Skip to main content

Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Penile Cancer: Answering the Conundrum of When and How It Should Be Conducted

  • 727 Accesses

Part of the Current Clinical Urology book series (CCU)

Abstract

Extent of lymphatic metastases is an important prognostic factor in penile cancer patients, and patients with pelvic lymph node involvement have particularly bad long-term survival. Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in pelvic node positive cases with micro-metastatic disease exclusively may have some curative potential with surgery alone, but for penile cancer patients with clinically enlarged or suspicious pelvic lymph nodes on cross-sectional imaging with CT, MRI, or PET-CT, neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy is recommended followed by post-chemotherapy lymphadenectomy in responders. PLND can be done at the same time as inguinal lymph node dissection (with use of intraoperative frozen section) or in a delayed fashion through an open, midline, infraumbilical incision, or using robotic-assisted or laparoscopic technology. Since no crossover from inguinal to pelvic LNs has ever been reported, the use of unilateral versus bilateral PLND is still considered controversial in clinically indicated settings. There is increasing evidence, however, that bilateral PLND may be appropriate for certain high-risk penile cancer patients with a large volume of inguinal metastatic disease. In this chapter, we summarize the indications, technique, and controversies of pelvic lymph node dissection for advanced penile cancer, and we present novel evidence with regards to its use.

Keywords

  • Penile cancer
  • Pelvic nodal disease
  • Pelvic lymph node dissection
  • Indications
  • Surgical technique
  • Outcomes

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-6679-0_7
  • Chapter length: 12 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)
Fig. 7.1
Fig. 7.2
Fig. 7.3
Fig. 7.4

References

  1. Pow-Sang MR, Ferreira U, Pow-Sang JM, et al. Epidemiology and natural history of penile cancer. Urology. 2010;76:S2.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kroon BK, Valdes Olmos RA, van Tinteren H, et al. Reproducibility of lymphoscintigraphy for lymphatic mapping in patients with penile carcinoma. J Urol. 2005;174:2214.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Leijte JA, Valdes Olmos RA, Nieweg OE, et al. Anatomical mapping of lymphatic drainage in penile carcinoma with SPECT-CT: implications for the extent of inguinal lymph node dissection. Eur Urol. 2008;54:885.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wood HM, Angermeier KW. Anatomic considerations of the penis, lymphatic drainage, and biopsy of the sentinel node. Urol Clin North Am. 2010;37:327.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Liu JY, Li YH, Zhang ZL, et al. The risk factors for the presence of pelvic lymph node metastasis in penile squamous cell carcinoma patients with inguinal lymph node dissection. World J Urol. 2013;31:1519.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lont AP, Kroon BK, Gallee MP, et al. 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;177:947.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lughezzani G, Catanzaro M, Torelli T, et al. The relationship between characteristics of inguinal lymph nodes and pelvic lymph node involvement in penile squamous cell carcinoma: a single institution experience. J Urol. 2014;191:977.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wang JY, Zhu Y, Tang SX, et al. Prognostic significance of the degree of extranodal extension in patients with penile carcinoma. Asian J Androl. 2014;16:437.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Djajadiningrat RS, van Werkhoven E, Horenblas S. Prophylactic pelvic lymph node dissection in patients with penile cancer. J Urol. 2015;193:1976.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nelson BA, Cookson MS, Smith Jr JA, et al. Complications of inguinal and pelvic lymphadenectomy for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: a contemporary series. J Urol. 2004;172:494.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Zargar-Shoshtari K, Djajadiningrat R, Sharma P, 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;194:696.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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;34:353.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Giannatempo P, Paganoni A, Sangalli L, et al. Survival analyses of adjuvant or neoadjuvant combination of a taxane plus cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (T-PF) in patients with bulky nodal metastases from squamous cell carcinoma of the penis (PSCC): results of a single high-volume center. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Graafland NM, Leijte JA, Valdes Olmos RA, et al. Scanning with 18F-FDG-PET/CT for detection of pelvic nodal involvement in inguinal node-positive penile carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2009;56:339.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hakenberg OW, Comperat EM, Minhas S, et al. EAU guidelines on penile cancer: 2014 update. Eur Urol. 2015;67:142.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Spiess PE, National Comprehensive Cancer Network. New treatment guidelines for penile cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013;11:659.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Leijte JA, Kirrander P, Antonini N, et al. 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;54:161.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lopes A, Bezerra AL, Serrano SV, et al. Iliac nodal metastases from carcinoma of the penis treated surgically. BJU Int. 2000;86:690.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hakenberg OW, Nippgen JB, Froehner M, et al. Cisplatin, methotrexate and bleomycin for treating advanced penile carcinoma. BJU Int. 2006;98:1225.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Maiche AG. Adjuvant treatment using bleomycin in squamous cell carcinoma of penis: study of 19 cases. Br J Urol. 1983;55:542.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pizzocaro G, Piva L, Bandieramonte G, et al. Up-to-date management of carcinoma of the penis. Eur Urol. 1997;32:5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sonpavde G, Pagliaro LC, Buonerba C, et al. Penile cancer: current therapy and future directions. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:1179.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Pizzocaro G, Piva L. Adjuvant and neoadjuvant vincristine, bleomycin, and methotrexate for inguinal metastases from squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Acta Oncol. 1988;27:823.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Noronha V, Patil V, Ostwal V, et al. Role of paclitaxel and platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk penile cancer. Urol Ann. 2012;4:150.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Houede N, Dupuy L, Flechon A, et al. Intermediate analysis of a phase II trial assessing gemcitabine and cisplatin in locoregional or metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma. BJU Int. 2015;117(3):444–9.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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;33:496.e17.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Bermejo C, Busby JE, Spiess PE, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by aggressive surgical consolidation for metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2007;177:1335.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Leijte JA, Kerst JM, Bais E, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced penile carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2007;52:488.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pagliaro LC, Williams DL, Daliani D, et al. Neoadjuvant paclitaxel, ifosfamide, and cisplatin chemotherapy for metastatic penile cancer: a phase II study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3851.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Dickstein RJ, Munsell MF, Pagliaro LC, et al. 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 

  31. Graafland NM, Moonen LM, van Boven HH, et al. Inguinal recurrence following therapeutic lymphadenectomy for node positive penile carcinoma: outcome and implications for management. J Urol. 2011;185:888.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kulkarni JN, Kamat MR. Prophylactic bilateral groin node dissection versus prophylactic radiotherapy and surveillance in patients with N0 and N1-2A carcinoma of the penis. Eur Urol. 1994;26:123.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Franks KN, Kancherla K, Sethugavalar B, et al. Radiotherapy for node positive penile cancer: experience of the Leeds teaching hospitals. J Urol. 2011;186:524.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lucky MA, Rogers B, Parr NJ. Referrals into a dedicated British penile cancer centre and sources of possible delay. Sex Transm Infect. 2009;85:527.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Burt LM, Shrieve DC, Tward JD. Stage presentation, care patterns, and treatment outcomes for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88:94.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Clark PE, Spiess PE, Agarwal N, et al. Penile cancer: clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013;11:594.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Yuh B, Artibani W, Heidenreich A, et al. The role of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection in the management of high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2014;65:918.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philippe E. Spiess M.D., M.S., F.R.C.S(C.) .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sharma, P., Zargar-Shoshtari, K., Zargar, H., Spiess, P.E. (2017). Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Penile Cancer: Answering the Conundrum of When and How It Should Be Conducted. In: Spiess, P. (eds) Penile Cancer. Current Clinical Urology. Humana Press, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6679-0_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6679-0_7

  • 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)