Indian Journal of Urology Users online:2100  
IJU
Home Current Issue Ahead of print Editorial Board Archives Symposia Guidelines Subscriptions Login 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size


 
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2007  |  Volume : 23  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 81
 

EAU guidelines for management of penile cancer


Institute of Urology, University College London Hospital, United Kingdom

Correspondence Address:
Paul K Hegarty
Institute of Urology, University College London Hospital
United Kingdom
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0970-1591.30277

Rights and Permissions

 

How to cite this article:
Hegarty PK. EAU guidelines for management of penile cancer. Indian J Urol 2007;23:81

How to cite this URL:
Hegarty PK. EAU guidelines for management of penile cancer. Indian J Urol [serial online] 2007 [cited 2019 Oct 14];23:81. Available from: http://www.indianjurol.com/text.asp?2007/23/1/81/30277


Dear Sir,

I was impressed to see the attention the Journal[1],[2] pays to penile cancer. We have been using the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines for several years. The guidelines recommend prophylactic inguinal lymphadenectomy based on the stage and grade of the primary tumor. Patients with impalpable inguinal lymph nodes are categorized into low, intermediate- and high-risk groups. Cases in the intermediate risk group with lymphovascular invasion or with growth patterns that indicate aggressive disease are offered lymphadenectomy. These categories have been based upon retrospective studies. Our recent prospective data of 100 consecutive cases has shown the value of the guidelines.

Firstly, no patient in the low-risk group who had surveillance rather than inguinal node dissection, developed regional or distant metastases. Thus it is appropriate for these patients to avoid prophylactic surgery.

Of the patients for whom prophylactic dissection was prescribed, only 18% had micrometastatic disease, thus 72% were overtreated. All patients who were free of nodal metastases (N0) were cured. This serves as a great psychological relief to patients as soon as the results of histopathology return. Patients with only one superficial inguinal node involved (N1) had a 100% survival, implying that lymphadenectomy is curative in these men. N2 and N3 disease had progressively poorer survival, but still many were cured by surgery alone.

The risk of nodal involvement and death was predicted well by grade of the primary tumor, whereas the T stage was not helpful. Thus basing the criteria for prophylactic dissection on the current T stage is flawed and needs to be addressed.

Overall the EAU guidelines are helpful as they promote curative surgery albeit exposing some patients to needless morbidity. Better prognostic indicators should help in categorizing patients in the future.

 
   References Top

1.Kekre NS. Penile cancer: An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure?. Indian J Urol 2006;22:303.  Back to cited text no. 1    
2.Gopalakrishnan G. Penile cancer: How best to treat?. Indian J Urol 2006;22:337.  Back to cited text no. 2    



This article has been cited by
1 The primary result of organ-sparing surgery in the management of penilecancer
Jiana, L. and Zhu, Y. and Shilin, Z. and Xudong, Y. and Bo, D. and Dingwei, Y.
Chinese Journal of Andrology. 2011; 25(4): 14-16
[Pubmed]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
Previous article Next article

    

 
   Search
 
   Next article
   Previous article 
   Table of Contents
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Article in PDF (82 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2307    
    Printed53    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded147    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal

HEALTHWARE INDIA