Joren Vanthoor1, Anita Thomas2, Igor Tsaur2, Maarten Albersen3. 1. Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. 2. Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Medicine Mainz, Mainz, Germany. 3. Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. Maarten.albersen@uzleuven.be.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Penile cancer is a rare but aggressive disease, often requiring a rapid and extensive surgical treatment of the primary tumor and staging or treatment of the inguinal lymph node basins. Current management and guidelines of the disease are mainly based on retrospective data, as there is a lack of controlled trials or large series. The purpose of this work is to review contemporary data on the impact of centralization and formation of rare disease networks on penile cancer care and outcomes. METHODS: This narrative, non-systematic review is based on publications retrieved by a PubMed and EMBASE search and on the current guidelines of the European Association of Urology, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the National Comprehensive Cancer network. RESULTS: The low case load, particularly in non-specialized centres, combined with limited evidence regularly results in a disparity between the treatment strategy and the guidelines. The suboptimal guideline adherence is specifically the case for organ-sparing surgery and surgical staging of the groin areas in selected cases. Treatment of the disease in high-volume referral centres has been shown to improve the use of organ-sparing surgery, the utilization of invasive lymph node staging in high-risk patients, and finally has resulted in increased survival rates. CONCLUSIONS: The management of penile cancer in disease networks and in countries where centralized healthcare is offered positively influences functional and oncological outcomes. We propose that governments and health care providers should be encouraged to centralize healthcare for rare tumors such as penile cancer.
PURPOSE:Penile cancer is a rare but aggressive disease, often requiring a rapid and extensive surgical treatment of the primary tumor and staging or treatment of the inguinal lymph node basins. Current management and guidelines of the disease are mainly based on retrospective data, as there is a lack of controlled trials or large series. The purpose of this work is to review contemporary data on the impact of centralization and formation of rare disease networks on penile cancer care and outcomes. METHODS: This narrative, non-systematic review is based on publications retrieved by a PubMed and EMBASE search and on the current guidelines of the European Association of Urology, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the National Comprehensive Cancer network. RESULTS: The low case load, particularly in non-specialized centres, combined with limited evidence regularly results in a disparity between the treatment strategy and the guidelines. The suboptimal guideline adherence is specifically the case for organ-sparing surgery and surgical staging of the groin areas in selected cases. Treatment of the disease in high-volume referral centres has been shown to improve the use of organ-sparing surgery, the utilization of invasive lymph node staging in high-risk patients, and finally has resulted in increased survival rates. CONCLUSIONS: The management of penile cancer in disease networks and in countries where centralized healthcare is offered positively influences functional and oncological outcomes. We propose that governments and health care providers should be encouraged to centralize healthcare for rare tumors such as penile cancer.
Entities:
Keywords:
Centralization; Invasive lymph node staging; Organ-sparing surgery; Penile cancer
Authors: Adam Baumgarten; Juan Chipollini; Sylvia Yan; Sarah R Ottenhof; Dominic H Tang; Désirée Draeger; Chris Protzel; Yao Zhu; Ding-Wei Ye; Oliver W Hakenberg; Simon Horenblas; Nicholas A Watkin; Philippe E Spiess Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-11-11 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: Denosshan Sri; Arunan Sujenthiran; Wayne Lam; Janice Minter; Brendan E Tinwell; Catherine M Corbishley; Tet Yap; Davendra M Sharma; Benjamin E Ayres; Nick W Watkin Journal: BJU Int Date: 2018-04-27 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Rosa S Djajadiningrat; Erik van Werkhoven; Wim Meinhardt; Bas W G van Rhijn; Axel Bex; Henk G van der Poel; Simon Horenblas Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-12-25 Impact factor: 7.450
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: 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
Authors: Silvia Regina Rogatto; Igor Tsaur; Anita Thomas; Luisa Matos do Canto Alvim; Claudia Aparecida Rainho; Eva Juengel; Roman Alexander Blaheta; Philippe E Spiess Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2021-10