Variations in Penile Cancer Management: Results From the Global Society of Rare Genitourinary Tumors Survey

Authors

Gagan Prakash, Department of Uro-oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Amandeep Arora, Department of Uro-oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Marco Bandini, Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Giuseppe Basile, Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Mahendra Pal, Department of Uro-oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Gareth Griffiths, Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Robert Cornes, ORCHID (Patient Advocacy Network), London, United Kingdom.
Yao Zhu, Department of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Alejandro Rodriguez, Rochester Regional HealthFollow
Maarten Alberson, Department of Urology, University Hospitals of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Andrea Necchi, Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital and Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Viraj Master, Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Curtis A. Pettaway, Department of Urology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Philippe E. Spiess, Department of Genitourinary Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL.

Department

Urology

Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Clinical Genitourinary Cancer

Abstract

Introduction: There is paucity of evidence and consensus on various aspects of management of penile cancer (PeCa), which is intuitive considering the rarity of this disease. We present here the details of an online survey conducted by the Global Society of Rare Genito-urinary Tumors (GSRGT) with the aim of capturing the variations in PeCa care across different regions of the world.

Materials and methods: An online questionnaire was developed by experts within the GSRGT and then circulated via email in English and Spanish versions to clinicians dealing with PeCa. Respondents were allowed 8 weeks to reply.

Results: We received 102 responses; the majority of them were from South America (37.2%) followed by North America and Asia (17.6% each). Only 11.7% of the respondents treated more than 25 patients with PeCa annually. Total penectomy is performed by 21.5% of the respondents in > 50% of their patients. Less than a fifth of the experts (19.6%) responded that > 50% of their patients are clinically node-negative (cN0) at presentation. For intermediate-risk cN0 patients (T1 G2 cancer), about a third of the experts chose surveillance. For invasive inguinal staging, the options of Dynamic Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy (DSNB), Modified Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection (MILD), Superficial Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection (SILD), and Video-Endoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy (VEIL) were chosen by 28.4%, 26.4%, 31.3%, and 13.7% of the respondents respectively. Considerable variation was seen in the worldwide use of these techniques. For clinically node-positive patients, respondents were in favor of giving adjuvant chemotherapy instead of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, except for cN3 patients.

Conclusion: The results of this questionnaire objectified the variations in global practices in the management of PeCa. This serves as the baseline information which can help prioritize research areas for multinational collaborative efforts, a key mission of the GSRGT.

First Page

376

Last Page

382

DOI

10.1016/j.clgc.2023.03.001

Volume

21

Issue

3

Publication Date

6-1-2023

Medical Subject Headings

Male; Humans; Penile Neoplasms (pathology); Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy (methods); Lymph Node Excision (methods); Lymph Nodes (pathology); Penis (pathology); Neoplasm Staging

PubMed ID

37037737

Share

COinS