Carsten Maik Naumann1, Sibylle van der Horst2, Christof van der Horst2, Katharina Charlotte Kähler3, Markus Seeger4, Daniar Osmonov2, Ulf Lützen5, Klaus-Peter Jünemann2, Moritz Franz Hamann2. 1. Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany. Electronic address: CarstenMaik.Naumann@uksh.de. 2. Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany. 3. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, I. Medical Department, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Molecular Imaging und Therapy, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Dynamic sentinel node biopsy (DSNB) is considered "unsuitable" in patients with penile cancer and palpable inguinal lymph nodes. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic reliability of DSNB combined with ultrasound (US)-guided removal of additional suspicious lymph nodes as a minimally invasive diagnostic approach in these patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 23 consecutive patients with penile cancer and unilaterally or bilaterally palpable inguinal lymph nodes underwent DSNB according to the 2-day protocol. Before the combined staging procedure, the patients underwent preoperative US of both groins. During surgery, sentinel nodes and additional suspicious lymph nodes as determined by the US examination were removed under US guidance. A complete inguinal lymph node dissection was only performed in patients who had tumor-positive nodes. Follow-up consisted of control visits according to the European Association of Urology guidelines, including US investigation of the groins. RESULTS: The primary tumors were staged as T1, T2, and T3 carcinomas in 12, 8, and 3 patients, respectively. Grading was good, moderate, and poor in 2, 16, and 4 cases, respectively. Tumor grading could not be determined in 1 patient who underwent surgery of the invasive part of the primary tumor elsewhere. Sentinel nodes or nonsentinel nodes or both were positive in 15 of 36 palpatory-positive groins. DSNB alone showed lymphatic spread in 10 inguinal regions. US-guided removal of suspicious nonsentinel nodes revealed 5 further inguinal basins with metastases, which would have been missed by DSNB owing to rerouting or complete blockage of the lymphotropic tracer. So far, no lymph node relapse has been observed in the 12 patients with node-negative disease by this combined diagnostic approach with a median follow-up of 42 (16-84) months. The morbidity (postoperative bleeding and prolonged lymphorrhea) associated with this procedure was minor (6%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study imply that DSNB combined with US-guided removal of suspicious lymph nodes is a reliable diagnostic approach in patients with penile cancer with palpable inguinal lymph nodes. DSNB alone in these patients leads to a significant false-negative rate. These early and promising results have to be confirmed in larger cohort studies.
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Dynamic sentinel node biopsy (DSNB) is considered "unsuitable" in patients with penile cancer and palpable inguinal lymph nodes. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic reliability of DSNB combined with ultrasound (US)-guided removal of additional suspicious lymph nodes as a minimally invasive diagnostic approach in these patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 23 consecutive patients with penile cancer and unilaterally or bilaterally palpable inguinal lymph nodes underwent DSNB according to the 2-day protocol. Before the combined staging procedure, the patients underwent preoperative US of both groins. During surgery, sentinel nodes and additional suspicious lymph nodes as determined by the US examination were removed under US guidance. A complete inguinal lymph node dissection was only performed in patients who had tumor-positive nodes. Follow-up consisted of control visits according to the European Association of Urology guidelines, including US investigation of the groins. RESULTS: The primary tumors were staged as T1, T2, and T3 carcinomas in 12, 8, and 3 patients, respectively. Grading was good, moderate, and poor in 2, 16, and 4 cases, respectively. Tumor grading could not be determined in 1 patient who underwent surgery of the invasive part of the primary tumor elsewhere. Sentinel nodes or nonsentinel nodes or both were positive in 15 of 36 palpatory-positive groins. DSNB alone showed lymphatic spread in 10 inguinal regions. US-guided removal of suspicious nonsentinel nodes revealed 5 further inguinal basins with metastases, which would have been missed by DSNB owing to rerouting or complete blockage of the lymphotropic tracer. So far, no lymph node relapse has been observed in the 12 patients with node-negative disease by this combined diagnostic approach with a median follow-up of 42 (16-84) months. The morbidity (postoperative bleeding and prolonged lymphorrhea) associated with this procedure was minor (6%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study imply that DSNB combined with US-guided removal of suspicious lymph nodes is a reliable diagnostic approach in patients with penile cancer with palpable inguinal lymph nodes. DSNB alone in these patients leads to a significant false-negative rate. These early and promising results have to be confirmed in larger cohort studies.
Authors: C M Naumann; K Bothe; A-K Munk-Hartig; C van der Horst; H Massad; U Lützen; K-P Jünemann; M F Hamann Journal: Urologe A Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 0.639