[Knowledge of German-speaking urologists regarding the association between penile cancer and human papilloma virus: results of a survey of the European PROspective Penile Cancer Study (E-PROPS)]

Centralizing Penile Cancer Care in Germany and Austria: Just a Dream or a Fast-Approaching Reality? Results of a Survey Study among Urological Department Chairs and Modeling of Real Treatment Numbers of Penile Cancer Patients

INTRODUCTION

In countries characterized by a centralization of therapy management, patients with penile cancer (PeCa) have shown improvements in guideline adherence and ultimately, improved carcinoma-specific survival. Germany and Austria (G + A) have no state-regulated centralization of PeCa management, and the perspectives of urological university department chairs (UUDCs) in these countries, who act as drivers of professional and political developments, on this topic are currently unknown.

METHODS

Surveys containing 36 response options, including specific questions regarding perspectives on PeCa centralization, were sent to the 48 UUDC in G + A in January 2023. In addition to analyzing the responses, closely following the CROSS checklist, a modeling of the real healthcare situation of in-house PeCa patients in G + A was conducted.

RESULTS

The response rate was 75% (36/48). 94% and 89% of the UUDCs considered PeCa centralization meaningful and feasible in the medium term, respectively. Among the UUDCs, 72% estimated centralization within university hospitals as appropriate, while 28% favored a geographically oriented approach. Additionally, 97% of the UUDCs emphasized the importance of bridging the gap until implementation of centralization by establishing PeCa second-opinion portals. No country-specific differences were observed. The median number of in-house PeCa cases at the university hospitals in G + A was 13 (interquartile range: 9-26). A significant positive correlation was observed between the annual number of in-house PeCa cases at a given university hospital and the perspective of the UUDCs that centralization as meaningful by its UUDC (0.024). Under assumptions permissible for modeling, the average number of in-house PeCa cases in academic hospitals in G + A was approximately 30 times higher than in nonacademic hospitals.

CONCLUSION

This study provides the first data on the perspectives of UUDCs in G + A concerning centralization of PeCa therapy management. Even without state-regulated centralization in G + A, there is currently a clear focusing of PeCa treatments in university hospitals. Further necessary steps toward a structured PeCa centralization are discussed in this manuscript.

[Importance of HPV status and p16 for the prognosis of penile carcinoma]

BACKGROUND

Penile cancer is a rare but often lethal tumour disease, especially in the metastatic stage. Most data on prognostic factors for penile cancer are based on small patient cohorts, and even meta-analyses are mostly limited in terms of patient numbers. There is a lack of sufficient parameters to predict the metastatic risk of these tumours. Furthermore, the role of the HPV status for the prognosis, and, in this regard, of p16INK4a is still unclear.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this study, 236 patients from an international multicentre cohort were analysed with regard to histological subtypes, HPV and p16 status, and other clinical parameters. The HPV status was only graded as HPV-positive if HPV was detected by PCR and the p16 status defined by immunochemistry was positive. The statistical analysis was carried out using the Kaplan-Meier method as well as the log-rank test and a univariable and multivariable analysis using the Cox regression model.

RESULTS

A positive HPV status was not a significant parameter for either metastasis-free (MFS), tumour-specific (CSS) or overall survival (OS). p16-positive tumours showed a significantly better MFS (p=0.026), which was also confirmed in the subgroup analysis of HPV-negative tumours (p=0.037) without differences in CSS or OS. In the usual type, there was also a trend towards an improved MFS, but without statistical significance (p=0.070). p16-positive tumours were associated with a highly significantly better MFS (hazard ratio 0.3; p=0.004) in the multivariable Cox regression, while patients with a pT1b tumour stage or advanced lymph node metastasis showed a significantly worse survival. In the multivariable analysis of HPV-negative tumours, p16 status was also confirmed as an independent predictor of MFS (Hazard ratio 0.2; p=0.007).

CONCLUSION

HPV status alone seems to be lacking prognostic relevance. In contrast, p16 status was confirmed as an independent prognostic factor. Thus, the expression of p16INK4a is associated with a significantly better MFS. Especially in HPV-negative tumours, the p16 status should be evaluated with regard to the prognostic value and thus also with a view to the treatment decision.

Does the Identification of a Minimum Number of Cases Correlate With Better Adherence to International Guidelines Regarding the Treatment of Penile Cancer? Survey Results of the European PROspective Penile Cancer Study (E-PROPS)

Background

Penile cancer represents a rare malignant disease, whereby a small caseload is associated with the risk of inadequate treatment expertise. Thus, we hypothesized that strict guideline adherence might be considered a potential surrogate for treatment quality. This study investigated the influence of the annual hospital caseload on guideline adherence regarding treatment recommendations for penile cancer.

Methods

In a 2018 survey study, 681 urologists from 45 hospitals in four European countries were queried about six hypothetical case scenarios (CS): local treatment of the primary tumor pTis (CS1) and pT1b (CS2); lymph node surgery inguinal (CS3) and pelvic (CS4); and chemotherapy neoadjuvant (CS5) and adjuvant (CS6). Only the responses from 206 head and senior physicians, as decision makers, were evaluated. The answers were assessed based on the applicable European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines regarding their correctness. The real hospital caseload was analyzed based on multivariate logistic regression models regarding its effect on guideline adherence.

Results

The median annual hospital caseload was 6 (interquartile range (IQR) 3–9). Recommendations for CS1–6 were correct in 79%, 66%, 39%, 27%, 28%, and 28%, respectively. The probability of a guideline-adherent recommendation increased with each patient treated per year in a clinic for CS1, CS2, CS3, and CS6 by 16%, 7.8%, 7.2%, and 9.5%, respectively (each p < 0.05); CS4 and CS5 were not influenced by caseload. A caseload threshold with a higher guideline adherence for all endpoints could not be perceived. The type of hospital care (academic vs. non-academic) did not affect guideline adherence in any scenario.

Conclusions

Guideline adherence for most treatment recommendations increases with growing annual penile cancer caseload. Thus, the results of our study call for a stronger centralization of diagnosis and treatment strategies regarding penile cancer.