National patterns of care for early-stage penile cancers in the United States: How is radiation and brachytherapy utilized?


Journal

Brachytherapy
ISSN: 1873-1449
Titre abrégé: Brachytherapy
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101137600

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Historique:
received: 14 02 2019
revised: 25 03 2019
accepted: 10 04 2019
pubmed: 28 5 2019
medline: 25 1 2020
entrez: 26 5 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Per American Brachytherapy Society guidelines, cT1-2N0 penile cancers <4 cm in diameter are excellent candidates for curative brachytherapy. Using that criterion, we evaluated national patterns of care and predictors of use of radiation techniques using the National Cancer Database. The National Cancer Database was queried for men with cT1-2N0 penile cancers <4 cm in size. Comparative statistics for treatment modality were generated using bivariate logistic regression analysis. Among 1235 cases eligible for analysis, median age was 69 years. Median tumor size was 2.0 cm. 95.8% of men underwent surgery alone, with 91 (7.4%) undergoing radical penectomy, 673 (54.5%) partial penectomy, and 419 (33.9%) cosmesis-preserving surgical procedure. Only 4 (0.3%) men were treated with brachytherapy alone, 48 (3.9%) with external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) alone, and 8 (0.6%) with EBRT after surgery. Surgical margins were positive in 118 (9.6%) patients, 14 of whom received adjuvant EBRT (11.9%) and two adjuvant brachytherapy (1.7%). There was no difference in demographic or clinical characteristics in groups treated with surgery vs. radiation (all p > 0.2). Age >70, lesions >2 cm, and T2 tumors were more likely to undergo non-organ-preserving therapy vs. radiation or a cosmesis-preserving procedure (all p < 0.05). The propensity-matched 5-year survival was not different between definitive radiation vs. surgery (61.6% vs. 62.2%, p = 0.70). Men with penile-preserving eligible lesions in the United States are overwhelmingly treated with surgery. Penile-preserving radiation techniques including brachytherapy and EBRT are underutilized and should be offered as curative interventions.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31126857
pii: S1538-4721(19)30084-4
doi: 10.1016/j.brachy.2019.04.007
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

503-509

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019 American Brachytherapy Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Ria Mulherkar (R)

Drexel University School of Medicine, Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.

Shaakir Hasan (S)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA.

Rodney E Wegner (RE)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA.

Vivek Verma (V)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA.

Scott M Glaser (SM)

Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA.

Ronny Kalash (R)

Department of Radiation Oncology, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, PA.

Sushil Beriwal (S)

Department of Radiation Oncology, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, PA.

Zachary D Horne (ZD)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA. Electronic address: hornezd@gmail.com.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH