Improved outcome in penile cancer with radiologically enhanced stratification protocol for lymph node staging procedures: a study in 316 inguinal basins with a mean follow-up of 5 years.
Imaging
Inguinal
Lymph node
Penile cancer
Sentinel node
Staging
Journal
BMC urology
ISSN: 1471-2490
Titre abrégé: BMC Urol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968571
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Aug 2023
15 Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
19
05
2022
accepted:
20
07
2023
medline:
17
8
2023
pubmed:
16
8
2023
entrez:
15
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Lymph node metastasis is the main determinant of survival in penile cancer patients. Conventionally clinical palpability is used to stratify patients to Inguinal Lymph node dissection (ILND) if clinically node positive (cN +) or Dynamic sentinel node biopsy (DSNB) if clinically node negative (cN0). Studies suggest a false negative rate (FNR) of around 10% (5-13%) for DSNB. To our knowledge there are no studies reporting harder end point of survival and outcomes of all clinically node positive (cN +) patients. We present our outcome data of all patients with penile cancer including false negative rates and survival in both DSNB and ILND groups. One hundred fifty-eight consecutive patients (316 inguinal basins), who had lymph node surgery for penile cancer in a tertiary referral centre from Jan 2008 to 2018, were included in the study. All patients underwent ultrasound (US) ± fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) and then MRI/ CT, if needed, to stage their disease. We used combined clinical and radiological criteria (node size, architecture loss, irregular margins) to stratify patients to DSNB vs ILND as opposed to clinical palpability alone. 11.2% i.e., 27/241 inguinal basins had lymph node positive disease by DSNB. 54.9% i.e., 39/71 inguinal basins (IBs) had lymph node-positive disease by ILND. 4 inguinal basins with no tracer uptake in sentinel node scans are being monitored at patient's request and have not had any recurrences to date. With a mean follow-up of 65 months (range 24-150), the false-negative rate (FNR) for DSNB is 0%. Judicious uses of cross-sectional imaging necessitated ILND in 2 inguinal basins with non-palpable nodes and negative US with false positive rate of 6.3% (2/32) for ILND. The same cohort of DSNB patients might have had 11.1% (3/27) FNR if only palpability criteria was used. 43 (28%) patients who did require cross sectional imaging as per our criteria had a low node positive rate of 4.7% (p = 0.03). Mean cancer specific survival of all node-positive patients was 105 months. The performance of DSNB improved with enhanced radiological stratification of patients to either DSNB or ILND. We for the first time report the comprehensive outcome of all lymph node staging procedures in penile cancer.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Lymph node metastasis is the main determinant of survival in penile cancer patients. Conventionally clinical palpability is used to stratify patients to Inguinal Lymph node dissection (ILND) if clinically node positive (cN +) or Dynamic sentinel node biopsy (DSNB) if clinically node negative (cN0). Studies suggest a false negative rate (FNR) of around 10% (5-13%) for DSNB. To our knowledge there are no studies reporting harder end point of survival and outcomes of all clinically node positive (cN +) patients. We present our outcome data of all patients with penile cancer including false negative rates and survival in both DSNB and ILND groups.
METHODS
METHODS
One hundred fifty-eight consecutive patients (316 inguinal basins), who had lymph node surgery for penile cancer in a tertiary referral centre from Jan 2008 to 2018, were included in the study. All patients underwent ultrasound (US) ± fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) and then MRI/ CT, if needed, to stage their disease. We used combined clinical and radiological criteria (node size, architecture loss, irregular margins) to stratify patients to DSNB vs ILND as opposed to clinical palpability alone.
RESULTS
RESULTS
11.2% i.e., 27/241 inguinal basins had lymph node positive disease by DSNB. 54.9% i.e., 39/71 inguinal basins (IBs) had lymph node-positive disease by ILND. 4 inguinal basins with no tracer uptake in sentinel node scans are being monitored at patient's request and have not had any recurrences to date. With a mean follow-up of 65 months (range 24-150), the false-negative rate (FNR) for DSNB is 0%. Judicious uses of cross-sectional imaging necessitated ILND in 2 inguinal basins with non-palpable nodes and negative US with false positive rate of 6.3% (2/32) for ILND. The same cohort of DSNB patients might have had 11.1% (3/27) FNR if only palpability criteria was used. 43 (28%) patients who did require cross sectional imaging as per our criteria had a low node positive rate of 4.7% (p = 0.03). Mean cancer specific survival of all node-positive patients was 105 months.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The performance of DSNB improved with enhanced radiological stratification of patients to either DSNB or ILND. We for the first time report the comprehensive outcome of all lymph node staging procedures in penile cancer.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37582745
doi: 10.1186/s12894-023-01303-9
pii: 10.1186/s12894-023-01303-9
pmc: PMC10426083
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
137Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Hakenberg OW, Comperat EM, Minhas S, Necchi A, Protzel C, Watkin N, et al. EAU guidelines on penile cancer: 2014 update. Eur Urol. 2015;67(1):142–50.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.017
pubmed: 25457021
Horenblas S, Jansen L, Meinhardt W, Hoefnagel CA, de Jong D, Nieweg OE. Detection of occult metastasis in squamous cell carcinoma of the penis using a dynamic sentinel node procedure. J Urol. 2000;163(1):100–4.
