A single-centre experience of the management of inguinal lymph nodes associated with penile squamous-cell carcinoma

Abstract

Background:

Twenty-two cases of penile carcinoma that were managed at our institution over a 5-year period were analysed on the basis of inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND), complications and follow-up.

Methods:

A total of 22 cases post penectomy were stratified into low risk (T1 G1 or G2 without lympho-vascular invasion and negative on fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC)) and high risk (T1 G3 and above and/or lympho-vascular invasion). Low-risk patients having palpable lymphadenopathy were given a course of antibiotics. If the lymph nodes were still palpable, FNAC was done, and patients then underwent superficial ILND (SILND) or even ILND in cases with positive frozen-section reports. In the high-risk group, all patients underwent SILND, and if required, underwent ILND. Two patients in the high-risk group were lost to follow-up after 9 months. Histopathology reports were noted, and patients were followed up for 2 years.

Results:

In the low-risk group, seven patients had palpable lymph nodes and underwent SILND. The remaining five patients were put on surveillance. Amongst the seven who underwent SILND, six were positive at frozen section, requiring ILND. Nine patients in the high-risk group underwent ILND. Four patients in the ILND group had a minor wound infection. Lymphoedema was seen in two patients which was managed conservatively, and lymphorrhoea was seen in one patient. Flap necrosis occurred in one patient. Recurrences were seen in three patients in the high-risk group. Two who had deep node involvement and who had early nodal recurrence underwent bilateral ILND. One patient in the high-risk group had late ipsilateral nodal recurrence and underwent ipsilateral ILND. There were no regional recurrences.

Conclusion:

Carcinoma of the penis has high morbidity because of delayed presentation, lack of awareness and poor compliance. This necessitates staging SILND in all high-risk cases for therapeutic and prognostic purposes.

Keywords

Carcinoma penis inguinal lymph node dissection metastasis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Pagliaro

Crook

Multimodality therapy in penile cancer: when and which treatments?

World J Urol 2009; 27: 221–225.

Lau

Ong

Lim

, et al. Penile cancer: a local case series and literature review. Singapore Med J 2015; 56: 637–640.

Leveridge

Siemens

Morash

What next? Managing lymph nodes in men with penile cancer. Can Urol Assoc J 2008; 2: 525–531.

Dewire

Lepor

Anatomic considerations of the penis and its lymphatic drainage. Urol Clin North Am 1992; 19: 211–219.

Lont

Kroon

Gallee

MPW

, et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection for penile carcinoma: extent of inguinal lymph node involvement as an indicator for pelvic lymph node involvement and survival. J Urol 2007; 177: 947–952.

Culkin

Beer

TM.

Advanced penile carcinoma. J Urol 2003; 170: 359–365.

Heyns

Mendoza-Valdés

Pompeo

AC.

Diagnosis and staging of penile cancer. Urology 2010; 76: S15–23.

Pettaway

Lance

Davis

JW.

Tumors of the penis. In: Wein

Kavoussi

Novick

Partin

Peters

(eds) Campbell–Walsh urology. 10th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Health Sciences, 2011, pp.901–933.

Horenblas

Van Tinteren

Delemarre

, et al. Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: accuracy of tumour, nodes and metastasis classification system, and role of lymphangiography, computerized tomography scan and fine needle aspiration cytology. J Urol 1991; 146: 1279–1283.

10.

Horenblas

Lymphadenectomy for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Part 1: diagnosis of lymph node metastasis. BJU Int 2001; 88: 467–472.

11.

Bevan-Thomas

Slaton

Pettaway

. Contemporary morbidity from lymphadenectomy for penile squamous cell carcinoma: the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center experience. J Urol 2002; 167: 1638–1642.

12.

Bouchot

Rigaud

Maillet

, et al. Morbidity of inguinal lymphadenectomy for invasive penile carcinoma. Eur Urol 2004; 45: 761–766.

13.

Nelson

Cookson

Smith

Jr , et al. Complication of inguinal and pelvic lymphadenctomy for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: a contemporary series. J Urol 2004; 172: 494–497.

14.

Ornellas

Correia Seixas

Marota

, et al. Surgical treatment of invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: retrospective analysis of 350 cases. J Urol 1994; 151: 1244–1249.

15.

Solsona

Algaba

Horenblas

, et al. European Association of Urology. EAU guidelines on penile cancer. Eur Urol 2004; 46: 1–8.

16.

Horenblas

Lymphadenectomy for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Part 2: the role and technique of lymph node dissection. BJU Int 2001; 88: 473–483.

17.

Catalona

WJ.

Modified inguinal lymphadenectomy for carcinoma of the penis with preservation of saphenous veins: technique and preliminary results. J Urol 1988; 140: 306–310.

18.

Jacobellis

Modified radical inguinal lymphadenectomy for carcinoma of the penis: technique and results. J Urol 2003; 169: 1349–1352.

19.

Lam

Alnajjar

La-Touche

, et al. Dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: a prospective study of the long-term outcome of 500 inguinal basins assessed at a single institution. Eur Urol 2013; 63: 657–663.

20.

Harisinghani

Barentsz

Hahn

, et al. Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 2491–2499.

21.

Tabatabaei

Harisinghani

McDougal

WS.

Regional lymph node staging using lymphotropic nanoparticle enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with ferumoxtran-10 in patients with penile cancer. J Urol 2005; 174: 923.

22.

Scher

Seitz

Reiser

, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT for staging of penile cancer. J Nucl Med 2005; 46: 1460–1465.

23.

Guimaraes

Lopes

Campos

RSM

, et al. Front pattern of invasion in squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: new prognostic factor for predicting risk of lymph node metastases. Urology 2006; 68: 148–153.

24.

Ficarra

Zattoni

Cunico

, et al. Lymphatic and vascular embolizations are independent predictive variables of inguinal lymph node involvement in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Cancer 2005; 103: 2507–2516.

25.

Solsona

Iborra

Rubio

, et al. Prospective validation of the association of local tumor stage and grade as a predictive factor for occult lymph node micrometastasis inpatients with penile carcinoma and clinically negative inguinal lymph nodes. J Urol 2001; 165: 1506–1509.

26.

Hungerhuber

Schlenker

Karl

, et al. Risk stratification in penile carcinoma: 25- year experience with surgical inguinal lymph node staging. Urology 2006; 68: 621–625.

27.

Ficarra

Zattoni

Artinai

, et al. Nomogram predictive of pathological inguinal lymph node involvement in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. J Urol 2006; 175: 1700–1705.

28.

Kroon

Horenblas

Lont

, et al. Patients with penile carcinoma benefit from immediate resection of clinically occult lymph node metastases. J Urol 2005; 173: 816–819.

29.

McDougal

WS.

Carcinoma of the penis: improved survival by early regional lymphadenectomy based on the histological grade and depth of invasion of the primary lesion. J Urol 1995; 154: 1364–1366.

30.

McDougal

Kirchner

Jr Edwards

, et al. Treatment of carcinoma of the penis: the case for primary lymphadenectomy. J Urol 1986; 136: 38–41.