Robotic inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile cancer: the why, how, and what

Robot-assisted inguinal lymphadenectomy to treat penile and vulvar cancers: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Inguinal lymph nodes dissection (ILND) is recommended in patients presenting with high-risk penile (PC) or vulvar cancers (VC). Though, this surgical procedure is underused because of its anticipated morbidity. Minimally invasive approaches were proposed to minimize complications associated with open surgery. In this review, we analyze current available data exploring intra and perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted ILND (RAIL).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

On April 9th, 2023, a literature search was conducted using the PubMed and Scopus databases. The search employed the combination of the following terms: ("robotic assisted" OR "robot-assisted" OR "robotic") AND ("inguinal lymph node dissection" OR "lymphadenectomy") AND ("penile cancer" OR "vulvar cancer"). Out of the 404 identified articles, 18 were used for the present scoping review and their results were reported according to the PRISMA statement.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Data on 171 patients, ranging in age from 32 to 85 years, were obtained. Most of them (90.6%) harbored a penile squamous cell carcinoma and presented with no palpable nodes (85%). Operation time (OT) ranged between 45 and 300 min. Estimated blood loss varied from 10 to 300 mL. One single intra-operative complication was reported and one conversion to open was recorded. The lymph nodes (LNs) count spanned from 3 to 26 per groin, with 17 studies reporting a median yield >7 nodes. Hospital stay was 1-7 days, while the duration of drainage ranged from 4 to 72 days. Post-operative complications included lymphocele (22.2%; 0-100%), lymphedema (13.4%; 0-40%), cellulitis (11.1%; 0-25%), skin necrosis (8.7%; 0-15.4%). seroma (3.5%; 0-20%) and wound breakdown/wound infection (2.9%; 0-10%). Out of the included studies, 7 provided at least a 12-month follow-up, with recurrence-free rates ranging from 50% to 100% in patients affected by penile cancer and from 92% to 100% in vulvar cancer patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence on RAIL for the treatment of PC and VC is limited. The approach appears to be safe and effective, as it provides an adequate lymph node yield while ensuring a minimally morbid postoperative course and a short hospital stay.

Efficacy of indocyanine green fluorescence-guided inguinal lymph node dissection for penile cancer: a randomised trial

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the safety and efficacy of indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence-guided inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) in patients with penile cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective, single-blind, randomised controlled clinical trial (ChiCTR2100044584) was performed among patients with penile caner who underwent bilateral modified ILND at four centres in China between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2022. Patients aged 18-80 years and diagnosed with squamous cell carcinomas were included. Each enrolled patient was randomly assigned to either ICG fluorescence-guided ILND by a laparoscopic or robot-assisted approach in one groin, with non-ICG fluorescence-guided ILND in the other groin acting as a control. The primary outcome was the number of retrieved ILNs. Secondary outcomes included complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification and the ILN non-compliance (inadequate removal of ILNs) rate.

RESULTS

A total of 45 patients were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, and the 42 who completed the entire study were included in the per protocol (PP) analysis. There were no ICG-related complications in any of the patients. The results of the ITT and PP analyses indicated that the total number of unilateral ILNs retrieved was higher on the ICG side than on the non-ICG side (mean 13 vs 9 ILNs, difference 4 ILNs [95% CI 2.7-4.4], P = 0.007), and the number of unilateral deep and superficial ILNs was higher on the ICG side. Furthermore, the LN non-compliance rate was lower on the ICG side than on the non-ICG side. Additionally, there was no significant difference in local complications in the groins between the two sides (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

An ICG fluorescence-guided ILND was safe for patients with penile cancer. This procedure can improve the number of ILNs retrieved and reduce the LN non-compliance rate without increased complications. ICG fluorescence-guided ILND is beneficial and recommended for selected patients with penile cancer.

Long-term follow-up of comparative study of open and endoscopic lymphadenectomy in patients with penile carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Penile carcinoma is an uncommon cancer that develops in the penis tissue. The standard surgical method to manage regional lymph nodes after local excision is radical inguinal lymphadenectomy, but it has a high rate of complications. The objective of this retrospective study was to compare the long-term outcomes of endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy and open inguinal lymphadenectomy in patients with penile carcinoma.

