Patterns of Recurrence and Survival After Pelvic Treatment for Locally Advanced Penile Cancer

Hielke M de Vries; Sarah R Ottenhof; Tynisha S Rafael; Erik van Werkhoven; Floris J Pos; Bas W G van Rhijn; Luc M F Moonen; Niels Graafland; Jeantine M de Feijter; Eva E Schaake; Simon Horenblas; Oscar R Brouwer

doi:10.1016/j.euros.2022.11.005

Patterns of Recurrence and Survival After Pelvic Treatment for Locally Advanced Penile Cancer

Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022 Dec 15:47:29-35. doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.11.005. eCollection 2023 Jan.

Affiliations

¹ Department of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
² Department of Biostatistics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
³ Department of Radiation therapy, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
⁴ Department of Internal Medicine, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Abstract

Background: Penile cancer (PeCa) is rare, and the survival of patients with advanced disease remains poor. A better understanding of where treatment fails could aid the development of new treatment strategies.

Objective: To describe the disease course after pelvic lymph node (LN) treatment for PeCa.

Design setting and participants: We retrospectively analysed 228 patients who underwent pelvic LN treatment with curative intent from 1969 to 2016. The main treatment modalities were neoadjuvant chemotherapy, chemoradiation, and pelvic LN dissection.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: In the case of multiple recurrence locations, the most distant location was taken and recorded as follows: local (penis), regional (inguinal and pelvic LN), and distant (any other location). A competing risk analysis was used to calculate the time to recurrence per location, and a Kaplan-Meier analysis was used for overall survival (OS).

Results and limitations: The median follow-up of the surviving patients was 79 mo. The reason for pelvic treatment was pelvic involvement on imaging (29%), two or more tumour-positive inguinal LNs (61%), or inguinal extranodal extension (52%). More than half of the patients (61%) developed a recurrence. The median recurrence-free survival was 11 mo. The distribution was local in 9%, regional in 27%, and distant in 64% of patients. The infield control rate of nonsystemically treated patients was 61% (113/184). From the start of pelvic treatment, the median OS was 17 mo (95% confidence interval 12-22). After regional or distant recurrence, all but one patient died of PeCa with median OS after a recurrence of 4.4 (regional) and 3.1 (distant) mo. This study is limited by its retrospective nature.

Conclusions: The prognosis of PeCa patients treated on their pelvis who recur despite locoregional treatment is poor. The tendency for systemic spread emphasises the need for more effective systemic treatment strategies.

Patient summary: In this report, we looked at the outcomes of penile cancer patients in an expert centre undergoing various treatments on their pelvis. We found that survival is poor after recurrence despite locoregional treatment. Therefore, better systemic treatments are necessary.

Keywords: Lymph node excision; Pelvis; Penile neoplasms; Recurrence; Survival.