P E Lonergan1, A Nic An Riogh2, F O'Kelly2, D J Lundon2, D O'Sullivan3, M O'Connell3, P K Hegarty2,4,5. 1. Department of Urology, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Eccles Street, Dublin 7, Ireland. peterlonergan@rcsi.ie. 2. Department of Urology, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Eccles Street, Dublin 7, Ireland. 3. Department of Radiology, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. 4. Mater Private Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. 5. Mater Private Hospital, Cork, Ireland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The presence of nodal metastases is the single most important prognostic factor in penile cancer. However, reliable assessment of nodal status in clinically node-negative (cN0) patients poses a challenge. Approximately 20% of these patients harbour occult nodal metastases. Currently available non-invasive radiological investigations are unreliable in excluding micrometastatic disease. AIM: Dynamic sentinel node biopsy (DSNB) is a minimally invasive procedure for assessing lymph node involvement. We report our initial experience with DSNB in assessing the status of regional lymph nodes in cN0 penile cancer patients. METHODS: DSNB was performed in penile cancer patients with at least one cN0 groin. All patients undergoing DSNB at our institution were included. Lymphoscintigraphic images were obtained from all patients, after intradermal, peritumoral injection of a Technetium-99m nanocolloid. The sentinel nodes were defined as the nodes identified on lymphoscintigraphy, which were also radioactive intraoperatively using a gamma probe. RESULTS: In total, 18 groins from 11 patients underwent DSNB. Of these, 11 patients underwent bilateral DSNB and 4 had unilateral DSNB. The mean (range) age of patients at the time of presentation of their primary tumour was 63 (39-78) years. A mean of 1.2 nodes per groin was retrieved. One lymph node was positive in one patient, who subsequently underwent a bilateral inguinal lymph node dissection. Overall, the median (range) follow-up was 12.8 (2.7-31.3) months with no local or regional recurrences. CONCLUSION: Further cases and longer follow-up will define the accuracy of this technique in the Irish population.
BACKGROUND: The presence of nodal metastases is the single most important prognostic factor in penile cancer. However, reliable assessment of nodal status in clinically node-negative (cN0) patients poses a challenge. Approximately 20% of these patients harbour occult nodal metastases. Currently available non-invasive radiological investigations are unreliable in excluding micrometastatic disease. AIM: Dynamic sentinel node biopsy (DSNB) is a minimally invasive procedure for assessing lymph node involvement. We report our initial experience with DSNB in assessing the status of regional lymph nodes in cN0 penile cancerpatients. METHODS:DSNB was performed in penile cancerpatients with at least one cN0 groin. All patients undergoing DSNB at our institution were included. Lymphoscintigraphic images were obtained from all patients, after intradermal, peritumoral injection of a Technetium-99m nanocolloid. The sentinel nodes were defined as the nodes identified on lymphoscintigraphy, which were also radioactive intraoperatively using a gamma probe. RESULTS: In total, 18 groins from 11 patients underwent DSNB. Of these, 11 patients underwent bilateral DSNB and 4 had unilateral DSNB. The mean (range) age of patients at the time of presentation of their primary tumour was 63 (39-78) years. A mean of 1.2 nodes per groin was retrieved. One lymph node was positive in one patient, who subsequently underwent a bilateral inguinal lymph node dissection. Overall, the median (range) follow-up was 12.8 (2.7-31.3) months with no local or regional recurrences. CONCLUSION: Further cases and longer follow-up will define the accuracy of this technique in the Irish population.
Authors: Carlos Arturo Levi d'Ancona; Roberto Gonçalves de Lucena; Fernando Augusto de Oliveira Querne; Mário Henrique Tavares Martins; Fernandes Denardi; Nelson Rodrigues Netto Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Oliver W Hakenberg; Eva M Compérat; Suks Minhas; Andrea Necchi; Chris Protzel; Nick Watkin Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-11-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Melanie A Warycha; Jan Zakrzewski; Quanhong Ni; Richard L Shapiro; Russell S Berman; Anna C Pavlick; David Polsky; Madhu Mazumdar; Iman Osman Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Joost A P Leijte; Ben Hughes; Niels M Graafland; Bin K Kroon; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Omgo E Nieweg; Cathy Corbishley; Sue Heenan; Nick Watkin; Simon Horenblas Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sudeh Izadmehr; Dara J Lundon; Nihal Mohamed; Andrew Katims; Vaibhav Patel; Benjamin Eilender; Reza Mehrazin; Ketan K Badani; John P Sfakianos; Che-Kai Tsao; Peter Wiklund; William K Oh; Carlos Cordon-Cardo; Ashutosh K Tewari; Matthew D Galsky; Natasha Kyprianou Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-09-27 Impact factor: 6.244