METHODS

The study included patients diagnosed with penile carcinoma who underwent open inguinal lymphadenectomy (n = 23) or endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (n = 27) at a single hospital between January 2013 and January 2021. Operation time, blood loss, drainage, hospital stay, postoperative complications, and survival rates were assessed and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The two groups were comparable in terms of age, tumor size and stage, inguinal lymph nodes, and follow-up. The endoscopic group had significantly lower blood loss (27.1 ± 1.5 ml vs 55.0 ± 2.7 ml, P < 0.05), shorter drainage time and hospital stay (4.7 ± 1.1 days vs 8.1 ± 2.2 days, and 13.4 ± 1.0 days vs 19 ± 2.0 days, respectively, P < 0.05), and longer operation time compared to the open group (82.2 ± 4.3 min in endoscopic group vs 53.1 ± 2.2 min in open group, P < 0.05). There were significant differences in the incidence of incisional infection, necrosis, and lymphorrhagia in both groups (4 vs 0, 4 vs 0, and 2 vs 0, respectively, P < 0.05). The inguinal lymph node harvested was comparable between the two groups. The mean follow-up time was similar for both groups (60.4 ± 7.7 m vs 59.8 ± 7.3 m), and the recurrence mortality rates were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

The study shows that both open and endoscopic methods work well for controlling penile carcinoma in the long term. But the endoscopic approach is better because it has fewer severe complications. So, the choice of surgery method might depend on factors like the surgeon's experience, what they like, and what resources are available.

Inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer patients: a comparison between open and video endoscopic approach in a multicenter setting

OBJECTIVES

To compare differences of operative outcomes, post-operative complications and survival outcomes between open and laparoscopic cases in a multicenter study.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study performed at three European centers from September 2011 to January 2019. The surgeon decision to perform open inguinal lymphadenectomy (OIL) or video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) was done in each hospital after patient counselling. Inclusion criteria regarded a minimum follow-up of 9 months since the inguinal lymphadenectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 55 patients with proven squamous cell penile cancer underwent inguinal lymphadenectomy. 26 of them underwent OIL, while 29 patients underwent VEIL. For the OIL and VEIL groups, the mean operative time was 2.5 vs. 3.4 h (p=0.129), respectively. Hospital stays were lower in the VEIL group with 4 vs. 8 days in OIL patients (p=0.053) while number of days requiring drains to remain in situ was 3 vs. 6 days (p=0.024). The VEIL group reported a lower incidence of major complications compared to the OIL group (2 vs. 17%, p=0.0067) while minor complications were comparable in both groups. In a median follow-up period of 60 months, the overall survival was 65.5 and 84.6% in OIL and VEIL groups, respectively (p=0.105).

CONCLUSIONS

VEIL is comparable to OIL regarding safety, overall survival and post-operative outcomes.

Minimal invasive approaches in lymph node management of carcinoma of penis: A review

INTRODUCTION

Inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) is an integral part in the management of carcinoma penis. The concerns about the postoperative morbidity associated with open ILND led to modification in the template of dissection and adoption of minimally invasive techniques such as video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) and robotic-assisted VEIL (R-VEIL). In this review, we aim to describe the techniques, case selection, perioperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes of VEIL and R-VEIL and to compare it with open ILND.

METHODS

Databases of PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched to identify the articles for VEIL and R-VEIL. Using PRISMA guidelines, literature search yielded 3783 articles, of which 32 full-text articles relevant to the topic were selected and reviewed, after consensus from authors.

RESULTS

After the first description of VEIL, various modifications in port placements and approaches were described. Several studies have shown, VEIL and R VEIL are safe and feasible in both node-negative and node-positive Ca penis patients. Compared to open ILND, VEIL had fewer wound infections and skin necrosis, minimal blood loss, shorter mean hospital stays, and reduced duration of drain kept. There is no difference in mean lymph node yield and recurrence rates between open ILND, VEIL, R-VEIL.

CONCLUSION

VEIL and R-VEIL are safe and have comparable oncological outcomes with open ILND.

