Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Adherence to EAU guidelines on penile cancer translates into better outcomes: a multicenter international study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

We aimed to evaluate adherence to the EAU guidelines (GL) on penile cancer (PC) with regard to primary surgical treatment and management of lymph nodes and to estimate the influence of adherence to GL on clinical outcome.

Materials and methods

This is a retrospective multicenter study (PEnile Cancer ADherence study, PECAD Study) on PC patients treated at 12 European and American centers between 2010 and 2016. Adherence to the EAU GL on the surgical management of the primary penile tumor and lymphadenectomy was evaluated. Descriptive analyses were performed, and survival curves were estimated.

Results

Data on 425 patients were considered for the analysis. The EAU GL on surgical treatment of the primary tumor and lymphadenectomy were respected in 74.8% and 73.7% of cases, respectively. Survival analysis showed that adherence to the GL on primary penile surgery was significantly associated with a good overall survival [adjusted HR 0.40 (95% CI 0.20–0.83, p value = 0.014)]. Also, the adherence to the GL on lymphadenectomy was statistically significantly associated with overall survival [adjusted HR 0.48 (95% CI 0.24–0.96, p value = 0.038)]. Limited follow-up and retrospective design represent limitations of this study.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that there is a good adherence to the EAU GL on PC. However, this should be further reinforced, endorsed and encouraged as it might translate into better clinical outcomes for PC patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barnholtz-Sloan JS, Maldonado JL, Pow-sang J, Giuliano AR (2007) Incidence trends in primary malignant penile cancer. Urol Oncol 25:361–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Christodoulidou M, Sahdev V, Houssein S, Muneer A (2005) Epidemiology of penile cancer. Curr Probl Cancer 39:126–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A et al (2016) Cancer statistics 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 66:7–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Djajadiningrat RS, Graafland NM, van Werkhoven E et al (2014) Contemporary management of regional nodes in penile cancer-improvement of survival? J Urol 191:68–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Pandey D, Mahajan V, Kannan RR (2006) Prognostic factors in node-positive carcinoma of the penis. J Surg Oncol 93:133–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hakenberg OW, Compérat EM, Minhas S et al (2015) EAU guidelines on penile cancer: 2014 update. Eur Urol 67:142–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lont AP, Gallee MP, Meinhardt W, van Tinteren H, Horenblas S (2006) Penis conserving treatment for T1 and T2 penile carcinoma: clinical implications of a local recurrence. J Urol 176:575–580

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Clark PE, Spiess PE, Agarwal N et al (2013) Penile cancer: clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 11:594–615

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Baumgarten A, Chipollini J, Yan S et al (2017) Penile sparing surgery for penile cancer: a multicenter international retrospective cohort. J Urol 199(5):1233–1237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kamel MH, Tao J, Su J et al (2018) Survival outcomes of organ sparing surgery, partial penectomy, and total penectomy in pathological T1/T2 penile cancer: report from the National Cancer Data Base. Urol Oncol. 36(2):82.e7–82.e15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kirrander P, Sherif A, Friedrich B, Lambe M, Hakansson U (2016) Swedish national penile cancer register: incidence, tumour characteristics, management and survival. BJU Int 117:287–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hughes BE, Leijte JA, Kroon BK et al (2010) Lymph node metastasis in intermediate-risk penile squamous cell cancer: a two-centre experience. Eur Urol 57(4):688–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Graafland NM, Lam W, Leijte JA et al (2010) 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 58(5):742–747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. da Costa WH, Rosa de Oliveira RA et al (2016) Prognostic factors in patients with penile carcinoma and inguinal lymph node metastasis. Int J Urol 22:669–673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Zargar-Shoshtari K, Sharma P, Djajadiningrat R et al (2016) Extent of pelvic lymph node dissection in penile cancer may impact survival. World J Urol 34:353–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhu Y, Gu CY, Ye DW (2014) Population-based assessment of the number of lymph nodes removed in the treatment of penile squamous cell carcinoma. Urol Int 92:186–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Joshi SS, Handorf E, Strauss D, et al. (2018) Treatment trends and outcomes for patients with lymph node-positive cancer of the penis. JAMA Oncol https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.5608. [Epub ahead of print]

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Johnson TV, Hsiao W, Delman KA et al (2010) Extensive inguinal lymphadenectomy improves overall 5-year survival in penile cancer patients: results from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program. Cancer 116:2960–2966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Heins MJ, de Jong JD, Spronk I, Ho VK, Brink M, Korevaar JC (2017) Adherence to cancer treatment guidelines: influence of general and cancer-specific guideline characteristics. Eur J Public Health 27(4):616–620

