Advertisement

Total Glans Resurfacing for the Management of Superficial Penile Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis in a Tertiary Referral Center

      Abstract

      OBJECTIVES

      To report surgical and oncological outcomes of total glans resurfacing in a consecutive series of superficial penile cancers.

      DESIGN, SETTINGS AND PARTECIPANTS

      26 patients were enrolled in the present trial. A retrospective analysis was conducted. Inclusion criteria were age < 80, “de novo” malignancy, clinically suspected superficial disease and disease confirmation by a penile biopsy. Clinically palpable corporeal or urethral involvement, high histological grade, clinically palpable nodes on physical examination and unwillingness to comply with follow-up were considered as exclusion criteria.

      OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

      Descriptive features and surgical outcomes were extrapolated from the clinical records. The categorical variables were described using frequency and percentage, and the continuous variables were described using median and interquartile range (IQR) value. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate survival over time.

      RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

      Median follow-up was 38 (IQR 13-86) months. Median age was 65 (IQR 55-68). An history of lichen sclerosus was reported by 50% of patients. No intraoperative complications were reported. Median hospital stay was 5 (IQR 2-6) days. Final histology confirmed superficial disease in 42.4% and T1 in 53.8%. T2 was detected in a single case. Postoperative complications were minimal (3.8%). No regional nodal recurrence was reported. At Kaplan-Meier analysis, overall survival rate was 100% at 1 year, 1-year recurrence free survival was 96.1% and 2-year recurrence free survival was 88.5%.

