CONTEXT: Uncertainty remains about the extent and indications for inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer, a procedure known for relatively high morbidity. Several attempts have been made to develop strategies which can improve the diagnostic quality and reduce the morbidity of the management of inguinal lymph nodes in penile cancer. OBJECTIVE: To analyse the existing published data on the surgical management of inguinal nodes in penile cancer regarding morbidity and survival. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A Medline search was performed of the English-language literature (1966-September 2008) using the MeSH terms penile carcinoma, lymph node dissection, lymphadenectomy, and complications. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Lymph node metastases are frequent in penile cancer, even in early pT1G2 stages. Since the results of systemic treatment of advanced penile cancer are disappointing, complete dissection of all involved lymph nodes is highly recommended. The extent of lymph node dissection should be adapted to clinical stage, as this corresponds to metastatic spread. For low-risk patients (pTis, pTa, and pT1G1) without palpable lymph nodes and with good compliance, a surveillance strategy may be chosen. For all other patients without palpable lymph nodes (including intermediate risk pT1G2 disease), a modified bilateral lymphadenectomy is recommended. An alternative to this is a dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy in specialised centres. All patients with histologically proven lymph node metastases should undergo radical inguinal lymphadenectomy. Pelvic lymph node dissection should be done in all patients with more than two metastatic inguinal lymph nodes. In case of fixed inguinal lymph nodes, neoadjuvant chemotherapy is recommended, followed by node resection. CONCLUSIONS: Lymphadenectomy is an integral part of the management of penile cancer, since early dissection of involved lymph nodes improves survival.
CONTEXT: Uncertainty remains about the extent and indications for inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer, a procedure known for relatively high morbidity. Several attempts have been made to develop strategies which can improve the diagnostic quality and reduce the morbidity of the management of inguinal lymph nodes in penile cancer. OBJECTIVE: To analyse the existing published data on the surgical management of inguinal nodes in penile cancer regarding morbidity and survival. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A Medline search was performed of the English-language literature (1966-September 2008) using the MeSH terms penile carcinoma, lymph node dissection, lymphadenectomy, and complications. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Lymph node metastases are frequent in penile cancer, even in early pT1G2 stages. Since the results of systemic treatment of advanced penile cancer are disappointing, complete dissection of all involved lymph nodes is highly recommended. The extent of lymph node dissection should be adapted to clinical stage, as this corresponds to metastatic spread. For low-risk patients (pTis, pTa, and pT1G1) without palpable lymph nodes and with good compliance, a surveillance strategy may be chosen. For all other patients without palpable lymph nodes (including intermediate risk pT1G2 disease), a modified bilateral lymphadenectomy is recommended. An alternative to this is a dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy in specialised centres. All patients with histologically proven lymph node metastases should undergo radical inguinal lymphadenectomy. Pelvic lymph node dissection should be done in all patients with more than two metastatic inguinal lymph nodes. In case of fixed inguinal lymph nodes, neoadjuvant chemotherapy is recommended, followed by node resection. CONCLUSIONS: Lymphadenectomy is an integral part of the management of penile cancer, since early dissection of involved lymph nodes improves survival.
Authors: Suzanne Richter; J Dean Ruether; Lori Wood; Christina Canil; Patricia Moretto; Peter Venner; Joel Gingerich; Urban Emmenegger; Andrea Eisen; Pawel Zalewski; Anthony Joshua; Som Dave Mukherjee; Daniel Heng; Piotr Czaykowski; Denis Soulieres; Norman Blais; Ricardo Rendon; Neil Fleshner; Juanita M Crook; Srikala S Sridhar Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2013 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.862