Maida Bada1, Francesco Berardinelli2, Peter Nyiràdy3, Judith Varga3, Pasquale Ditonno4, Michele Battaglia4, Paolo Chiodini5, Cosimo De Nunzio6, Giorgia Tema6, Alessandro Veccia7, Alessandro Antonelli7, Luca Cindolo2, Claudio Simeone7, Stefano Puliatti8, Salvatore Micali8, Luigi Schips9. 1. Department of Urology, S. Pio da Pietrelcina Hospital, ASL 2 Abruzzo, Vasto, Italy. maida.bada@yahoo.com. 2. Department of Urology, S. Pio da Pietrelcina Hospital, ASL 2 Abruzzo, Vasto, Italy. 3. Department of Urology, Hospital of Budapest, Budapest, Hungary. 4. Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, Urology and Andrology Unit II, University of Bari, Bari, Italy. 5. Department of Medical Statistics Unit, Second University, Naples, Italy. 6. Department of Urology, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy. 7. Department of Urology, Spedali Civili Hospital, Brescia, Italy. 8. Department of Urology, Baggiovara Hospital, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy. 9. Department of Urology, G. D'Annunzio University, Chieti, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines for penile cancer (PC) are exclusively based on retrospective studies and have low grades of recommendation. The aim of this study was to assess the adherence to guidelines by investigating the management strategies for primary tumours and inguinal lymph nodes. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical charts of 176 PC patients who underwent surgery in eight European centres from 2010 to 2016. The stage and grade were assessed according to the 2009 AJCC-UICC TNM classification system. To assess adherence rates, we compared theoretical and practical adherence to the EAU guidelines. RESULTS: Overall, 176 patients were enrolled. Partial amputation was the most frequent surgical approach (39%). 53.7% of tumours were stage Tis-T1b and the remaining 46.3% were stage T2-T4. Palpable lymph nodes were detected in 30.1% of patients and 45.1% underwent lymphadenectomy (LY). A sizeable group of tumours (43.2%) were N0. For primary treatment, adherence to the EAU guidelines was good (66%). In non-adherent cases, reasons for discrepancy were patient's choice (17%), surgeon's preference (36%), and other causes (47%). For LY, the guideline adherence was 70%, with either patient's or surgeon's choice or other causes accounting for discrepancy in 28, 20, and 52% of non-adherent cases, respectively. CONCLUSION: Adherence to the EAU guidelines for PC was quite high across the eight European centres involved in the study. This notwithstanding, strategies for further improvement should be developed and evenly adopted.
PURPOSE: The European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines for penile cancer (PC) are exclusively based on retrospective studies and have low grades of recommendation. The aim of this study was to assess the adherence to guidelines by investigating the management strategies for primary tumours and inguinal lymph nodes. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical charts of 176 PC patients who underwent surgery in eight European centres from 2010 to 2016. The stage and grade were assessed according to the 2009 AJCC-UICC TNM classification system. To assess adherence rates, we compared theoretical and practical adherence to the EAU guidelines. RESULTS: Overall, 176 patients were enrolled. Partial amputation was the most frequent surgical approach (39%). 53.7% of tumours were stage Tis-T1b and the remaining 46.3% were stage T2-T4. Palpable lymph nodes were detected in 30.1% of patients and 45.1% underwent lymphadenectomy (LY). A sizeable group of tumours (43.2%) were N0. For primary treatment, adherence to the EAU guidelines was good (66%). In non-adherent cases, reasons for discrepancy were patient's choice (17%), surgeon's preference (36%), and other causes (47%). For LY, the guideline adherence was 70%, with either patient's or surgeon's choice or other causes accounting for discrepancy in 28, 20, and 52% of non-adherent cases, respectively. CONCLUSION: Adherence to the EAU guidelines for PC was quite high across the eight European centres involved in the study. This notwithstanding, strategies for further improvement should be developed and evenly adopted.
Authors: F A Distler; S Pahernik; G Gakis; G Hutterer; S Lebentrau; M Rink; P Nuhn; S Brookman-May; M Burger; C Gratzke; I Wolff; M May Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-12-13 Impact factor: 4.226
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
Authors: Andrej Panic; Henning Reis; Alina Wittka; Christopher Darr; Boris Hadaschik; Verena Jendrossek; Diana Klein Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 6.244
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