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67982-7
pubmed: 10604324
Kroon BK, Horenblas S, Deurloo EE, Nieweg OE, Teertstra HJ. Ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology before sentinel node biopsy in patients with penile carcinoma. BJU Int. 2005;95(4):517–21.
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05330.x
pubmed: 15705071
Bevan-Thomas R, Slaton JW, Pettaway CA. Contemporary morbidity from lymphadenectomy for penile squamous cell carcinoma: the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Experience. J Urol. 2002;167(4):1638–42.
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65169-5
pubmed: 11912379
Bouchot O, Rigaud J, Maillet F, Hetet JF, Karam G. Morbidity of inguinal lymphadenectomy for invasive penile carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2004;45(6):761–5 discussion 5-6.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2003.12.003
pubmed: 15149749
Dimopoulos P, Christopoulos P, Shilito S, Gall Z, Murby B, Ashworth D, et al. Dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy for penile cancer: a comparison between 1- and 2-day protocols. BJU Int. 2016;117(6):890–6.
doi: 10.1111/bju.13389
pubmed: 26644044
Jakobsen JK, Krarup KP, Sommer P, Nerstrom H, Bakholdt V, Sorensen JA, et al. DaPeCa-1: diagnostic accuracy of sentinel lymph node biopsy in 222 patients with penile cancer at four tertiary referral centres - a national study from Denmark. BJU Int. 2016;117(2):235–43.
doi: 10.1111/bju.13127
pubmed: 25810028
Lam W, Alnajjar HM, La-Touche S, Perry M, Sharma D, Corbishley C, et al. Dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: a prospective study of the long-term outcome of 500 inguinal basins assessed at a single institution. Eur Urol. 2013;63(4):657–63.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.10.035
pubmed: 23153743
Neto AS, Tobias-Machado M, Ficarra V, Wroclawski ML, Amarante RD, Pompeo AC, et al. Dynamic sentinel node biopsy for inguinal lymph node staging in patients with penile cancer: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of the literature. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(7):2026–34.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-010-1546-6
pubmed: 21308487
Leijte JA, Kroon BK, Valdes Olmos RA, Nieweg OE, Horenblas S. Reliability and safety of current dynamic sentinel node biopsy for penile carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2007;52(1):170–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.01.107
pubmed: 17316967
Kumar V, Sethia KK. Prospective study comparing video-endoscopic radical inguinal lymph node dissection (VEILND) with open radical ILND (OILND) for penile cancer over an 8-year period. BJU Int. 2017;119(4):530–4.
doi: 10.1111/bju.13660
pubmed: 27628265
Dell’Oglio P, de Vries HM, Mazzone E, KleinJan GH, Donswijk ML, van der Poel HG, et al. Hybrid Indocyanine Green-(99m)Tc-nanocolloid for Single-photon Emission Computed Tomography and Combined Radio- and Fluorescence-guided Sentinel Node Biopsy in Penile Cancer: Results of 740 Inguinal Basins Assessed at a Single Institution. Eur Urol. 2020;78(6):865–72.
Jacobellis U. Modified radical inguinal lymphadenectomy for carcinoma of the penis: technique and results. J Urol. 2003;169(4):1349–52.
doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000048971.52053.8a
pubmed: 12629358
Koifman L, Hampl D, Koifman N, Vides AJ, Ornellas AA. Radical open inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile carcinoma: surgical technique, early complications and late outcomes. J Urol. 2013;190(6):2086–92.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.06.016
pubmed: 23770135
Jakobsen JK, Alslev L, Ipsen P, Costa JC, Krarup KP, Sommer P, et al. DaPeCa-3: promising results of sentinel node biopsy combined with (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in clinically lymph node-negative patients with penile cancer - a national study from Denmark. BJU Int. 2016;118(1):102–11.
doi: 10.1111/bju.13243
pubmed: 26216234