4.5 Article

Extent of pelvic lymph node dissection in penile cancer may impact survival

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Volume 34, Issue 3, Pages 353-359

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-015-1593-5

Keywords

Penile neoplasms; Lymph node excision; Algorithms

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction Current guidelines on management of penile carcinoma (PC) recommend ipsilateral pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in patients with inguinal lymph node metastasis (LNM) who meet specific criteria. The aim of this article was to assess outcomes in patients treated with bilateral PLND in the presence of unilateral metastatic pelvic nodes. Methods After IRB approval, four international centers contributed to this study. Men with PC and unilateral inguinal LNM and pelvic node metastases were retrospectively analyzed. Estimates of overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival were provided by the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparisons between subgroups were made using the log-rank test, and Cox regression analysis was used to adjust comparisons for covariates of interest. Results From 1978 to 2012, fifty-one men with unilateral inguinal LNM and positive pelvic nodes on PLND were identified. Thirty-eight (75 %) had ipsilateral and 13 (25 %) had bilateral PLND. Except the extent of the PLND, patients were comparable with respect to disease and therapeutic interventions. The Kaplan-Meier estimated median OS was significantly longer in the bilateral PLND patients (21.7 vs. 13.1, p = 0.051). On Cox regression analysis, bilateral PLND [HR 0.25, (95 % CI 0.10-0.64)], multiple pelvic node involvement [HR 2.12 (95 % CI 1.02-4.43)], neoadjuvant chemotherapy [HR 0.01, (95 % CI 0.02-0.44)] and adjuvant therapies [HR 0.16, (95 % CI 0.06-0.45)] (compared to no additional therapy) were independent predictors of OS. Conclusions Men with PC and pelvic node metastases may benefit from a bilateral PLND. This hypothesis requires further confirmation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available