      CONCLUSION

      Total glans resurfacing may represent an excellent option for organ preserving surgery in patients with a superficial penile cancer. Surgical and oncological outcomes proved to be satisfactory.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Barnholtz-Sloan JS
        • Maldonado JL
        • Pow-sang J
        • Giuliano AR
        • Guiliano AR
        Incidence trends in primary malignant penile cancer.
        Urol Oncol. 2007; 25: 361-367https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2006.08.029
        • Misra S
        • Chaturvedi A
        • Misra NC
        Penile carcinoma: a challenge for the developing world.
        Lancet Oncol. 2004; 5: 240-247https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(04)01427-5
        • 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. 2012; 188: 803-808https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.05.012
        • Minhas S
        • Kayes O
        • Hegarty P
        • Kumar P
        • Freeman A
        • Ralph D
        What surgical resection margins are required to achieve oncological control in men with primary penile cancer?.
        BJU Int. 2005; 96: 1040-1043https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05769.x
        • Sedigh O
        • Falcone M
        • Ceruti C
        • et al.
        Sexual function after surgical treatment for penile cancer: which organ sparing approach gives the best results?.
        Can Urol Assoc J. 2015; 9 (E423-7)https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2801
        • Kumar V
        • Sethia KK
        Prospective study comparing video-endoscopic radical inguinal lymph node dissection (VEILND) with open radical ILND (OILND) for penile cancer over an 8-year period.
        BJU Int. 2017; 119: 530-534https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13660
        • Sedigh O
        • Preto M
        • Soleimanzadeh F
        • et al.
        Role of perioperative dynamic sentinel node biopsy for cN0 penile cancer management: experience from an Italian tertiary referral center.
        Tumori. 2018; : 104https://doi.org/10.5301/tj.5000700
        • Hakenberg OW
        • Compérat EM
        • Minhas S
        • Necchi A
        • Protzel C
        • Watkin N
        EAU guidelines on penile cancer: 2014 update.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 142-150https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.017
        • Parnham AS
        • Albersen M
        • Sahdev V
        • et al.
        Surgery in motion glansectomy and split-thickness skin graft for penile cancer.
        Eur Urol. 2018; 73: 284-289https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.09.048
        • Musi G
        • Russo A
        • Conti A
        • et al.
        Thulium–yttrium–aluminium–garnet (Tm:YAG) laser treatment of penile cancer: oncological results, functional outcomes, and quality of life.
        World J Urol. 2018; 36: 265-270https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2144-z
        • Bandieramonte G
        • Colecchia M
        • Mariani L
        • et al.
        Peniscopically controlled CO2 laser excision for conservative treatment of In Situ and T1 penile carcinoma: report on 224 patients.
        Eur Urol. 2008; 54: 875-884https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.01.019
        • Gulino G
        • Sasso F
        • Falabella R
        • Bassi PF
        Distal urethral reconstruction of the glans for penile carcinoma: results of a novel technique at 1-year of followup.
        J Urol. 2007; 178: 941-944https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.059
        • Malone PR
        • Thomas JS
        • Blick C
        A tie-over dressing for graft application in distal penectomy and glans resurfacing: The TODGA technique.
        BJU Int. 2011; 107: 836-840https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09576.x
        • Chipollini J
        • Yan S
        • Ottenhof SR
        • et al.
        Surgical management of penile carcinoma in situ : results from an international collaborative study and review of the literature.
        BJU Int. 2018; 121: 393-398https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14037
        • Baumgarten A
        • Chipollini J
        • Yan S
        • et al.
        Penile sparing surgery for penile cancer: a multicenter international retrospective cohort.
        J Urol. 2018; 199: 1233-1237https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.10.045
        • O'Kelly F
        • Lonergan P
        • Lundon D
        • et al.
        A prospective study of total glans resurfacing for localized penile cancer to maximize oncologic and functional outcomes in a tertiary referral network.
        J Urol. 2017; 197: 1258-1263https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.12.089
        • Kamel MH
        • Bissada N
        • Warford R
        • Farias J
        • Davis R
        Organ sparing surgery for penile cancer: a systematic review.
        J Urol. 2017; 198: 770-779https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.01.088
        • Machan M
        • Brodland D
        • Zitelli J
        Penile squamous cell carcinoma: penis-preserving treatment with Mohs micrographic surgery.
        Dermatologic Surg. 2016; 42: 936-944https://doi.org/10.1097/DSS.0000000000000795
        • Palminteri E
        • Fusco F
        • Berdondini E
        • Salonia A
        Aesthetic neo-glans reconstruction after penis-sparing surgery for benign, premalignant or malignant penile lesions.
        Arab J Urol. 2011; 9: 115-120https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2011.06.013
        • Shabbir M
        • Muneer A
        • Kalsi J
        • et al.
        Glans resurfacing for the treatment of carcinoma in situ of the penis: surgical technique and outcomes.
        Eur Urol. 2011; 59: 142-147https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.09.039
        • Hadway P
        • Corbishley CM
        • Watkin NA
        Total glans resurfacing for premalignant lesions of the penis: Initial outcome data.
        BJU Int. 2006; 98: 532-536https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06368.x
        • Hoffman MA
        • Renshaw AA
        • Loughlin KR
        Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis and microscopic pathologic margins: how much margin is needed for local cure?.
        Cancer. 1999; 85: 1565-1568
        • Albersen M
        • Parnham A
        • Ch MBB
        • et al.
        Predictive factors for local recurrence after glansectomy and neoglans reconstruction for penile squamous cell carcinoma.
        Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig. 2018; 36: 141-146https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.07.025
        • Djajadiningrat RS
        • van Werkhoven E
        • Meinhardt W
        • et al.
        Penile sparing surgery for penile cancer-does it affect survival?.
        J Urol. 2014; 192: 120-125https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.12.038
        • Goette DK
        • Carson TE
        Erythroplasia of Queyrat: treatment with topical 5-fluorouracil.
        Cancer. 1976; 38 (doi:10.1002/1097-0142(197610)38:4<1498::aid-cncr2820380409>3.0.co;2-#): 1498-1502
        • Lucky M
        • Murthy KVR
        • Rogers B
        • et al.
        The treatment of penile carcinoma in situ (CIS) within a UK supra-regional network.
        BJU Int. 2015; 115: 595-598https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12878
        • Palminteri E
        • Berdondini E
        • Lazzeri M
        • Mirri F
        • Barbagli G
        Resurfacing and reconstruction of the glans penis.
        Eur Urol. 2007; 52: 893-900https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.01.047