Important Therapeutic Considerations in T1b Penile Cancer: Prognostic Significance and Adherence to Treatment Guidelines

Penile cancer: ESMO-EURACAN Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up

•This ESMO CPG provides recommendations for diagnosis, staging, pathology, treatment and follow-up of penile cancer. •Algorithms for the management of primary penile tumours and inguinal lymph nodes are provided. •The author group encompasses a multidisciplinary group of experts from different institutions and countries in Europe. •Recommendations are based on available scientific data and the authors’ collective expert opinion. •In clinical practice, all recommendations provided need to be discussed with patients in a shared decision-making approach.

Factors predictive of recurrence, metastasis and death in node-negative penile squamous cell carcinoma: A retrospective multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Penile squamous cell carcinoma (PSCC) carries significant morbidity and mortality. Literature is limited regarding prognostic factors, especially prognostic factors for development of metastasis.

OBJECTIVES

To identify independent prognostic factors associated with poor outcomes, defined as local recurrence (LR), metastasis and disease-specific death (DSD) in clinically node-negative PSCC undergoing local therapy.

METHODS

Thirty-two-year Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study of 265 patients with histologically diagnosed PSCC at three tertiary care centres. Predictive models based on patient or tumour characteristics were developed.

RESULTS

Local recurrence occurred in 56 patients, metastasis in 52 patients and DSD in 40 patients. In multivariable models, the following five factors were independent prognostic factors based on subhazard ratio (SHR): history of balanitis (LR SHR: 2.3; 95% CI 1.2-4.2), poor differentiation (metastasis SHR 1.9; 95% CI 1.0-3.6), invasion into the corpora (metastasis SHR: 3.0; 95% CI 1.5-5.8 and DSD SHR: 4.5; 95% CI 1.7-12.1), perineural invasion (PNI) (metastasis SHR: 2.8; 95% CI 1.4-5.5 and DSD SHR: 3.5; 95% CI, 1.6-7.8) and a history of phimosis (DSD SHR: 2.5; 95% CI 1.2-5.3). The 5-year cumulative incidence of metastasis was higher for tumours with PNI [cumulative incidence function (CIF) = 55%, 95% CI 38-75 vs. CIF 15%, 95% CI 11-22], corporal invasion (CIF: 35%, 95% CI 26-47 vs. 12%, 95% CI 7-19) and poorly differentiated tumours (CIF = 46%, 95% CI 31-64 vs. CIF 15%, 95% CI 11-22).

CONCLUSIONS

History of balanitis, history of phimosis, PNI, corporal invasion and poor differentiation are independent risk factors associated with poor outcomes. Since poor differentiation and PNI currently constitute only T1b disease, prognostic staging can likely be improved.

Effect of inguinal lymph node dissection in lymph node negative patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis

INTRODUCTION

The survival benefit of inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) vs no ILND in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis (SCCP) and the absence of lymph node invasion is unclear. We addressed this uncertainty within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER 2000-2018) database.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We identified lymph node negative SCCP patients who either underwent ILND (pN0) or clinical examination only (cN0). We tested for the effect of ILND vs no ILND on cancer-specific mortality (CSM) in Kaplan-Meier plots, univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses, in a pT stage-specific fashion, before and after 1:3 propensity score matching (PSM). Sensitivity analyses were conducted according to historical and contemporary treatment periods as well as geographic regions.

RESULTS

Of 2520 SCCP patients, 369 (15%) underwent ILND (pN0) vs 2151 (85%) did not (cN0). The pN0 vs cN0 distribution according to pT stages was as follows: 80 (7%) vs 1092 (93%) in pT1b, and 289 (21%) vs 1059 (79%) in pT2-3. At 36 months, CSM-free survival in pT2-3 stage was 89% in ILND vs 74% in no ILND patients (multivariable hazard ratio: 0.42, CI 0.30-0.60, p < 0.001). This result was confirmed in sensitivity analyses, and after 1:3 PSM. The same analyses could not be completed in pT1b stage due to insufficient number of observations and events.

CONCLUSIONS

In pT2-3 stage SCCP, a significantly lower CSM was recorded in lymph node negative patients treated with ILND than in their clinical lymph node negative counterparts who did not undergo ILND.

