Advertisement

Important Therapeutic Considerations in T1b Penile Cancer: Prognostic Significance and Adherence to Treatment Guidelines

  • Yao Zhu
  • Wei-Jie Gu
  • Wen-Jun Xiao
  • Bei-He Wang
  • Mounsif Azizi
  • Philippe E. SpiessEmail author
  • Ding-Wei YeEmail author
Urologic Oncology
  • 51 Downloads

Abstract

Background

The clinical implications and contemporary management of T1b penile cancer are unknown. National treatment guidelines advocate surgical lymph node examination (SLNE) for T1b disease.

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognosis of T1b disease and adherence to corresponding treatment guidelines.

Methods

We analyzed 296 patients from two academic centers, and 1263 patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry (median follow-up 48.3 and 21 months, respectively). Multivariate Cox and Fine–Gray regressions were applied for penile cancer-specific survival (PCSS) analyses.

Results

In the academic center cohort, 28.3% of T1 patients had T1b disease, all of whom underwent SLNE. Nodal metastases were detected in 86.7% of T1b patients and 13.2% of T1a patients (p < 0.001). Using T1a as a reference, PCSS was significantly poorer in the T1b patients, with an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 4.10 (p = 0.03). In the SEER cohort, 16.8% of T1 patients were classified as T1b. SLNE was performed in 21.7% of the T1b patients versus 38.2% of the T2 patients (p = 0.002). The probability of nodal metastases was 2.23-fold higher in T1b patients than in T1a patients (p < 0.001). In clinical N0M0 patients without SLNE, compared with T1a disease, T1b was associated with an aHR of 4.40 and a subdistribution HR of 4.53 for PCSS (both p = 0.003).

Conclusions

T1b penile cancer is strongly associated with nodal metastases and adverse PCSS, and is poorly managed according to guidelines recommended in the nationwide registry.

Notes

Funding

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81370073), the Shanghai Rising Star Program (Grant No. 16QA1401100) and the Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center Fund (Grant No. YJJQ201802 and YJ201707).

Disclosures

Yao Zhu, Wei-Jie Gu, Wen-Jun Xiao, Bei-He Wang, Mounsif Azizi, Philippe E. Spiess, and Ding-Wei Ye declare no commercial interests.

