Volume outcome relationship in penile cancer: a systematic review

Comparing the safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery and open inguinal lymph node dissection in penile cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) with open inguinal lymph node dissection (O-ILND) in penile cancer.

METHODS

We performed a systematic reviews and cumulative meta-analyses of primary results of interest according to PRISMA criteria, and quality assessment followed AMSTAR. The system searched five databases, including Zhiwang, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The search period ranged was from database creation until September 2023. The statistical analysis software used Stata16.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies, including 898 patients. Compared to O-ILND, MIS is superior in length of stay (WMD = -2.96, 95%CI [-4.38, -1.54], P < 0.05), drainage time (WMD = -3.24, 95%CI [-4.70, -1.78], P < 0.05) and estimated blood loss (WMD = -35.70, 95%CI [-46.27, -25.14], P < 0.05), while operation time, recurrence rate and 5-year overall survival rate are the same. The number of lymph nodes dissection between the two groups are not statistically significant. Subgroup analyses found that there are more lymph nodes dissection in robotic-assisted inguinal lymph nodes dissection (WMD = 0.50, 95%CI [0.20, 0.80], P < 0.05). The overall complication rate of MIS was lower (OR = 0.26, 95%CI [0.09, 0.70], P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive inguinal lymph nodes dissection appears to be a better option for penile cancer cases. But more large samples and multicenter studies are needed to further confirm.

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.

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.

Organ-sparing treatment for T1 and T2 penile cancer: an updated literature review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Penile cancer (PeCa) is an orphan disease due to its rare incidence in high-income countries. Traditional surgical options for clinical T1-2 disease, including partial and total penectomy, can dramatically affect patient's quality of life and mental health status. In selected patients, organ-sparing surgery (OSS) has the potential to remove the primary tumor with comparable oncologic outcomes while maintaining penile length, sexual and urinary function. In this review, we aim to discuss the indications, advantages, and outcomes of various OSSs currently available for men diagnosed with PeCa seeking an organ-preserving option.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patient survival largely depends on spotting and treating lymph node metastasis at an early stage. The required surgical and radiotherapy skill sets cannot be expected to be available in all centers. Consequently, patients should be referred to high-volume centers to receive the best available treatments for PeCa.

SUMMARY

OSS should be used for small and localized PeCa (T1-T2) as an alternative to partial penectomy to preserve patient's quality of life while maintaining sexual and urinary function and penile aesthetics. Overall, there are different techniques that can be used with different response and recurrence rates. In case of tumor recurrence, partial penectomy or radical penectomy is feasible, without impacting overall survival.

[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.

[Initial presentation of the Pentafecta score as a quality instrument for outcome evaluation of primary surgical treatment in patients with penile cancer]

BACKGROUND

Recently, the Tetrafecta score has been published as the first instrument for assessing the quality of primary surgical treatment for penile cancer (PECa). An external scientific discussion about the defining criteria is still pending and forms the study objective.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An international working group consisting of 12 urologists and an oncologist with clinical and academic-scientific expertise in penile cancer was established. In a modified four-stage Delphi process, a total of 13 criteria for PECa patients in clinical AJCC stages 1-4 (T1-3N0-3, but M0) were defined, incorporating the Tetrafecta criteria. Each expert had to select five of these criteria in a secret ballot to generate an individual Pentafecta score. Subsequently, the experts' ratings were aggregated and a final Pentafecta score was formed.

RESULTS

None of the original Tetrafecta criteria were included in the final Pentafecta score, which consisted of the following criteria: 1) organ preservation, if possible (≤T2), but always with negative surgical margins, 2) bilateral inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) from ≥pT1G2N0, 3) perioperative chemotherapy if indicated by guidelines, 4) ILND, if indicated, within a maximum of three months after primary tumour resection, and 5) the treating clinic should perform at least 15 primary surgical treatments in PECa patients. Only in seven out of the 13 experts (54%), a strong correlation was found between individual Pentafecta scores and the final Pentafecta score (r_sp >0.60).

CONCLUSION

Based on a moderated voting process among international PECa experts, a Pentafecta score was developed as a quality assurance instrument for primary surgical treatment, which now needs to be validated using patient-relevant and patient-reported endpoints.

The Goal of Achieving High-Quality Surgical First-Line Therapy in Patients with Penile Cancer Is Important; However, Some Collective Efforts Are Still Required in Order to Reach It. Comment on Brassetti et al. Combined Reporting of Surgical Quality and Cancer Control after Surgical Treatment for Penile Tumors with Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection: The Tetrafecta Achievement. Curr. Oncol. 2023, 30, 1882-1892

We read with great interest the manuscript by Brassetti et al. recently published in your journal and hope it will encourage discussion and debate around the optimization of the surgical management of patients with penile cancer (PECa) [...].

Real World Data of Penile Cancer Treatment at a High-Volume Center in South America: Insights and Survival Trends

OBJECTIVE

To report survival trends and oncological outcomes of penile cancer surgically treated patients, at a high-volume center, treating more than 25 patients each year, in a high incidence country.

METHODS

Clinical charts of all patients that underwent surgical management for penile cancer were reviewed. The primary end points were cancer specific survival (CSS), progression-free survival, and local recurrence free survival. Kaplan-Meier plots were used for survival analyses. Multivariate analysis was performed using cox proportional hazard age-adjusted models to determine the effect of pN, pT, lymphovascular invasion for CSS.

RESULTS

A total of 209 patients were identified, with a median follow up of 96 months (IQR 49-133). Organ-sparing surgerywas performed in 72.7%, 56.9% underwent dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy, 110 patients underwent inguinal lymph node dissection, and 45 (21.5%) pelvic lymph node dissection. A total of 75 (35.8%) of patients relapsed, median time to relapse of 12 months (IQR 6-25). Overall estimates of CSS showed an 8-year CSS of 68.9%. Eight-year CSS was 90.5% for N0, and 32.8% in pN3 (P <.001). The Cox proportional hazard model showed that pN1-3, pT2-4, lymphovascular invasion and positive dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy were the variables associated with worse 8-year CSS.

CONCLUSION

To the best of our knowledge, we report one of the largest cohorts on the survival outcomes of penile cancer surgical treatment, in a single institution, over a long period of time, were most patients are referred with high-risk, locally advanced or nodal disease.

A 25-year perspective on advances in an understanding of the biology, evaluation, treatment and future directions/challenges of penile cancer

Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis (SCCP) is uncommon in some countries (including the U.S.), but is an important malignancy elsewhere. As a rare disease, progress has been slow compared to more common tumor types discussed in this anniversary issue and most often limited to single-center or retrospective datasets.  In this section we describe developments leading to the current standard approach with current research questions.