.3%; p < 0.01), lymphovascular invasion (93.8% vs 44.3%; p < 0.01), and perineural invasion (92.4% vs 44.3%; p < 0.01) following implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a standardized care pathway for PeCa resulted in higher rates of OSS and pathological nodal staging and more complete pathology reports. Considering that these changes were associated with an increase in the number of patients treated, academic-driven centralization may play a role in optimizing the management of these patients.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We evaluated the impact of a care pathway for patients with penile cancer on patient management, the completeness of pathology reporting, and cancer control. We found that implementation of this pathway was associated with an increase in the number of patients treated, higher rates of organ-sparing surgery and lymph node staging, and more complete pathology reports. Centralization of care may play a role in optimizing the management of penile cancer.

[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.

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.

Sentinel Node Methods in Penile Cancer - a Historical Perspective on Development of Modern Concepts

Malignant penile tumors are of squamous cell origin in more than 95% of cases and the occurrence of a distant metastasis without prior inguinal lymph node metastatic deposits is very rare. This makes inguinal lymph node staging very reliable and of great prognostic significance since undiscovered and untreated inguinal metastases may lead to a fatal clinical course. In lack of a sufficiently accurate noninvasive lymph node staging modality, penile cancer relies on surgical lymph node removal for regional staging. In this respect sentinel node biopsy offers a favourable minimally invasive alternative to prophylactic inguinal lymph node dissection which is associated with significant surgery-related morbidity. Today sentinel node biopsy is widely used in surgical oncology within high volume cancers such as breast cancer and melanoma. In rare cancers sentinel node biopsy is also emerging as a minimal invasive staging tool in patients with no obvious lymph node involvement. At several specialized units across Europe sentinel node biopsy has been practiced by dedicated specialist within vulva and penile cancer for more than two decades. In fact, the rare disease penile cancer was a model entity for development of the original sentinel node concept as early as the 1970'es due to work by the Paraguayan penile cancer pioneer, Cabañas, the sentinel node concept was subsequently successfully adapted in breast cancer and melanoma. This turned out mutually beneficial since the sequential development of sentinel node biopsy in penile cancer in the 1990s eventually adopted new insights and added conceptual details from the experiences harvested in the broader clinical application possible in these high-volume diseases. The prerequisite to conceptualising the sentinel node approach was the gradual anatomical and functional understanding of the lymphatic system which in western medicine rooted in ancient Greece and gradually increased in details and comprehension with significant contributions from many great notabilities during the last centuries including Hippocrates, Galen, Fallopio, Malpighi, Virchow, Starling, Cabañas, Hodgkin and Horenblas. Sentinel node biopsy in penile cancer is a complex multimodality procedure involving inguinal ultrasonography by radiologists, precise tracer-injection and interpretation of nuclear images by nuclear medicine physicians, radio-tracer- and dye guided open surgical biopsies by urologists and thorough step-sectioning, immunostaining and accurate lymph node specimen analysis by pathologists. This team effort requires well-tested protocols, experience and good collaboration and in rare diseases this calls for centralization of service.