4.6 Article

Conservative Surgery for Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Penis: Resection Margins and Long-Term Oncological Control

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 188, 期 3, 页码 803-808

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.05.012

关键词

penis; carcinoma; squamous cell; neoplasm recurrence; local; survival; neoplasm invasiveness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We assessed the oncological outcome of penile conserving surgery and identified parameters predicting local recurrence, including resection margins. Materials and Methods: A total of 179 patients with invasive penile cancer treated with organ sparing surgery at a tertiary center between 2002 and 2010 fulfilled our study criteria. Demographic, histopathological, management and followup data were recorded in a prospective database. Local, regional and distant recurrence rates, time to recurrence and survival rates were calculated. Survival analysis was performed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate analysis was used to identify predictors of local recurrence. Results: Mean followup was 42.8 months (range 4 to 107). Local, regional and distant metastatic recurrence developed in 16 (8.9%), 19 (10.6%) and 9 patients (5.0%) at a mean of 26.1, 26.8 and 11.7 months, respectively. The 5-year disease specific survival rate after recurrence was 54.7% (95% CI 46.1-63.3). For patients with isolated local recurrence the 5-year disease specific survival rate was 91.7% compared to 38.4% for those with regional recurrence. The overall 5-year local recurrence-free rate was 86.3% (95% CI 82.6-90.4). Tumor grade (p = 0.003), stage (p = 0.021) and lymphovascular invasion (p = 0.014) were identified as predictors of local recurrence on multivariate analysis. Conclusions: Penile conserving surgery is oncologically safe and a surgical excision margin of less than 5 mm is adequate. Higher local recurrence rates are associated with lymphovascular invasion, and higher tumor stage and grade. Local recurrence has no negative impact on long-term survival.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据