Search

BACKGROUND: The benefit of perioperative oncological treatment in men with penile cancer is uncertain. In 2015, treatment recommendations were centralised in Sweden and treatment guidelines were updated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if the use of oncological treatment in men with penile cancer increased after the introduction of centralised recommendations, and whether such therapy is associated with better survival. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a retrospective cohort study including a total of 426 men diagnosed with penile cancer with lymph node or distant metastases in Sweden during 2000-2018. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We first assessed the change in the proportion of patients with an indication for perioperative oncological treatment who actually received such treatment. Second, we used Cox regression to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for disease-specific mortality associated with perioperative treatment. Comparisons were made for both all men without perioperative treatment and for those who did not receive treatment but who lacked apparent contraindications for treatment. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The use of perioperative oncological treatment increased from 2000 to 2018, from 32% of patients with an indication for treatment during the first 4 yr to 63% during the last 4 yr. In comparison to patients potentially eligible for oncological treatment who did not receive it, those who were treated had a 37% lower risk of disease-specific death (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40-0.98). Stage migration because of improvements in diagnostic tools over time may have inflated the more recent survival estimates. An influence of residual confounding due to comorbidity and other potential confounders cannot be excluded. CONCLUSIONS: The use of perioperative oncological treatment increased after the centralisation of penile cancer care in Sweden. Although the observational study design precludes causal inference, the f

BACKGROUND: Penile cancer is an uncommon disease with poor prognosis when spread to more than one inguinal lymph node. Recommendations on chemo- and radiotherapy in treatment guidelines are based on low-grade evidence. There are to our knowledge no described population-based cohort with detailed information on given oncological treatment and survival data. The aim of this study is to investigate in detail how men with metastatic penile cancer have been treated with chemotherapy and radiotherapy over time, and how survival varies with N-stage and given treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For this observational cohort study all men in Sweden diagnosed with penile cancer with lymph node- or distant metastases 2000-2015 were identified through the Swedish National Penile Cancer Register (NPECR). Medical records were retrieved and 325 men were confirmed to have metastatic penile cancer (T-any, c or pN1-3 and/or M1). Information on treatments was collected. Causes of death were retrieved from the National Cause of Death Register (CDR). RESULTS: Chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy were given to 172 (53%) of all men. The use of oncological treatments with curative intent increased significantly during the study period, from 30% of men with c/pN2-3 diagnosed 2000-2003 compared with 57% of men diagnosed 2012-2015. Ninety-three (29%) men received oncological treatments with curative intent of whom 85/93 (91%) had stage c/pN2-3M0. Survival decreased with higher N-stage, M1-stage, and absence of oncological treatment with curative intent. For men with c/pN3-stage, the engagement of pelvic lymph nodes was entailed with lower survival than pN3 based on extra-nodal extension (ENE). CONCLUSION: The use of oncological treatment was below recommendations in guidelines but increased during the study period. Treatment was given predominantly to men with c/pN2-3 and M1-disease. Survival was higher among men treated with curative intent; this could be due to patient selection bias., Funding Agency:Research Committee of the Region of Örebro County