4.6 Article

Mohs micrographic surgery for penile cancer: Management and long-term followup

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 178, 期 5, 页码 1980-1985

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.07.039

关键词

penis; penile neoplasms; Mohs surgery; neoplasm recurrence; local; carcinoma; squamous cell

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Molis micrographic surgery is efficacious for the primary treatment and local recurrence control of nongenital and cutaneous squamous and basal cell cancers. The efficacy of this procedure for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis was reviewed. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of all patients treated with Mobs micrographic surgery for penile cancer at our institution from 1988 to 2006. Results: We identified 33 patients who underwent a total of 41 Mobs procedures. Average +/- SD lesion size was 509 +/- 699 mm(2). An average of 2.6 +/- 1.4 stages were done using Mobs micrographic surgery. Five procedures were terminated with positive margins, including 3 due to urethral involvement and 2 due to defect size. Of the tumors 26 were stage Tis, 4 were T1, 7 were T2 and 4 were T3. A total of 13 defects were reconstructed by primary repair or granulation, 4 were reconstructed by skin grafts and 25 were reconstructed by tissue flaps and urethroplasty. Followup data were available on 25 patients at a mean of 58 +/- 63 months. Eight patients (32%) had recurrence, which was managed by repeat Molis micrographic surgery in 7 and by penectomy in 1. There were 2 cases of tumor progression, including 1 from T1 to T3 disease (meatal involvement) and 1 from T1 to inguinal lymph node involvement. Two patients died, of whom 1 had no evidence of penile cancer and 1 had metastatic disease. Conclusions: Molis micrographic surgery for low stage penile cancer results in a relatively high local recurrence rate. However, with repeat procedures and vigilant followup cancer specific and overall survival rates are excellent and progression rates are low.

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