Literature DB >> 36239810

Effect of inguinal lymph node dissection in lymph node negative patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis.

Stefano Tappero1,2,3, Mattia Piccinelli4,5, Francesco Barletta4,6, Andrea Panunzio4,7, Cristina Cano Garcia4,8, Reha-Baris Incesu4,9, Zhe Tian4, Stefano Parodi10,11, Paolo Dell'Oglio12,13,14, Ottavio De Cobelli5, Alberto Briganti6, Alessandro Antonelli7, Felix K H Chun8, Markus Graefen9, Fred Saad4, Shahrokh F Shariat15,16,17,18, Nazareno R Suardi19, Marco Borghesi10,11, Carlo Terrone10,11, Pierre I Karakiewicz4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The survival benefit of inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) vs no ILND in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis (SCCP) and the absence of lymph node invasion is unclear. We addressed this uncertainty within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER 2000-2018) database.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We identified lymph node negative SCCP patients who either underwent ILND (pN0) or clinical examination only (cN0). We tested for the effect of ILND vs no ILND on cancer-specific mortality (CSM) in Kaplan-Meier plots, univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses, in a pT stage-specific fashion, before and after 1:3 propensity score matching (PSM). Sensitivity analyses were conducted according to historical and contemporary treatment periods as well as geographic regions.
RESULTS: Of 2520 SCCP patients, 369 (15%) underwent ILND (pN0) vs 2151 (85%) did not (cN0). The pN0 vs cN0 distribution according to pT stages was as follows: 80 (7%) vs 1092 (93%) in pT1b, and 289 (21%) vs 1059 (79%) in pT2-3. At 36 months, CSM-free survival in pT2-3 stage was 89% in ILND vs 74% in no ILND patients (multivariable hazard ratio: 0.42, CI 0.30-0.60, p < 0.001). This result was confirmed in sensitivity analyses, and after 1:3 PSM. The same analyses could not be completed in pT1b stage due to insufficient number of observations and events.
CONCLUSIONS: In pT2-3 stage SCCP, a significantly lower CSM was recorded in lymph node negative patients treated with ILND than in their clinical lymph node negative counterparts who did not undergo ILND.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Inguinal lymph nodes; Lymph node dissection; Penile neoplasms

Year:  2022        PMID: 36239810     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-022-04184-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   3.661


  14 in total

1.  Complications of groin dissection in penile cancer. Experience with 101 lymphadenectomies.

Authors:  D E Johnson; R K Lo
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1984-10       Impact factor: 2.649

2.  Treatment Trends and Outcomes for Patients With Lymph Node-Positive Cancer of the Penis.

Authors:  Shreyas S Joshi; Elizabeth Handorf; David Strauss; Andres F Correa; Alexander Kutikov; David Y T Chen; Rosalia Viterbo; Richard E Greenberg; Robert G Uzzo; Marc C Smaldone; Daniel M Geynisman
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 31.777

Review 3.  Updates in the Eighth Edition of the Tumor-Node-Metastasis Staging Classification for Urologic Cancers.

Authors:  Gladell P Paner; Walter M Stadler; Donna E Hansel; Rodolfo Montironi; Daniel W Lin; Mahul B Amin
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2018-01-09       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  Patterns of Regional Lymphadenectomy for Clinically Node-negative Patients With Penile Carcinoma: Analysis From the National Cancer Database From 1998 to 2012.

Authors:  Juan Chipollini; Dominic H Tang; Pranav Sharma; Adam S Baumgarten; Philippe E Spiess
Journal:  Clin Genitourin Cancer       Date:  2017-04-26       Impact factor: 2.872

5.  Lymphatic and vascular embolizations are independent predictive variables of inguinal lymph node involvement in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: Gruppo Uro-Oncologico del Nord Est (Northeast Uro-Oncological Group) Penile Cancer data base data.

Authors:  Vincenzo Ficarra; Filiberto Zattoni; Sergio Cosciani Cunico; Tommaso Prayer Galetti; Lucio Luciani; Andrea Fandella; Stefano Guazzieri; Daniele Maruzzi; Teodoro Sava; Salvatore Siracusano; Stefania Pilloni; Andrea Tasca; Guido Martignoni; Marina Gardiman; Regina Tardanico; Tiziano Zambolin; Antonio Cisternino; Walter Artibani
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2005-06-15       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Predicting postoperative complications of inguinal lymph node dissection for penile cancer in an international multicentre cohort.

Authors:  Jared M Gopman; Rosa S Djajadiningrat; Adam S Baumgarten; Patrick N Espiritu; Simon Horenblas; Yao Zhu; Chris Protzel; Julio M Pow-Sang; Timothy Kim; Wade J Sexton; Michael A Poch; Philippe E Spiess
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2015-03-24       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 7.  Contemporary inguinal lymph node dissection: minimizing complications.

Authors:  Philippe E Spiess; Mike S Hernandez; Curtis A Pettaway
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2008-09-02       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. III. Treatment of regional lymph nodes.

Authors:  S Horenblas; H van Tinteren; J F Delemarre; L M Moonen; V Lustig; E W van Waardenburg
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Surgical treatment of invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: retrospective analysis of 350 cases.

Authors:  A A Ornellas; A L Seixas; A Marota; A Wisnescky; F Campos; J R de Moraes
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Sample size estimation in clinical trial.

Authors:  Tushar Vijay Sakpal
Journal:  Perspect Clin Res       Date:  2010-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.