Skip to main content
Book cover

Penile Cancer pp 55–67Cite as

Surgical Decision-Making, Technical Considerations, and Clinical Pearls in Therapeutic Inguinal Node Dissection for Penile Cancer

  • 721 Accesses

Part of the Current Clinical Urology book series (CCU)

Abstract

The presence and extent of regional lymph node (LN) metastases is the single-most-important prognostic factor in determining the long-term survival of patients with squamous penile cancer. The natural history of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis has shown that the disease tends to exhibit a prolonged locoregional phase before distant metastasis. This provides a window for potential cure with inguinal lymphadenectomy. However the selection of patients who will benefit from upfront lymphadenectomy versus those who would benefit from neoadjuvant therapy followed by consolidative surgery requires further clarification. Physical examination findings and more recently imaging play an important role in stratifying the prognosis for patients with clinically positive inguinal lymph nodes. Optimal preoperative preparation utilizing a multidisciplinary approach along with meticulous planning of surgical steps will assist in minimizing postoperative complications.

In this chapter we will focus on preoperative evaluation, operative approach, and perioperative management of patients who undergo lymphadenectomy for clinically positive inguinal lymph nodes for penile squamous carcinoma.

Keywords

  • Penile cancer
  • Squamous cell carcinoma
  • Metastasis
  • Inguinal lymphadenectomy

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-6679-0_5
  • Chapter length: 13 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-1-4939-6679-0
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Fig. 5.1
Fig. 5.2
Fig. 5.3
Fig. 5.4
Fig. 5.5
Fig. 5.6