Disparities in Healthcare Access, Education, and Geographical Factors That Affect Surgical Outcomes in Penile Cancer

Objectives: To establish the level of access to healthcare, education, social and geographical factors predisposing a negative surgical outcome and higher mortality rate in patients with penile cancer.

Methods: This is a retrospective, longitudinal and analytical study. Ninety-three medical records of adult male patients diagnosed with penile cancer were reviewed. Fisher’s exact test was performed to determine the association between the level of healthcare, social and geographical factors, and the outcomes for penile cancer.

Results: Patients without primary care access had a higher chance of having lymphovascular invasion at the time of diagnosis (OR=37.5, P<0.0001), a higher mortality rate at 24 months after diagnosis (OR=19.2, P=0.005), a lack of high school diploma or equivalent (OR=3.8, P=0.049) and a higher likelihood of referral from a provincial hospital (OR=10.1, P<0.0001). Patients without a favorable surgical outcome (radical penectomy) were more likely to have been referred from a provincial hospital (OR=6.8, P<0.0001) and not have access to a primary care center (OR=149.5, P<0.0001), a tertiary care center (OR=20.7, P=0.003), and a high school diploma (OR=7.9, P=0.004). 

Conclusions: The lack of access to primary care is strongly associated with vascular invasion at diagnosis, lower educational level, a referral from provincial zones, and a higher mortality rate at 24 months. Patients who did not have access to primary and tertiary care, a high school diploma, and were referred from the province were more likely to have a radical penectomy.

Lymphovascular and perineural invasion are risk factors for inguinal lymph node metastases in men with T1G2 penile cancer

PURPOSE

To analyse the risk of inguinal lymph node (ILN) metastases in T1G2 penile cancer stratified by lymphovascular invasion (LVI), perineural invasion (PNI) and tumour size.

METHODS

Retrospective study of men with localised T1G2 penile cancer with non-palpable lymph nodes and no local recurrence during follow-up at six European institutional high-volume centres was performed. ILN involvement was defined as cancer detected during ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology, core needle biopsy, dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy, ILN dissection or inguinal recurrence during follow-up. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In the cohort of 554 men with T1G2 penile cancer, from 6 European institutions, ILN metastases were observed in 46/554 men (8%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 6-11%). Men with both, LVI- and PNI- primary cancers had the lowest risk of ILN involvement (6%) whereas men with LVI + or PNI + showed ILN metastases in 22% and 30%. In multivariable regression, men with LVI + or PNI + had higher odds for ILN metastases compared to men with LVI- and PNI- (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.6-9.0, p value < 0.01) Tumour size was not associated with ILN risk (OR 1.01 95% CI 0.99-1.04, p = 0.17).

CONCLUSION

Approximately, one out of ten men with T1G2 overall and one out of four men with either LVI + or PNI + still have ILN metastases despite being clinically node negative. Therefore, invasive ILN staging should strongly be recommended in T1G2 with LVI + or PNI + but importantly, must be discussed in patients with T1G2 with LVI- or PNI-.

What Is New in the Pathologic Staging of Penile Carcinoma in the 8th Edition of AJCC TNM Model: Rationale for Changes With Practical Stage-by-stage Category Diagnostic Considerations

For >50 years the tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) classification model of malignant tumors has been the main resource for clinicians, pathologists, radiologists and public health professionals ensuring a homogeneous classification and patients' management based on common staging and prognosis factors. Penile cancer was first included for staging in the third edition of the TNM classification with several changes in the last version, the 8th edition of the AJCC TNM Manual, in 2017. Some changes in the pT category were done due to recent knowledge regarding the prognostic importance of anatomical level of invasion, vascular and perineural invasion and tumor grading. These changes must be interpreted in the light of a required understanding of the complex anatomy of penile compartments especially their histological boundaries, the morphological differences of each level needed for the correct classification, the heterogeneity of penile squamous cell carcinomas and an adequate criticism of the current model used by the TNM system. We present here a series of stage-by-stage category diagnostic considerations based on the clinical experience acummulated over the years of applying the different TNM staging classifications in our large clinical practice. Some discrepancies will need well-designed prospective studies for im4proving the actual classification.

[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.