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR et al (1999) Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA 282:1458–1465

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rieken M, Djajadiningrat RS, Kluth LA et al (2014) Predictors of cancer-specific mortality after disease recurrence in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Eur Urol 66:811–814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Campbell RA, Slopnick EA, Ferry EK, Zhu H, Kim SP, Abouassaly R (2017) Disparity between pre-existing management of penile cancer and NCC guidelines. Urol Oncol 35(8):531.e9–531.e14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tang DH, Yan S, Ottenhof SR, Draeger D et al (2018) Laser ablation as monotherapy for penile squamous cell carcinoma: a multi-center cohort analysis. Urol Oncol. 36(4):147–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Albersen M, Parnham A, Joniau S et al (2017) Predictive factors for local recurrence after glansectomy and neoglans reconstruction for penile squamous cell carcinoma. Urol Oncol pii S1078–1439(17):30387–30388

    Google Scholar 

  25. Thuret R, Sun M, Lughezzani G, Budaus L et al (2011) A contemporary population-based assessment of the rate of lymphnode dissection for penile carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 18:439–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Breen KJ, O’Connor KM, Power DG, Mayer NJ, Rogers E, Sweeney P (2005) Penile cancer-guidelines adherence produces optimum results. Surgeon 13(4):200–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sharma P, Zargar H, Spiess PE (2016) Surgical advances in inguinal lymph node dissection: optimizing treatment outcomes. Urol Clin North Am 43:457–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Spiess PE, Hernandez MS, Pettaway CA (2009) Contemporary inguinal lymph node dissection: minimizing complications. World J Urol 27:205–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Leijte JAP, Kirrander P, Antonini N, Windahl T, Horenblas S (2008) Recurrence patterns of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: recommendations for follow-up based on a two-centre analysis of 700 patients. Eur Urol 54:161–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Briganti A, MacLennan S, Marconi L, Plass K, N’Dow J (2016) European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines: do we care? Reflections from the EAU impact assessment of guidelines implementation and education group. BJU Int 117(6):850–851

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, ASL 2 Abruzzo, Hospital “S. Pio da Pietrelcina”, Vasto, Italy

    Luca Cindolo & Maida Bada

  2. Department of Genitourinary Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA

    Philippe E. Spiess & Juan J. Chipollini

  3. Department of Urology, Hospital of Budapest, Budapest, Hungary

    Peter Nyirády & Judith Varga

  4. Medical Statistics Unit, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Naples, Italy

    Paolo Chiodini

  5. Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, Urology and Andrology Unit II, University of Bari, Bari, Italy

    Pasquale Ditonno & Michele Battaglia

  6. Department of Urology, Hospital “Sant’ Andrea”, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

    Cosimo De Nunzio & Giorgia Tema

  7. Department of Urology, Hospital “Spedali Civili”, Brescia, Italy

    Alessandro Veccia & Alessandro Antonelli

  8. Department of Urology, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Gennaro Musi, Ottavio De Cobelli & Andrea Conti

  9. Department of Urology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy

    Salvatore Micali

  10. Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain

    Mario Álvarez-Maestro & José Quesada Olarte

  11. Department of Urology, Ceara Cancer Institute, Fortaleza, Brazil

    Erico Diogenes & Marcos Venicio Alves Lima

  12. Department of Urology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA

    Andrew Tracey, Georgi Guruli & Riccardo Autorino

  13. Department of Urology, General Hospital of Veria, Veria, Greece

    Petros Sountoulides

  14. Department of Urology, “G.D’Annunzio” University, Chieti, Italy

    Luigi Schips

Authors
  1. Luca Cindolo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Philippe E. Spiess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maida Bada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Juan J. Chipollini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter Nyirády
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Paolo Chiodini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Judith Varga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Pasquale Ditonno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Michele Battaglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Cosimo De Nunzio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Giorgia Tema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Alessandro Veccia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Alessandro Antonelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Gennaro Musi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Ottavio De Cobelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Andrea Conti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Salvatore Micali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Mario Álvarez-Maestro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. José Quesada Olarte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Erico Diogenes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Marcos Venicio Alves Lima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Andrew Tracey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Georgi Guruli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  24. Riccardo Autorino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  25. Petros Sountoulides
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  26. Luigi Schips
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luca Cindolo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cindolo, L., Spiess, P.E., Bada, M. et al. Adherence to EAU guidelines on penile cancer translates into better outcomes: a multicenter international study. World J Urol 37, 1649–1657 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2549-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2549-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation