Hari Menon1, Roshal R Patel2,3, Ethan B Ludmir3, Vinayak Muralidhar4, Taylor R Cushman1, Arya Amini5, Steven N Seyedin6, Paul L Nguyen4, Vivek Verma7. 1. University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA. 2. Albany Medical College, Albany, NY 12208, USA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, TX 77030, USA. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02215, USA. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA 91010, USA. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Iowa Hospital & Clinics, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA 15212, USA.
Abstract
Aim: To explore management trends in preinvasive and cT1-T3 penile cancer. Materials & methods: The National Cancer Database was queried (2004-2013) for cT1-T3 M0 penile cancer with specified nonpalliative surgical techniques and histologies (n = 5,728). Results: Local excision (39%) and partial penectomy (38%) were most commonly utilized. Patients with cTis/Ta or cT1 disease more often received nonpenectomy approaches (p < 0.05); cT2-T3 cases more likely underwent penectomy (p < 0.001). No survival differences were observed between penectomy (49.3 months) and nonpenectomy approaches (50.3 months) in the overall cohort (p = 0.107) and when stratifying by T-stage (p > 0.20 for all). Conclusion: This study provides contemporary insight into the landscape for management of this rare disease and can serve as a benchmark for future evaluation of treatment trends.
Aim: To explore management trends in preinvasive and cT1-T3 penile cancer. Materials & methods: The National Cancer Database was queried (2004-2013) for cT1-T3 M0 penile cancer with specified nonpalliative surgical techniques and histologies (n = 5,728). Results: Local excision (39%) and partial penectomy (38%) were most commonly utilized. Patients with cTis/Ta or cT1 disease more often received nonpenectomy approaches (p < 0.05); cT2-T3 cases more likely underwent penectomy (p < 0.001). No survival differences were observed between penectomy (49.3 months) and nonpenectomy approaches (50.3 months) in the overall cohort (p = 0.107) and when stratifying by T-stage (p > 0.20 for all). Conclusion: This study provides contemporary insight into the landscape for management of this rare disease and can serve as a benchmark for future evaluation of treatment trends.
Entities:
Keywords:
NCCN guidelines; National Cancer Database; penectomy; penile cancer; wide local excision