References

  1. Horenblas S. Lymphadenectomy for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Part 1: diagnosis of lymph node metastasis. BJU Int. 2001;88(5):467–72.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Graafland NM, Lam W, Leijte JAP, Yap T, Gallee MPW, Corbishley C, 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.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lont AP, Kroon BK, Gallee MPW, van Tinteren H, Moonen LMF, Horenblas S. Pelvic lymph node dissection for penile carcinoma: extent of inguinal lymph node involvement as an indicator for pelvic lymph node involvement and survival. J Urol. 2007;177(3):947–52. Discussion 952.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Franks KN, Kancherla K, Sethugavalar B, Whelan P, Eardley I, Kiltie AE. Radiotherapy for node positive penile cancer: experience of the leeds teaching hospitals. J Urol. 2011;186(2):524–9.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Graafland NM, van Boven HH, van Werkhoven E, Moonen LMF, Horenblas S. Prognostic significance of extranodal extension in patients with pathological node positive penile carcinoma. J Urol. 2010;184(4):1347–53.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bermejo C, Busby JE, Spiess PE, Heller L, Pagliaro LC, Pettaway CA. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by aggressive surgical consolidation for metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2007;177(4):1335–8.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hakenberg OW, Nippgen JBW, Froehner M, Zastrow S, Wirth MP. Cisplatin, methotrexate and bleomycin for treating advanced penile carcinoma. BJU Int. 2006;98(6):1225–7.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sharma P, Djajadiningrat R, Zargar-Shoshtari K, Catanzaro M, Zhu Y, Nicolai N, 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.e17–23.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Graafland NM, Teertstra HJ, Besnard APE, Boven HHV, Horenblas S. Identification of high risk pathological node positive penile carcinoma: value of preoperative computerized tomography imaging. J Urol. 2011;185(3):881–7.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Senthil Kumar MP, Ananthakrishnan N, Prema V. Predicting regional lymph node metastasis in carcinoma of the penis: a comparison between fine-needle aspiration cytology, sentinel lymph node biopsy and medial inguinal lymph node biopsy. Br J Urol. 1998;81(3):453–7.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Saisorn I, Lawrentschuk N, Leewansangtong S, Bolton DM. Fine-needle aspiration cytology predicts inguinal lymph node metastasis without antibiotic pretreatment in penile carcinoma. BJU Int. 2006;97(6):1225–8.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Graafland NM, Leijte JAP, Valdés Olmos RA, Hoefnagel CA, Teertstra HJ, Horenblas S. Scanning with 18F-FDG-PET/CT for detection of pelvic nodal involvement in inguinal node-positive penile carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2009;56(2):339–45.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pagliaro LC, Williams DL, Daliani D, Williams MB, Osai W, Kincaid M, et al. Neoadjuvant paclitaxel, ifosfamide, and cisplatin chemotherapy for metastatic penile cancer: a phase II study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(24):3851–7.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Ornellas AA, Kinchin EW, Nóbrega BLB, Wisnescky A, Koifman N, Quirino R. Surgical treatment of invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: Brazilian national cancer institute long-term experience. J Surg Oncol. 2008;97(6):487–95.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zou B, Han Z, Wang Z, Bian J, Xu J, Wang H, et al. Neoadjuvant therapy combined with a BMP regimen for treating penile cancer patients with lymph node metastasis: a retrospective study in china. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2014;140(10):1733–8.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pettaway CA, Pagliaro L, Theodore C, Haas G. Treatment of visceral, unresectable, or bulky/unresectable regional metastases of penile cancer. Urology. 2010;76(2 Suppl 1):S58–65.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Leijte JAP, Kerst JM, Bais E, Antonini N, Horenblas S. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced penile carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2007;52(2):488–94.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dickstein RJ, Munsell MF, Pagliaro LC, Pettaway CA. Prognostic factors influencing survival from regionally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the penis after preoperative chemotherapy. BJU Int. 2016;117(1):118–25.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wang J, Pettaway CA, Pagliaro LC. Treatment for metastatic penile cancer after first-line chemotherapy failure: analysis of response and survival outcomes. Urology. 2015;85(5):1104–10.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ettema HB, Kollen BJ, Verheyen CCPM, Büller HR. Prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with immobilization of the lower extremities: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Thromb Haemost. 2008;6(7):1093–8.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Spiess PE, Hernandez MS, Pettaway CA. Contemporary inguinal lymph node dissection: minimizing complications. World J Urol. 2009;27(2):205–12.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kamat MR, Kulkarni JN, Tongaonkar HB. Carcinoma of the penis: the Indian experience. J Surg Oncol. 1993;52(1):50–5.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Josephs LG, Cordts PR, DiEdwardo CL, LaMorte WW, Menzoian JO. Do infected inguinal lymph nodes increase the incidence of postoperative groin wound infection? J Vasc Surg. 1993;17(6):1077–80. Discussion 1080–2.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ornellas AA, Seixas AL, de Moraes JR. Analyses of 200 lymphadenectomies in patients with penile carcinoma. J Urol. 1991;146(2):330–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Zhang X, Sheng X, Niu J, Li H, Li D, Tang L, et al. Sparing of saphenous vein during inguinal lymphadenectomy for vulval malignancies. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105(3):722–6.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cui Y, Chen H, Liu L, Chen Z, Chen J, Qi L, Zu X. Saphenous vein sparing during laparoscopic bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile carcinoma patients. Int Urol Nephrol. 2016;48(3):363–6.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Yao K, Zou Z-J, Li Z-S, Zhou F-J, Qin Z-K, Liu Z-W, et al. Fascia lata preservation during inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile cancer: rationale and outcome. Urology. 2013;82(3):642–7.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Chambers ST, Sanders J, Patton WN, Ganly P, Birch M, Crump JA, Spearing RL. Reduction of exit-site infections of tunnelled intravascular catheters among neutropenic patients by sustained-release chlorhexidine dressings: results from a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Hosp Infect. 2005;61(1):53–61.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Leijte JAP, Hughes B, Graafland NM, Kroon BK, Olmos RAV, Nieweg OE, et al. Two-center evaluation of dynamic sentinel node biopsy for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(20):3325–9.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Zargar-Shoshtari K, Djajadiningrat R, Sharma P, Catanzaro M, Zhu Y, Nicolai N, et al. Establishing criteria for bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection in the management of penile cancer: lessons learned from an international multicenter collaboration. J Urol. 2015;194(3):696–701.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gopman JM, Djajadiningrat RS, Baumgarten AS, Espiritu PN, Horenblas S, Zhu Y, 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.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Nicholson S, Kayes O, Minhas S. Clinical trial strategy for penis cancer. BJU Int. 2014;113(6):852–3.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1373, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Curtis Pettaway M.D. & Ahmed Sarhan M.D.

Authors
  1. Curtis Pettaway M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ahmed Sarhan M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed Sarhan M.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Genitourinary Oncology, Department of Tumor Biology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA

    Philippe E. Spiess

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pettaway, C., Sarhan, A. (2017). Surgical Decision-Making, Technical Considerations, and Clinical Pearls in Therapeutic Inguinal Node Dissection for Penile Cancer. In: Spiess, P. (eds) Penile Cancer. Current Clinical Urology. Humana Press, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6679-0_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6679-0_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-6677-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-6679-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)