Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Nov 22;16(23):3921.
doi: 10.3390/cancers16233921.

Comparing Outcomes of Open and Robot-Assisted Inguinal Lymphadenectomy for the Treatment of cN2 Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Penis: A Retrospective Single-Center Analysis

Aldo Brassetti  1 , Rigoberto Pallares-Mendez  1 , Alfredo M Bove  1 , Leonardo Misuraca  1 , Umberto Anceschi  1 , Gabriele Tuderti  1 , Riccardo Mastroianni  1 , Leslie C Licari  1 , Eugenio Bologna  1 , Silvia Cartolano  1 , Simone D'Annunzio  1 , Mariaconsiglia Ferriero  1 , Rocco S Flammia  1 , Flavia Proietti  1 , Costantino Leonardo  1 , Giuseppe Simone  1
Affiliations

Comparing Outcomes of Open and Robot-Assisted Inguinal Lymphadenectomy for the Treatment of cN2 Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Penis: A Retrospective Single-Center Analysis

Aldo Brassetti et al. Cancers (Basel). .

Abstract

Background: Inguinal lymph node (LN) dissection (iLND) is mandatory in cN2 penile squamous cell carcinoma (PSCC). Open iLND (OIL) is often omitted due to the high rate of complications. A minimally invasive approach may reduce morbidity; however, evidence supporting its role to treat bulky nodes is limited. This study aimed to present the outcomes of the largest European single-center series of robot-assisted iLND (RAIL) for the treatment of cN2 PSCC and to compare the surgical and survival outcomes of this approach with the standard of care.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on men with cT1-4N2M0 PSCC undergone either OIL or RAIL at our institution from January 2014 onwards. Baseline demographics, perioperative data, and oncologic outcomes were analyzed.

Results: Overall, 47 patients were included; 38 (81%) underwent OIL. Median age was 59 years, with 23 men (48%) presenting with a ≥4 Charlson comorbidity index. Operation time was significantly longer in the robotic cohort (212 min vs. 145 min; p < 0.001), while the length of stay (p = 0.09) and time to inguinal drainage removal (p = 0.08) were not. Estimated blood loss favored the robotic approach (60 mL vs. 300 mL; p < 0.001). Post-operative complications rates were comparable in the two groups (25% vs. 47%; p = 0.17): four major complications were observed overall, and these were all in the OIL cohort. Median LN yield was comparable between the two groups (18 vs. 25; p = 0.05). Final pathology reports showed no significant differences in tumor stage distribution between the cohorts (p = 0.54). Kaplan-Meier analysis did not reveal any significant differences in RFS probabilities between the two treatment groups (Log Rank = 0.99).

Conclusions: RAIL demonstrated comparable perioperative and oncologic outcomes to OIL for cN2 PSCC, with the benefit of reduced estimated blood loss. RAIL is a feasible option for cases where a minimally invasive approach is preferred, offering comparable perioperative safety and oncological outcomes.

Keywords: lymph node excision; penile cancer; penile neoplasms; robot-assisted inguinal lymphadenectomy; robotic surgical procedures.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Recurrence-free survival probabilities, according to AJCC stages and surgical approaches.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Overall survival probabilities, according to AJCC stages and surgical approaches.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Thomas A., Necchi A., Muneer A., Tobias-Machado M., Tran A.T.H., Van Rompuy A.S., Spiess P.E., Albersen M. Penile cancer. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers. 2021;7:11. doi: 10.1038/s41572-021-00246-5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zemp L.W., Rudzinski J.K., Pettaway C.A., Nicholson S., Spiess P.E. Management of Bulky Inguinal and Pelvic Lymph Nodes. Urol. Clin. N. Am. 2024;51:335–345. doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2024.03.012. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brassetti A., Chiacchio G., Anceschi U., Bove A., Ferriero M., D’Annunzio S., Misuraca L., Guaglianone S., Tuderti G., Mastroianni R., et al. Robot-assisted inguinal lymphadenectomy to treat penile and vulvar cancers: A scoping review. Minerva Urol. Nephrol. 2024;76:278–285. doi: 10.23736/S2724-6051.24.05532-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brassetti A., Anceschi U., Cozzi G., Chavarriaga J., Gavrilov P., Gaya Sopena J.M., Bove A.M., Prata F., Ferriero M., Mastorianni R., et al. Combined Reporting of Surgical Quality and Cancer Control after Surgical Treatment for Penile Tumors with Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection: The Tetrafecta Achievement. Curr. Oncol. 2023;30:1882–1892. doi: 10.3390/curroncol30020146. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brouwer O.R., Rumble R.B., Ayres B., Sánchez Martínez D.F., Oliveira P., Spiess P.E., Johnstone P., Crook J., Pettaway C., Tagawa S., et al. Penile Cancer: EAU-ASCO Collaborative Guidelines Update Q and A. JCO Oncol. Pract. 2024;20:33–37. doi: 10.1200/OP.23.00585. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources