Literature DB >> 27792850

Volume-outcome relationship in penile cancer treatment: a population based patterns of care and outcomes study from Australia.

Manish I Patel1,2, Yuigi Yuminaga3, Albert Bang4, Nathan Lawrentschuk5, Timothy Skyring6, David P Smith4,7,8.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To study the patterns of care of penile cancer diagnosed in the state of New South Wales (NSW) over a 10 year period and determine factors that are associated with differences in survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All invasive penile cancer diagnosed between 2001 and 2009 in NSW, Australia, were identified from the Central Cancer Registry. Records of treatment from the Admitted Patient Data Collection and deaths from the Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages were electronically linked. Predictors of receiving an inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) were analysed using multivariable logistic regression. Survival analyses were performed with Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models.
RESULTS: A total of 220 men were diagnosed with penile cancer over the 10 years from 69 centres. The median number of penile operations performed over 10 years was <4. Radical penile surgery (partial or total penectomy) was performed in 70% of the cases and the proportion of patients receiving radical surgery increased over time (P = 0.015). Only 53/220 men with invasive penile cancer received an ILND. Younger age and higher stage were the only factors that predicted whether ILND was performed. Overall survival (OS) was predicted by age, stage, marital status and co-morbidity status. Low centre volume decreased OS by 37% (HR 0.63 [95% CI: 0.40-0.97]). For men who received ILND, low centre volume decreased OS by 60% (HR 0.40 [95% CI: 0.19-0.85]).
CONCLUSIONS: There is a decreasing trend for the use of conservative penile surgery and median centre volumes for penile cancer surgery in NSW are low. A decrease in overall survival is observed in men treated in lower volume surgery centres.
© 2016 The Authors BJU International © 2016 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  centre volume; conservative surgery; inguinal lymph node dissection; penile cancer; survival

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27792850     DOI: 10.1111/bju.13626

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  3 in total

1.  Radical penectomy, a compromise for life: results from the PECAD study.

Authors:  Jamil Ghahhari; Michele Marchioni; Philippe E Spiess; Juan J Chipollini; Peter Nyirády; Judith Varga; Pasquale Ditonno; Stefano Boccasile; Giulia Primiceri; Cosimo De Nunzio; Giorgia Tema; Andrea Tubaro; Alessandro Veccia; Alessandro Antonelli; Gennaro Musi; Ottavio De Cobelli; Andrea Conti; Stefano Puliatti; Salvatore Micali; Mario Álvarez-Maestro; José Quesada Olarte; Erico Diogenes; Marcos Venicio Alves Lima; Andrew Tracey; Georgi Guruli; Riccardo Autorino; Petros Sountoulides; Roman Sosnowski; Luigi Schips; Luca Cindolo
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2020-06

Review 2.  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

3.  Downstream effects of regionalization: reconciling our predictions with the volume-outcome paradigm.

Authors:  Daniel C Parker; Nikhil Waingankar
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-03
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.