Literature DB >> 20056060

The impact of Improving Outcomes Guidance on the management and outcomes of patients with carcinoma of the penis.

Andrew C Bayles1, Krishna K Sethia.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The Improving Outcomes Guidance (IOG) for patients with carcinoma of the penis states that treatment should be provided supraregionally to populations of 4 million or greater who treat over 25 cases of penis cancer each year. This study assesses the impact of this guidance on the management and outcomes of patients with the disease in our region. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively compared the records of 44 patients with carcinoma of the penis treated in our institution between 1969 and 1990 with 101 patients treated between 2002 and 2006, i.e. after supraregional centralisation of the service.
RESULTS: There was no significant change in the stage or grade of the tumours. However, the results show that, in modern times, there was a significant increase in the amount of penis-preserving and nodal surgery as well as a fall in mortality. The improved survival is greatest in patients with poorly-differentiated disease who may, therefore, have benefited from aggressive nodal surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: The centralisation of surgery for carcinoma of the penis results in improved outcomes both in terms of penis preservation and improved survival and this supports the IOG guidance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20056060      PMCID: PMC3024616          DOI: 10.1308/003588410X12518836439047

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl        ISSN: 0035-8843            Impact factor:   1.891


  2 in total

1.  Patients with penile carcinoma benefit from immediate resection of clinically occult lymph node metastases.

Authors:  B K Kroon; S Horenblas; A P Lont; P J Tanis; M P W Gallee; O E Nieweg
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Carcinoma of the penis: improved survival by early regional lymphadenectomy based on the histological grade and depth of invasion of the primary lesion.

Authors:  W S McDougal
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 7.450

  2 in total
  10 in total

Review 1.  Making surgery safer by centralization of care: impact of case load in penile cancer.

Authors:  Joren Vanthoor; Anita Thomas; Igor Tsaur; Maarten Albersen
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-07-10       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 2.  Challenges and controversies in the management of penile cancer.

Authors:  Majid Shabbir; Oliver Kayes; Suks Minhas
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2014-11-18       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 3.  Immune-based therapies in penile cancer.

Authors:  Vidhu B Joshi; Philippe E Spiess; Andrea Necchi; Curtis A Pettaway; Jad Chahoud
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2022-07-18       Impact factor: 16.430

Review 4.  [Quality of care criteria in the treatment of penile cancer].

Authors:  A Thomas; F Kölling; A Haferkamp; I Tsaur
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2021-01-15       Impact factor: 0.639

5.  Clinicopathologic Characteristics and Treatment Outcomes of Penile Cancer.

Authors:  Jong Kil Nam; Dong Hoon Lee; Sung Woo Park; Sung Chul Kam; Ki Soo Lee; Tae Hyo Kim; Taek Sang Kim; Cheol Kyu Oh; Hyun Jun Park; Tae Nam Kim
Journal:  World J Mens Health       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 5.400

6.  Adherence to the EAU Guideline Recommendations for Local Tumor Treatment in Penile Cancer: Results of the European PROspective Penile Cancer Study Group Survey (E-PROPS).

Authors:  Maximilian Pallauf; Marie C Hempel; Marie C Hupe; Matthias May; Marlene Haccius; Dorothea Weckermann; Steffen Lebentrau; Bernd Hoschke; Ulrike Necknig; Jesco Pfitzenmaier; Lukas Manka; Philipp Nuhn; Peter Törzsök; Lukas Lusuardi; Axel S Merseburger
Journal:  Adv Ther       Date:  2020-10-10       Impact factor: 3.845

Review 7.  Inguinal lymph node dissection for penile cancer: a contemporary review.

Authors:  Jiasian Teh; Catriona Duncan; Liang Qu; Glen Guerra; Vignesh Narasimhan; Toan Pham; Nathan Lawrentschuk
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2020-12

8.  Does the Identification of a Minimum Number of Cases Correlate With Better Adherence to International Guidelines Regarding the Treatment of Penile Cancer? Survey Results of the European PROspective Penile Cancer Study (E-PROPS).

Authors:  Steffen Lebentrau; Gamal Anton Wakileh; Martin Schostak; Hans-Peter Schmid; Rodrigo Suarez-Ibarrola; Axel S Merseburger; Georg C Hutterer; Ulrike H Necknig; Michael Rink; Martin Bögemann; Luis Alex Kluth; Armin Pycha; Maximilian Burger; Sabine D Brookman-May; Johannes Bründl; Matthias May
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-11-29       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 9.  A global approach to improving penile cancer care.

Authors:  Marco Bandini; Mohamed Ahmed; Giuseppe Basile; Nicholas Watkin; Viraj Master; Yao Zhu; Gagan Prakash; Alejandro Rodriguez; Mbaaga K Ssebakumba; Riccardo Leni; Giuseppe Ottone Cirulli; Ben Ayres; Rachel Compitello; Filippo Pederzoli; Pankaj M Joshi; Sanjay B Kulkarni; Francesco Montorsi; Guru Sonpavde; Andrea Necchi; Philippe E Spiess
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2021-12-22       Impact factor: 16.430

10.  Incidence of penile intraepithelial neoplasia and treatment strategies in Sweden 2000-2019.

Authors:  Sinja Kristiansen; Christian Torbrand; Åke Svensson; Ola Forslund; Carina Bjartling
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2022-01-24       Impact factor: 5.969

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.