Disparity between pre-existing management of penile cancer and NCCN guidelines

• Published in: Urologic oncology Vol. 35; no. 8; pp. 531.e9 - 531.e14
• Main Authors: Campbell, Rebecca A., M.D, Slopnick, Emily A., M.D, Ferry, Elizabeth K., M.D, Zhu, Hui, M.D, Kim, Simon P., M.D, Abouassaly, Robert, M.D
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.08.2017
• Subjects: Aged; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - pathology; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - surgery; Guideline Adherence; Humans; Lymph node dissection; Lymph Node Excision - utilization; Lymphatic Metastasis - diagnosis; Male; Middle Aged; NCCN guidelines; Penectomy; Penile cancer; Penile Neoplasms - pathology; Penile Neoplasms - surgery; Penile-sparing surgery; Urology; NCCN guidelines; Penile cancer; Lymph node dissection; Penile-sparing surgery; Penectomy
• ISSN: 1078-1439; 1873-2496
• DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.03.002

Abstract Objective To determine the locoregional management of penile cancer before the introduction of NCCN guidelines and how much shift in practice patterns is required to meet the guidelines. Methods The National Cancer Data Base was queried to identify 6,396 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis diagnosed between 2004 and 2013. The cohort was divided into management groups based on the NCCN guidelines: cTa and cTis (cTa/is), pT1 low grade (T1LG), pT1 high grade (T1HG), and pT2 or greater (T234). These groups were analyzed to determine if management of locoregional disease complies with the 2016 NCCN guidelines and logistic regression analyses were performed to determine factors associated with adherence. Results Nationwide management of the primary tumor closely follows the NCCN guidelines, with 96.9% adherence for cTa/is, 91.4% for T1LG, and 94.2% for T234. Management of regional lymph nodes (LNs) was inadequate with only 62.9% of patients with clinical N1 or N2 disease undergoing regional LN dissection (LND). The percentage of patients with known LN metastases who received regional LND increased over time (46.2% in 2004 to 69.4% in 2013, P = 0.034). Patients treated at community cancer programs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.19–0.35), comprehensive community cancer programs (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.29–0.41), and integrated network cancer programs (OR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.25–0.52) were significantly less likely to receive LND compared with patients treated at academic comprehensive cancer programs. Conclusions Before the introduction of NCCN guidelines, national practice patterns for the management of the primary tumor were consistent with the recommendations. However, the management of regional LNs deviated from the guidelines, reflecting an area for improvement.