Surgical technique and outcomes following coronal-sparing glans resurfacing for benign and malignant penile lesions

Follow Up Care After Penile Sparing Surgery for Penile Cancer: Current Perspectives

Penile cancer (PeCa) is a rare urologic tumor worldwide. In 2024, 2100 new cases and 500 deaths are estimated in the United States. Radical surgery via total penectomy has historically been the cornerstone of treatment, since it provides excellent long-term oncological control. The rationale of surgery for penile cancer was to achieve a 2 cm macroscopic surgical margin that is historically advocated to reduce recurrences. Over time, numerous studies have demonstrated that resection margin status does not affect patients' survival. Different penile-sparing techniques are currently recommended in the European Association of Urology-American Society of Clinical Oncology (EAU-ASCO) guidelines for the treatment of localized primary PeCa. Centralization of care could yield multiple benefits, including improved disease awareness, higher rates of penile-sparing surgery, enhanced detection rates, increased utilization of less invasive lymph node staging techniques, enhanced quality of specialized histopathological examinations, and the establishment of specialized multidisciplinary teams. Compared to more aggressive treatments, the higher recurrence rates after penile-sparing surgery do not hamper neither the metastasis-free survival nor the overall survival. Repeated penile-sparing surgery could be considered for selected cases. The psychological impact of penile cancer is not negligible since the perceived loss of masculinity might adversely affect mental health and overall well-being. Quality of life may be compromised by sexual and urinary dysfunction which may be the result either of the loss of penile tissue or the psychological status of the patient. It is of utmost importance to offer rehabilitative treatment as sexual therapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy, family and peer counseling.

Long-term outcomes of penile squamous cell carcinoma in men age ≤50 years old compared with men >50 years old from a single tertiary referral centre: a propensity score matched analysis

Penile cancer (PeCa) is rare, and the oncological outcomes in younger men are unclear. We aimed to analyse and compare oncological outcomes of men age ≤50 years (y) and >50 years with PeCa. A retrospective analysis of men ≤50 y with penile squamous cell carcinoma managed at a tertiary centre was performed. A propensity score matched cohort of men >50 y was identified for comparison. Matching was according to tumour, nodal stage and the types of primary surgery. Overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and metastasis-free survivals (MFS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier plots and compared using log-rank tests. Between 2005-2020, 100 men ≤50 y (median (IQR) age, 46 y (40-49)) were identified and matched with 100 men >50 y (median (IQR) age, 65 y (59-73)). 10, 24, 32, 34 men age ≤50 y were diagnosed in 2005-2007, 2008-2012, 2013-2016 and 2017-2020 respectively. Median (IQR) follow-up was 53.5 (18-96) months. OS at 2 years: ≤50 y, 86%>50 y, 80.6%; 5 years: ≤50 y, 78.1%, >50 y, 63.1%; 10 years: ≤50 y, 72.3%, >50 y, 45.6% (p = 0.01). DSS at 2 years: ≤50 y, 87.2%>50 y, 87.8%; 5 years: ≤50 y, 80.9%>50 y, 78.2%; 10 years: ≤50 y, 78%, >50 y, 70.9% (p = 0.74). RFS was 93.1% in the ≤50 y group (vs. >50 y, 96.5%) at 2 year, and 90% (vs. >50 y, 88.5%) at 5 years, p = 0.81. Within the ≤50 y group, 2 years and 5 years MFS was 93% (vs. >50 y, 96.5%), and 89.5% (vs. >50 y, 92.7%) respectively, (p = 0.40). There were no statistical significance in DFS, RFS and MFS in men age ≤50 y and >50 y. PeCa in younger patients is fatal, public awareness and patient education are crucial for early detection and management.

Outcomes following radical inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile cancer using a fascial-sparing surgical technique

PURPOSE

To describe our surgical technique and report the oncological outcomes and complication rates using a fascial-sparing radical inguinal lymphadenectomy (RILND) technique for penile cancer patients with cN+ disease in the inguinal lymph nodes.

METHODS

Over a 10-year period, 660 fascial-sparing RILND procedures were performed in 421 patients across two specialist penile cancer centres. The technique used a subinguinal incision with an ellipse of skin excised over any palpable nodes. Identification and preservation of the Scarpa's and Camper's fascia was the first step. All superficial inguinal nodes were removed en bloc under this fascial layer with preservation of the subcutaneous veins and fascia lata. The saphenous vein was spared where possible. Patient characteristics, oncologic outcomes and perioperative morbidity were retrospectively collected and analysed. Kaplan-Meier curves estimated the cancer-specific survival (CSS) functions after the procedure.

RESULTS

Median (interquartile range, IQR) follow-up was 28 (14-90) months. A median (IQR) number of 8.0 (6.5-10.5) nodes were removed per groin. A total of 153 postoperative complications (36.1%) occurred, including 50 conservatively managed wound infections (11.9%), 21 cases of deep wound dehiscence (5.0%), 104 cases of lymphoedema (24.7%), 3 cases of deep vein thrombosis (0.7%), 1 case of pulmonary embolism (0.2%), and 1 case of postoperative sepsis (0.2%). The 3-year CSS was 86% (95%Confidence Interval [95% CI] 77-96), 83% (95% CI 72-92), 58% (95% CI 51-66), respectively, for the pN1, pN2 and pN3 patients (p < 0.001), compared to a 3-year CSS of 87% (95% CI 84-95) for the pN0 patients.

CONCLUSION

Fascial-sparing RILND offers excellent oncological outcomes whilst decreasing the morbidity rates. Patients with more advanced nodal involvement had poorer survival rates, emphasizing the need for adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy.