Search

Background The use of organ sparing strategies to treat penile cancer (PC) is currently supported by evidence that has indicated the safety, efficacy and benefit of this surgery. However, radical penectomy still represents up to 15-20% of primary tumor treatments in PC patients. The aim of the study was to evaluate efficacy in terms of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of radical penectomy in PC patients. Methods Data from a retrospective multicenter study (PEnile Cancer ADherence study, PECAD Study) on PC patients treated at 13 European and American urological centers (Hospital "Sant'Andrea", Sapienza University, Roma, Italy; "G.D'Annunzio" University, Chieti and ASL 2 Abruzzo, Hospital "S. Pio da Pietrelcina", Vasto, Italy; Department of Genitourinary Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA; Hospital of Budapest, Hungary; Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, Urology and Andrology Unit II, University of Bari, Italy; Hospital "Spedali Civili", Brescia, Italy; Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; University of Modena & Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain; Ceara Cancer Institute, Fortaleza, Brazil; Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA; Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece; Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center, Warsaw, Poland) between 2010 and 2016 were used. Medical records of patients who specifically underwent radical penectomy were reviewed to identify main clinical and pathological variables. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate 1- and 5-year OS and DFS. Results Of the entire cohort of 425 patients, 72 patients (16.9%) treated with radical penectomy were extracted and were considered for the analysis. The median age was 64.5 (IQR, 57.5-73.2) years. Of all, 41 (56.9%) patients had pT3/pT4 and 31 (43.1%) pT1/pT2. Moreover, 36 (50.0%) were classified as pN1-3 and 5 (6.9%) M1. Furthermore, 61 (84.7%) had a high grade (G2-G3) with 6 (8.3%) positive surgical margins. The 1- and 5-year OS rates were respectively 73.3% and 59.9%, while the 1- and 5-year DFS rates were respectively 67.3% and 35.1%. Conclusions PC is an aggressive cancer particularly in more advanced stage. Overall, more than a third of patients do not survive at 5 years and more than 60% report a disease recurrence, despite the use of a radical treatment.

Introduction: We aimed to evaluate adherence to the EAU guidelines (GL) on penile cancer (PC) with regard to primary surgical treatment and management of lymph nodes and to estimate the influence of adherence to GL on clinical outcome. Materials and methods: This is a retrospective multicenter study (PEnile Cancer ADherence study, PECAD Study) on PC patients treated at 12 European and American centers between 2010 and 2016. Adherence to the EAU GL on the surgical management of the primary penile tumor and lymphadenectomy was evaluated. Descriptive analyses were performed, and survival curves were estimated. Results: Data on 425 patients were considered for the analysis. The EAU GL on surgical treatment of the primary tumor and lymphadenectomy were respected in 74.8% and 73.7% of cases, respectively. Survival analysis showed that adherence to the GL on primary penile surgery was significantly associated with a good overall survival [adjusted HR 0.40 (95% CI 0.20-0.83, p value = 0.014)]. Also, the adherence to the GL on lymphadenectomy was statistically significantly associated with overall survival [adjusted HR 0.48 (95% CI 0.24-0.96, p value = 0.038)]. Limited follow-up and retrospective design represent limitations of this study. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that there is a good adherence to the EAU GL on PC. However, this should be further reinforced, endorsed and encouraged as it might translate into better clinical outcomes for PC patients.

Purpose: The European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines for penile cancer (PC) are exclusively based on retrospective studies and have low grades of recommendation. The aim of this study was to assess the adherence to guidelines by investigating the management strategies for primary tumours and inguinal lymph nodes. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical charts of 176 PC patients who underwent surgery in eight European centres from 2010 to 2016. The stage and grade were assessed according to the 2009 AJCC–UICC TNM classification system. To assess adherence rates, we compared theoretical and practical adherence to the EAU guidelines. Results: Overall, 176 patients were enrolled. Partial amputation was the most frequent surgical approach (39%). 53.7% of tumours were stage Tis-T1b and the remaining 46.3% were stage T2-T4. Palpable lymph nodes were detected in 30.1% of patients and 45.1% underwent lymphadenectomy (LY). A sizeable group of tumours (43.2%) were N0. For primary treatment, adherence to the EAU guidelines was good (66%). In non-adherent cases, reasons for discrepancy were patient’s choice (17%), surgeon’s preference (36%), and other causes (47%). For LY, the guideline adherence was 70%, with either patient’s or surgeon’s choice or other causes accounting for discrepancy in 28, 20, and 52% of non-adherent cases, respectively. Conclusion: Adherence to the EAU guidelines for PC was quite high across the eight European centres involved in the study. This notwithstanding, strategies for further improvement should be developed and evenly adopted.