Identifying an optimal lymph node yield for penile squamous cell carcinoma: prognostic impact of surgical dissection
- PMID: 31356716
- DOI: 10.1111/bju.14883
Identifying an optimal lymph node yield for penile squamous cell carcinoma: prognostic impact of surgical dissection
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the prognostic impact of lymph node yield (LNY) on survival outcomes for penile squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).
Patients and methods: In all, 532 patients who underwent inguinal LN dissection (ILND) across tertiary referral centres from Europe, China, Brazil and North America were retrospectively evaluated. From this cohort, 198 patients received pelvic LND (PLND).We identified threshold values for ILND and PLND using receiver operating characteristic curves. We tested prognostic value of LNY for recurrence-free survival (RFS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and overall survival (OS) using the Kaplan-Meir method and Cox proportional hazard regression models.
Results: The median (interquartile [IQR]) age was 59 (49-68) years and the median (IQR) follow-up after ILND was 28 (12-68.2) months. Overall, 85% of the patients had bilateral dissections. The median (IQR) number of inguinal LNs removed was 15 (10-22). Of those receiving PLND, The median (IQR) number of LNs was 13 (8-19). A LNY of ≥15 was used for dichotomisation of ILND patients, and a LNY of ≥9 was used in the PLND cohort. Patients with a LNY ≥15 had significantly better 5-year OS vs patients with a LNY <15 (70.1% vs 58.7%). On multivariable analyses, a LNY ≥15 was a predictor of OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.68, P = 0.029). For cN0 patients, a LNY ≥15 was an independent predictor of RFS (HR 0.52, P = 0.043) and OS (HR 0.53, P = 0.021). In the PLND cohort, a LNY ≥9 was a predictor of RFS (HR 0.53, P = 0.032).
Conclusions: Using one of the largest LND datasets to date, we found LNY to be a significant predictor of outcomes after lymphatic staging for penile SCC. Prospective validation is warranted.
Keywords: #PenileCancer; lymphadenectomy; survival.
© 2019 The Authors BJU International © 2019 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Comment in
-
Urological Oncology: Bladder, Penis and Urethral Cancer, and Basic Principles of Oncology.J Urol. 2021 May;205(5):1513-1515. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001661. Epub 2021 Feb 24. J Urol. 2021. PMID: 33625905 No abstract available.
References
-
- Arya M, Li R, Pegler K et al. Long-term trends in incidence, survival and mortality of primary penile cancer in England. Cancer Causes Control 2013; 24: 2169-76
-
- Pizzocaro G, Algaba F, Horenblas S et al. EAU penile cancer guidelines 2009. Eur Urol 2010; 57: 1002-12
-
- Christodoulidou M, Sahdev V, Houssein S, Muneer A. Epidemiology of penile cancer. Curr Probl Cancer 2015; 39: 126-36
-
- Diorio GJ, Giuliano AR. The role of human papilloma virus in penile carcinogenesis and preneoplastic lesions: a potential target for vaccination and treatment strategies. Urol Clin North Am 2016; 43: 419-25
-
- Hakenberg OW, Compérat EM, Minhas S, Necchi A, Protzel C, Watkin N. EAU guidelines on penile cancer: 2014 update. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 142-50
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials