Surgical treatment of primary disease for penile squamous cell carcinoma: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database analysis

Zhu,Yao; Gu,Wei‑Jie; Wang,Hong‑Kai; Gu,Cheng‑Yuan; Ye,Ding‑Wei

doi:10.3892/ol.2015.3221

Surgical treatment of primary disease for penile squamous cell carcinoma: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database analysis

Authors:
- Yao Zhu
- Wei‑Jie Gu
- Hong‑Kai Wang
- Cheng‑Yuan Gu
- Ding‑Wei Ye
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai 200032, P.R. China
Published online on: May 18, 2015 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2015.3221
Pages: 85-92
Copyright: © Zhu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Current guidelines recommend penile sparing surgery (PSS) for selected penile cancer cases. The present study described the use of PSS in a population‑based cohort, and also examined the role of PSS on penile cancer‑specific mortality (PCSM). Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database were used to identify individuals that were diagnosed with penile squamous cell carcinoma between 1998 and 2009 and treated with surgery. Patients were sorted into two groups: Local tumor excision (LTE) and partial/total penectomy (PE). Factors associated with the receipt of LTE and PCSM following LTE were examined. In addition, PCSM was compared between LTE and PE following propensity score matching. Of the 1,292 eligible patients, 24.2% underwent LTE. For stage T1 disease, the rates of LTE increased moderately from 29 to 40% over the last decade. Following multivariate analyses, young age, African descent, a tumor size of <3 cm and stage T1 disease were identified to positively influence the receipt of LTE. With a median follow‑up period of 55 months, the four‑year PCSM rate was 9.8% in patients treated with LTE. Older age, a tumor size of 3‑4 cm and regional/distant disease (SEER stage) were significant predictors of PCSM. Furthermore, in matched cohorts with stage T1 disease, the four‑year PCSM rates were 8.9 and 10.0% for patients that received LTE or PE, respectively (P=0.93). In conclusion, underuse of PSS is pronounced in the general community with significant age and ethnicity disparities. The current population‑based study provides evidence supporting the oncological safety of PSS compared with PE in early‑stage disease.

View Figures

View References

1	Leijte JA, Kirrander P, Antonini N, Windahl T and 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. 54:161–168. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Maddineni SB, Lau MM and Sangar VK: Identifying the needs of penile cancer sufferers: A systematic review of the quality of life, psychosexual and psychosocial literature in penile cancer. BMC Urol. 9:82009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Smith Y, Hadway P, Biedrzycki O, Perry MJ, Corbishley C and Watkin NA: Reconstructive surgery for invasive squamous carcinoma of the glans penis. Eur Urol. 52:1179–1185. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Agrawal A, Pai D, Ananthakrishnan N, Smile SR and Ratnakar C: The histological extent of the local spread of carcinoma of the penis and its therapeutic implications. BJU Int. 85:299–301. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Hegarty PK, Shabbir M, Hughes B, et al: Penile preserving surgery and surgical strategies to maximize penile form and function in penile cancer: Recommendations from the United Kingdom experience. World J Urol. 27:179–187. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Philippou P, Shabbir M, Malone P, et al: Conservative surgery for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: Resection margins and long-term oncological control. J Urol. 188:803–808. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Veeratterapillay R, Sahadevan K, Aluru P, Asterling S, Rao GS and Greene D: Organ-preserving surgery for penile cancer: description of techniques and surgical outcomes. BJU Int. 110:1792–1795. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Li J, Zhu Y, Zhang SL, et al: Organ-sparing surgery for penile cancer: complications and outcomes. Urology. 78:1121–1124. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Lont AP, Gallee MP, Meinhardt W, van Tinteren H and Horenblas S: Penis conserving treatment for T1 and T2 penile carcinoma: Clinical implications of a local recurrence. J Urol. 176:575–580. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK and Wittekind C: TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. 7th; Wiley-Blackwell; Oxford: 2009
11	Solsona E, Bahl A, Brandes SB, et al: New developments in the treatment of localized penile cancer. Urology. 76:(Suppl 1). S36–S42. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Pizzocaro G, Algaba F, Horenblas S, et al: European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines Group on Penile Cancer: EAU penile cancer guidelines 2009. Eur Urol. 57:1002–1012. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	National Comprehensive Cancer Network, . Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.aspAccessed. December 2–2013
14	National Cancer Institute, . SEER*Stat Databases. November;2011.Submission. http://seer.cancer.gov/data/seerstat/nov2011/Accessed. February 4–2014
15	Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, Fritz A, Haller DG and Morrow M: AJCC cancer staging manual. 6th. Springer-Verlag; Berlin, Germany: 2002, View Article : Google Scholar
16	Thuret R, Sun M, Abdollah F, et al: Competing-risks analysis in patients with T1 squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. BJU Int. 111:E174–E179. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Gray RJ: A class of K-sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann Stat. 16:1141–1154. 1988. View Article : Google Scholar
18	Fine JP and Gray RJ: A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc. 94:496–509. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar
19	Rosenbaum PR and Rubin DB: Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc. 79:516–524. 1984. View Article : Google Scholar
20	Morelli G, Pagni R, Mariani C, et al: Glansectomy with split-thickness skin graft for the treatment of penile carcinoma. Int J Impot Res. 21:311–314. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Feldman AS and McDougal WS: Long-term outcome of excisional organ sparing surgery for carcinoma of the penis. J Urol. 186:1303–1307. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	O'Kane HF, Pahuja A, Ho KJ, Thwaini A, Nambirajan T and Keane P: Outcome of glansectomy and skin grafting in the management of penile cancer. Adv Urol. 2011:2408242011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Li P, Song N, Yin C, et al: Glans-preserving surgery for superficial penile cancer. J Androl. 33:435–440. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Tal R, Jacks LM, Elkin E and Mulhall JP: Penile implant utilization following treatment for prostate cancer: analysis of the SEER-Medicare database. J Sex Med. 8:1797–1804. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Mohs FE, Snow SN, Messing EM and Kuglitsch ME: Microscopically controlled surgery in the treatment of carcinoma of the penis. J Urol. 133:961–966. 1985.PubMed/NCBI
26	Spyropoulos E, Borousas D, Mavrikos S, Dellis A, Bourounis M and Athanasiadis S: Size of external genital organs and somatometric parameters among physically normal men younger than 40 years old. Urol. 60:485–491. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Palminteri E, Berdondini E, Lazzeri M, Mirri F and Barbagli G: Resurfacing and reconstruction of the glans penis. Eur Urol. 52:893–898. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Joura EA: Epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment of vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 14:39–43. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Bezerra AL, Lopes A, Santiago GH, Ribeiro KC, Latorre MR and Villa LL: Human papillomavirus as a prognostic factor in carcinoma of the penis: Analysis of 82 patients treated with amputation and bilateral lymphadenectomy. Cancer. 91:2315–2321. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
30	Rubin MA, Kleter B, Zhou M, et al: Detection and typing of human papillomavirus DNA in penile carcinoma: Evidence for multiple independent pathways of penile carcinogenesis. Am J Pathol. 159:1211–1218. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
31	Morris CR, Cohen R, Schlag R and Wright WE: Increasing trends in the use of breast-conserving surgery in California. Am J Public Health. 90:281–284. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI