Long-term outcomes for penile cancer patients presenting with advanced N3 disease requiring a myocutaneous flap reconstruction or primary closure-a retrospective single centre study.
Advanced N3 disease
myocutaneous flap
penile cancer
tensor fascia lata (TFL)
vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM)
Journal
Translational andrology and urology
ISSN: 2223-4691
Titre abrégé: Transl Androl Urol
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101581119
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2019
Mar 2019
Historique:
entrez:
31
5
2019
pubmed:
31
5
2019
medline:
31
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Penile cancer patients with advanced metastatic disease in the inguinal region present a therapeutic challenge. We compared the outcomes for patients with advanced inguinal node disease requiring myocutaneous flap reconstruction (MFR) against primary closure for N3 disease. A retrospective comparative study of a consecutive cohort of advanced penile cancer patients with N3 disease was performed. Patient demographics, presenting symptoms, primary tumour site, stage and grade were recorded. The type of MFR used, patient outcomes and post-operative complications were recorded from an institutional database. Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves were calculated to analyse the cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates for the MFR group and compared with the no-MFR group. P values were calculated by log-rank and Chi square tests for CSS rates and complications respectively. Eighteen patients requiring MFR were identified; mean age 62 years. Ten (55.6%) patients had a first presentation with penile cancer and advanced nodal disease with the remaining 8 (44.4%) presenting with an inguinal recurrence having already undergone surgery. The majority (n=15) underwent a vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flap. The average length of stay was 23 days for the MFR group versus 8.5 days for the no-MFR group. The 5-year CSS was 20.9% for the MFR group and 39.8% for the no-MFR group (P<0.01). Aggressive surgical management for patients with extensive nodal disease and flap reconstruction is feasible and aids wound management although the long-term prognosis is still poor.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Penile cancer patients with advanced metastatic disease in the inguinal region present a therapeutic challenge. We compared the outcomes for patients with advanced inguinal node disease requiring myocutaneous flap reconstruction (MFR) against primary closure for N3 disease.
METHODS
METHODS
A retrospective comparative study of a consecutive cohort of advanced penile cancer patients with N3 disease was performed. Patient demographics, presenting symptoms, primary tumour site, stage and grade were recorded. The type of MFR used, patient outcomes and post-operative complications were recorded from an institutional database. Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves were calculated to analyse the cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates for the MFR group and compared with the no-MFR group. P values were calculated by log-rank and Chi square tests for CSS rates and complications respectively.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Eighteen patients requiring MFR were identified; mean age 62 years. Ten (55.6%) patients had a first presentation with penile cancer and advanced nodal disease with the remaining 8 (44.4%) presenting with an inguinal recurrence having already undergone surgery. The majority (n=15) underwent a vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flap. The average length of stay was 23 days for the MFR group versus 8.5 days for the no-MFR group. The 5-year CSS was 20.9% for the MFR group and 39.8% for the no-MFR group (P<0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Aggressive surgical management for patients with extensive nodal disease and flap reconstruction is feasible and aids wound management although the long-term prognosis is still poor.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31143667
doi: 10.21037/tau.2019.01.05
pii: tau-08-S1-S13
pmc: PMC6511705
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
S13-S21Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
BJU Int. 2001 Sep;88(5):473-83
pubmed: 11589660
IARC Sci Publ. 1992;(120):45-173
pubmed: 1284606
BJU Int. 2004 Dec;94(9):1253-7
pubmed: 15610100
BJU Int. 2007 Jan;99(1):37-40
pubmed: 17227489
Eur Urol. 2007 Oct;52(4):1179-85
pubmed: 17349734
J Surg Oncol. 2008 Mar 1;97(3):199-200
pubmed: 17918225
Eur Urol. 2009 Mar;55(3):546-51
pubmed: 18649992
CA Cancer J Clin. 2009 Jul-Aug;59(4):225-49
pubmed: 19474385
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2010 Nov;22(9):747-54
pubmed: 20800458
World J Urol. 2011 Aug;29(4):555-9
pubmed: 21626446
Eur Urol. 2015 Jan;67(1):142-150
pubmed: 25457021
J Vasc Surg. 2016 Aug;64(2):452-457
pubmed: 27189769
Eur Urol Focus. 2018 Feb 9;:null
pubmed: 29433986
JAMA Oncol. 2018 May 1;4(5):643-649
pubmed: 29494739
Eur Urol. 2018 Jul;74(1):76-83
pubmed: 29703686
J Urol. 1994 May;151(5):1244-9
pubmed: 7512656
Urology. 1993 Nov;42(5):559-62
pubmed: 7694417