Supplementary material

10434_2018_7066_MOESM1_ESM.tiff (3 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (TIFF 3072 kb)
10434_2018_7066_MOESM2_ESM.tif (14.8 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (TIFF 15182 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Douglawi A, Masterson TA. Updates on the epidemiology and risk factors for penile cancer. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(5):785–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cancer Research UK. Penile Cancer (C60), European Age-Standardised Incidence Rates, Males, UK, 1993–2015. 2018. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/penile-cancer/incidence-heading-Two. Accessed 1 April 2018.
  3. 3.
    Zhu Y, Gu WJ, Wang HK, Gu CY, Ye DW. Surgical treatment of primary disease for penile squamous cell carcinoma: a surveillance, epidemiology, and end results database analysis. Oncol Lett. 2015;10(1):85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Edge S, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene F, Trotti A. AJCC Cancer Staging Handbook. New York: Springer; 2010.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    (NCCN) NCCN. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Penile Cancer Version 1.2012.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Penile Cancer, Version 1.2018.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ornellas AA, Nobrega BL, Wei Kin Chin E, Wisnescky A, da Silva PC, de Santos Schwindt AB. Prognostic factors in invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: analysis of 196 patients treated at the Brazilian National Cancer Institute. J Urol. 2008;180(4):1354–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Graafland NM, Lam W, Leijte JA, et al. Prognostic factors for occult inguinal lymph node involvement in penile carcinoma and assessment of the high-risk EAU subgroup: a two-institution analysis of 342 clinically node-negative patients. Eur Urol. 2010;58(5):742–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhu Y, Zhang HL, Yao XD, et al. Development and evaluation of a nomogram to predict inguinal lymph node metastasis in patients with penile cancer and clinically negative lymph nodes. J Urol. 2010;184(2):539–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sun M, Djajadiningrat RS, Alnajjar HM, et al. Development and external validation of a prognostic tool for prediction of cancer-specific mortality after complete loco-regional pathological staging for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. BJU Int. 2015;116(5):734–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sharma P, Djajadiningrat R, Zargar-Shoshtari K, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy is associated with improved overall survival in pelvic node-positive penile cancer after lymph node dissection: a multi-institutional study. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(11):496 e417-423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zargar-Shoshtari K, Sharma P, Djajadiningrat R, et al. Extent of pelvic lymph node dissection in penile cancer may impact survival. World J Urol. 2016;34(3):353–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baumgarten A, Chipollini J, Yan S, et al. Penile sparing surgery for penile cancer: a multicenter international retrospective cohort. J Urol. 2018;199(5):1233–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Austin PC, Lee DS, Fine JP. Introduction to the analysis of survival data in the presence of competing risks. Circulation. 2016;133(6):601–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nord H, Segersten U, Sandgren J, et al. Focal amplifications are associated with high grade and recurrences in stage Ta bladder carcinoma. Int J Cancer. 2010;126(6):1390–402.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thuret R, Sun M, Abdollah F, et al. Competing-risks analysis in patients with T1 squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. BJU Int. 2013;111(4 Pt B):E174–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kroon BK, Horenblas S, Lont AP, Tanis PJ, Gallee MP, Nieweg OE. Patients with penile carcinoma benefit from immediate resection of clinically occult lymph node metastases. J Urol. 2005;173(3):816–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Djajadiningrat RS, Graafland NM, van Werkhoven E, et al. Contemporary management of regional nodes in penile cancer-improvement of survival? J Urol. 2014;191(1):68–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leijte JA, Kirrander P, Antonini N, Windahl T, Horenblas S. Recurrence patterns of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: recommendations for follow-up based on a two-centre analysis of 700 patients. Eur Urol. 2008;54(1):161–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gopman JM, Djajadiningrat RS, Baumgarten AS, et al. Predicting postoperative complications of inguinal lymph node dissection for penile cancer in an international multicentre cohort. BJU Int. 2015;116(2):196–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matin SF, Cormier JN, Ward JF, et al. Phase 1 prospective evaluation of the oncological adequacy of robotic assisted video-endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy in patients with penile carcinoma. BJU Int. 2013;111(7):1068–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dimopoulos P, Christopoulos P, Shilito S, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Joshi SS, Handorf E, Strauss D, et al. Treatment trends and outcomes for patients with lymph node-positive cancer of the penis. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(5):643–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hernandez S, Lopez-Knowles E, Lloreta J, et al. Prospective study of FGFR3 mutations as a prognostic factor in nonmuscle invasive urothelial bladder carcinomas. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(22):3664–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gunia S, Burger M, Hakenberg OW, et al. Inherent grading characteristics of individual pathologists contribute to clinically and prognostically relevant interobserver discordance concerning Broders’ grading of penile squamous cell carcinomas. Urol Int. 2013;90(2):207–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kakies C, Lopez-Beltran A, Comperat E, et al. Reproducibility of histopathologic tumor grading in penile cancer–results of a European project. Virchows Arch. 2014;464(4):453-461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Velazquez EF, Ayala G, Liu H, et al. Histologic grade and perineural invasion are more important than tumor thickness as predictor of nodal metastasis in penile squamous cell carcinoma invading 5 to 10 mm. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32(7):974-979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cubilla AL, Velazquez EF, Amin MB, et al. The World Health Organisation 2016 classification of penile carcinomas: a review and update from the International Society of Urological Pathology expert-driven recommendations. Histopathology. 2018;72(6):893–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Paner GP, Stadler WM, Hansel DE, Montironi R, Lin DW, Amin MB. Updates in the Eighth Edition of the Tumor-Node-Metastasis Staging Classification for Urologic Cancers. Eur Urol. 2018;73(4):560-569.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yao Zhu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wei-Jie Gu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wen-Jun Xiao
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bei-He Wang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Mounsif Azizi
    • 3
  • Philippe E. Spiess
    • 3
    Email author
  • Ding-Wei Ye
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of UrologyFudan University Shanghai Cancer CenterShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical CollegeFudan UniversityShanghaiChina
  3. 3.Department of GU Oncology and Tumor BiologyMoffitt Cancer CenterTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations