Literature DB >> 28882673

Predictive factors for local recurrence after glansectomy and neoglans reconstruction for penile squamous cell carcinoma.

Maarten Albersen1, Arie Parnham2, Steven Joniau3, Varun Sahdev2, Michelle Christodoulidou2, Fabio Castiglione2, Raj Nigam4, Peter Malone5, Alex Freeman6, Charles Jameson6, Suks Minhas2, David J Ralph2, Asif Muneer7.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate predictive pathological factors for local recurrence (LR) after glansectomy for penile squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and to develop a risk score for prediction of LR after glansectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, we analyzed 117 patients operated between February 2005 and January 2016 in a supraregional penile cancer center in the UK for LR after glansectomy and glans reconstruction. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression was used to identify 4 prognostic indicators for LR. The hazard ratio (HR) of LR was estimated in Kaplan-Meier analysis, and based on these data, we designed a postoperative model for prediction of LR based on 3 risk groups.
RESULTS: Median follow-up period was 33.7 (95% CI: 26.8-40.3) months; 12.8% of the patients experienced LR. Univariate Cox proportional hazards regression revealed that the risk factors for recurrence were the presence of perineural invasion, carcinoma in situ, positive margin on definitive pathology, and high-grade disease. Based on Kaplan-Meier analysis stratified by number of factors present, we defined 3 risk groups for LR: low (0,1 risk factors) as reference, intermediate (2,3 risk factors) with HR of 13.9 (95% CI: 1.81-107.04, P = 0.0115), or high risk (all 4 risk factors present) with a HR of 34.2 (95% CI: 3.07-381.81, P = 0,0041). Limitations include the retrospective design and low number of events inherent to the rare nature of penile SCC.
CONCLUSIONS: Perineural invasion, carcinoma in situ, positive definitive margins, and the presence of high-grade SCC predict LR following glansectomy. These factors can be used to stratify patients into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups for recurrence which may be used to tailor follow-up.
Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Carcinoma in situ; High grade; Margins; Model; Organ-sparing surgery; Penile cancer; Perineural invasion; Recurrence; Risk factors

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28882673     DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.07.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Oncol        ISSN: 1078-1439            Impact factor:   3.498


  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.  What Is the Most Effective Management of the Primary Tumor in Men with Invasive Penile Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Available Treatment Options and Their Outcomes.

Authors:  Vasileios I Sakalis; Riccardo Campi; Lenka Barreto; Herney Garcia Perdomo; Isabella Greco; Łukasz Zapala; Mithun Kailavasan; Tiago Antunes-Lopes; Jack David Marcus; Kenneth Manzie; John Osborne; Benjamin Ayres; Luc M F Moonen; Andrea Necchi; Juanita Crook; Pedro Oliveira; Lance C Pagliaro; Chris Protzel; Arie S Parnham; Maarten Albersen; Curtis A Pettaway; Philippe E Spiess; Scott T Tagawa; R Bryan Rumble; Oscar R Brouwer
Journal:  Eur Urol Open Sci       Date:  2022-05-02

Review 3.  [Local treatment of penile cancer].

Authors:  C Protzel; O W Hakenberg
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 0.639

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

Review 5.  Recent advances in the management of penile cancer.

Authors:  Maximilian J Johnston; Raj Nigam
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2019-04-26

Review 6.  Penile sparing therapy for penile cancer.

Authors:  Henry Han-I Yao; Shomik Sengupta; Justin Chee
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2020-12

Review 7.  The Evolving Clinical Management of Genitourinary Cancers Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic.

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

Review 8.  An update on treatment of penile cancer.

Authors:  Juskaran Chadha; Jad Chahoud; Philippe E Spiess
Journal:  Ther Adv Med Oncol       Date:  2022-09-24       Impact factor: 5.485

9.  The role of perineural invasion in penile cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Xiang Zhou; Feng Qi; Ruhua Zhou; Shangqian Wang; Yamin Wang; Yi Wang; Chen Chen; Yichun Wang; Jie Yang; Ninghong Song
Journal:  Biosci Rep       Date:  2018-10-31       Impact factor: 3.840

Review 10.  Penile cancer: a Brazilian consensus statement for low- and middle-income countries.

Authors:  Andrey Soares; Icaro Thiago de Carvalho; Aluízio Gonçalves da Fonseca; Antonio Machado Alencar; Carlos Heli Bezerra Leite; Diogo Assed Bastos; João Paulo Holanda Soares; Katia Ramos Moreira Leite; Mário Ronalsa Brandão Filho; Ronald Wagner Pereira Coelho; Sandro Roberto de A Cavallero; Stênio de Cassio Zequi; José de Ribamar Rodrigues Calixto
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-10-26       Impact factor: 4.553

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.