Technical management of inguinal lymph-nodes in penile cancer: open versus minimal invasive

Inguinal lymphadenectomy (ILND) remains the standard of care for patients with invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis, dictating patient prognosis, adjuvant therapies, and surveillance strategies. Importantly the performance of an ILND has been shown to improve cancer-specific outcomes, providing a modifiable factor for patients with an aggressive malignancy. Surprisingly, the procedure remains underutilized, mainly due to the high surgical morbidity associated with the procedure. The open lymphadenectomy technique has undergone several modifications over the last 30 years to minimize its associated surgical morbidity, but wound-related complications remain significant. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques have been recently introduced to help mitigate wound-related complications associated with open lymphadenectomy, with promising results. In this review, we highlight the importance of ILND, present a detail review of the surgical and oncological outcomes associated with open, laparoscopic and robotic ILND for patients with penile cancer.

Robot-assisted endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy: A review of current outcomes

Objective

To review the role of robot-assisted endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (RAIL) in the management of penile cancer.

Methods

A PubMed search for all relevant publications regarding RAIL series up until August 2019 was performed using the keyword “robotic”, “inguinal lymph node dissection”, and “penile cancer”. Weighted mean was calculated in the largest series for all outcomes using the number of patients included in each study as the weighting factor.

Results

We identified 23 articles, of note the three largest series that included 102, 27, and 20 RAIL in 51, 14, and 10 patients, respectively. Saphenous vein was spared in 88.93% of RAIL cases in these series and node yield was 11.42 per groin; 35.28% of patients had positive pathological nodes. The weighted mean of operative time was 87.98 min per RAIL and the estimated blood loss was 37.08 mL per patient. The mean length of hospital stay was 1.29 days and the drain was kept in place for 17.02 days; the major complication rate was only 5.31% in these series. The mean follow-up was 33.46 months with a recurrence-free survival of 96.33%.

Conclusion

The literature regarding RAIL describes promising results, although it has shorter follow-up and higher costs when compared to historically series from the open approach. Initials series reported lower cutaneous complications compared to conventional approach, without compromising oncological outcomes. However, long-term results and larger trials are crucial to validate those findings.

Robot-assisted inguinal lymphadenectomy: preliminary experience and perioperative outcomes from an Italian referral center

Background

Inguinal lymphadenectomy remains the gold standard for the treatment of inguinal lymph node metastases from penile carcinoma, melanoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). This procedure is associated with significant complications. In order to reduce morbidity, minimally invasive approaches have been described. We report our preliminary experience with robot-assisted inguinal lymphadenectomies (RAIL).

Methods

RAIL was performed according to the Sotelo technique. When indicated, a robot-assisted pelvic lymphadenectomy (RAPLND) was performed. We recorded age, sex, comorbidities, baseline oncologic diagnosis, operative time, hospital stay, lymph node yield, complications, time to drain removal, and oncologic outcomes.

Results

From December 2016 to February 2019, 13 patients underwent RAIL. Median age was 65 years (range: 31-85 years). Primary malignancy was melanoma in five patients, Merkel cell carcinoma in four, dermal duct tumor in one, penile cancer in two, and SCC in one. RAIL was monolateral in 12 cases and bilateral in 1 case. A total of 10 monolateral RAPLNDs were performed; median operative time was 279 min (range: 169-320). Median lymph nodes yield was 11 (range: 2-24) for monolateral RAIL and 9 for monolateral RAPLND (range 2-24). Median hospital stay was 4 days (range: 2-5). No procedure was converted to open. Median follow up was 16 months (range: 5-31). Five Clavien-Dindo grade I complications were recorded. Median time to drain removal was 32.5 days (range 7-65). Three recurrences and two cancer-related deaths were recorded.

Conclusions

RAIL is feasible and associated with a short hospital stay, with little incidence of perioperative complications.

Recent advances in the management of penile cancer

Penile cancer is a rare condition and can be very complex to manage. Advances in surgical techniques, imaging, pathological classification and patient pathways have led to improved patient care. The diagnosis of pre-malignant change, penile cancer and metastatic disease along with advances in their treatment are detailed in this review which aims to update clinicians from multiple specialties and countries on penile cancer.

Current controversies and developments on the role of lymphadenectomy for penile cancer

Penile squamous cell carcinoma is a rare cancer in men. The main prognosticators of survival for penile cancer patients remain the presence and the extent of lymph node metastasis. While radical inguinal lymphadenectomy has been the cornerstone of regional lymph node management for many years, it is still associated with significant morbidity and psychological distress. Recent developments in penile squamous cell carcinoma management have been met with some controversy in the urologic oncology community. Herein, we review the current controversies and developments on the role of inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile cancer.