2021European Urology Open ScienceOpen access

Practice Patterns Among Penile Cancer Surgeons Performing Dynamic Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy and Radical Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection in Men with Penile Cancer: A eUROGEN Survey

Christian D. Fankhauser, Benjamin Ayres, Allaudin Issa, Maarten Albersen, Nick Watkin, Asıf Muneer, Vijay Sangar, Arie Parnham

Open full text 17 citations

Abstract

Dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy (DSNB) and radical inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) are important in the management of penile cancer patients, but high-level evidence for preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative management remains scarce. According to an online survey of 35 surgeons from ten European countries, 57% perform >10 ILND procedures per year and 86% offer DSNB. Furthermore, management differs substantially for dye injection site, use of lymphoscintigraphy, preferred incision sites, techniques for lymphatic control, duration of empiric antibiotic therapy, perioperative thromboprophylaxis, time points for drain removal, and definition of the ILND dissection floor. Consensus was observed for the use of perioperative antibiotics (although not duration and type) and the borders for ILND template definitions. We conclude that there is significant variation in patient management among eUROGEN penile cancer surgeons. This heterogeneity may confound multicentre studies; therefore, a consensus to standardise inguinal node management in penile cancer across European penile cancer centres is warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our survey reveals that preferences and surgical techniques for inguinal lymph node sampling and removal varies significantly between European penile cancer surgeons. Consensus is needed to standardise the management approach for penile cancer.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy (DSNB) and radical inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) are important in the management of penile cancer patients, but high-level evidence for preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative management remains scarce. According to an online survey of 35 surgeons from ten European countries, 57% perform >10 ILND procedures per year and 86% offer DSNB. Furthermore, management differs substantially for dye injection site, use of lymphoscintigraphy, preferred incision sites, techniques for lymphatic control, duration of empiric antibiotic therapy, perioperative thromboprophylaxis, time points for drain removal, and definition of the ILND dissection floor. Consensus was observed for the use of perioperative antibiotics (although not duration and type) and the borders for ILND template definitions. We conclude that there is significant variation in patient management among eUROGEN penile cancer surgeons. This heterogeneity may confound multicentre studies; therefore, a consensus to standardise inguinal node management in penile cancer across European penile cancer centres is warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our survey reveals that preferences and surgical techniques for inguinal lymph node sampling and removal varies significantly between European penile cancer surgeons. Consensus is needed to standardise the management approach for penile cancer.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 17 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy (DSNB) and radical inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) are important in the management of penile cancer patients, but high-level evidence for preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative management remains scarce. According to an online survey of 35 surgeons from ten European countries, 57% perform >10 ILND procedures per year and 86% offer DSNB. Furthermore, management differs substantially for dye injection site, use of lymphoscintigraphy, preferred incision sites, techniques for lymphatic control, duration of empiric antibiotic therapy, perioperative thromboprophylaxis, time points for drain removal, and definition of the ILND dissection floor. Consensus was observed for the use of perioperative antibiotics (although not duration and type) and the borders for ILND template definitions. We conclude that there is significant variation in patient management among eUROGEN penile cancer surgeons. This heterogeneity may confound multicentre studies; therefore, a consensus to standardise inguinal node management in penile cancer across European penile cancer centres is warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our survey reveals that preferences and surgical techniques for inguinal lymph node sampling and removal varies significantly between European penile cancer surgeons. Consensus is needed to standardise the management approach for penile cancer.

Key concepts: Penile cancer, Medicine, Perioperative, Inguinal lymph nodes, Dissection (medical), Sentinel lymph node, Lymph node, Cancer

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Practice Patterns Among Penile Cancer Surgeons Performing Dynamic Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy and Radical Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection in Men with Penile Cancer: A eUROGEN Survey — Research Paper | ScholarLens