Evolving insights into penile cancer pathology and the eighth edition of the AJCC TNM staging system

The majority of penile malignant tumors are squamous cell carcinomas. They are pathologically defined as epithelial neoplasms originating in the squamous cells of the inner mucosal lining of the glans, coronal sulcus or foreskin. Tumor location and site of origin is preferentially in glans (70%) followed by foreskin (25%) and coronal sulcus (5%). Despite the variable geographic distribution, pathological features of penile carcinomas in areas of high- and low-risk are similar. Penile tumors are morphologically heterogeneous. A major advance, based on biological, etiological and prognostic factors, is the 2016 WHO classification separating epithelial penile neoplasia, precancerous and invasive, in non-HPV and HPV-related.

Taking Care of Vascular Access in Patients with Cancer Following the Prevalence of COVID-19

Collapse

Trends in treatment of cT1 penile cancer: Analysis of the National Cancer Database

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the treatment trends and outcomes in clinical stage T1 penile cancer using the National Cancer Database (NCDB).

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for all men with cT1 penile cancer from 2004 to 2015. Patients were categorized as cT1a or cT1b. Treatment was categorized as no treatment, local therapy (including penile sparing therapies), partial penectomy, or radical penectomy. Trends in treatment were analyzed over time and in correlation with stage and demographic variables. Stage and treatment type were evaluated in respect to pathological outcomes and survival.

RESULTS

A total of 2,484 men were identified with cT1 penile cancer, 90.1% of which had cT1a disease. The most common treatments were local therapy for cT1a and partial penectomy for cT1b. Over the time period studied, use of local therapy decreased while use of partial or radical penectomy increased. Patients treated at low volume facilities were more likely to undergo no treatment (8.0% vs. 6.5% in high volume) or local therapy (49.9% vs. 41.5% in high volume, P < 0.001). Local therapy was associated with increased risk of positive margin (odds ratio 4.7, P < 0.001) and positive margin was associated with a trend toward decreased overall survival (P = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

In the past decade, there has been decreased use of local therapy and increased use of partial or radical penectomy in cT1 penile cancer. Men treated at low volume facilities are more likely to be treated with local therapy which is associated with increased rates of positive margins and may also be associated with a trend toward decreased overall survival. Centralization of care in T1 penile cancer may lead to improved outcomes.

Adherence to European Association of Urology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines Criteria for Inguinal and Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Penile Cancer Patients-A Survey Assessment in German-speaking Countries on Behalf of the European Prospective Penile Cancer Study Group

BACKGROUND

Urologists' adherence to European Association of Urology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations to perform inguinal (ILND) and pelvic (PLND) lymph node dissection in penile cancer (PC) patients is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To assess a German-speaking European cohort of urologists based on their criteria to perform ILND and PLND in PC patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A 14-item survey addressing general issues of PC treatment was developed and sent to 45 clinical centers in Germany (n = 34), Austria (n = 8), Switzerland (n = 2), and Italy (n = 1).

INTERVENTION

Two of the 14 questions assessed the criteria to perform ILND and ipsilateral PLND.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Correct responses for ILND and PLND criteria were assessed. Based on a multivariate logistic-regression-model, criteria independently predicting guideline adherence were identified.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

In total, 557 urologists participated in the survey, of whom 43.5%, 19.3%, and 37.2% were residents in training, certified, and in leading positions, respectively. ILND and PLND criteria were correctly identified by 35.2% and 23.9%, respectively. Of the participants, 23.3% used external sources for survey completion. The use of auxiliary tools (odds ratio [OR] 1.57; p[_bootstrapped] = 0.028) and participants outside of Germany (OR 0.56; p[_bootstrapped] = 0.006) were predictors of ILND guideline adherence. The number of PC patients treated yearly (p = 0.012; OR 1.06) and the use of auxiliary tools (p < 0.001; OR 5.88) were predictors of PLND adherence. Department size, healthcare status, professional status, and responsibility for PC surgery did not predict endpoints. Limitations include sample size and results in comparison with retrospective studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate overall suboptimal knowledge of the correct indications to perform ILND and PLND in PC patients among the surveyed urologists. We propose that governments and healthcare providers should be encouraged to centralize PC management.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The management of inguinal and pelvic lymph nodes is crucial for the survival of penile cancer patients. Disease rarity mandates referral to clinical practice guidelines for appropriate treatment selection.