Management of groin in cancer of the penis
Download
1 / 40

Management of Groin in Cancer of the Penis - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 105 Views
  • Uploaded on

Management of Groin in Cancer of the Penis. Hemant B. Tongaonkar Professor & Head Urologic Oncology Services Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai. Penile Cancer. Presence and extent of inguinal nodal metastases most important prognostic factor for survival.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Management of Groin in Cancer of the Penis' - byrd


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Management of groin in cancer of the penis

Management of Groin in Cancer of the Penis

Hemant B. Tongaonkar

Professor & Head Urologic Oncology Services Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai


Penile cancer
Penile Cancer

Presence and extent of inguinal nodal metastases

most important prognostic factor for survival


Penile cancer1
Penile Cancer

  • Prolonged locoregional phase before mets occur

  • Superficial inguinal LN most frequent site of lymphatic mets

  • LN involvement generally stepwise

  • LN mets beyond pelvis considered distant

  • Lymphadenectomy can be curative & need not be treated as systemic disease


Penile cancer problems in management of groin
Penile cancerProblems in management of groin

  • LN mets single most imp prognostic parameter

  • 10-20% have occult LN mets in patients with clinically negative groin

  • 50% of patients with palpable groin nodes do not have metastasis

  • Clinical prediction of nodal spread unreliable & inaccurate


Penile cancer assessment of groin
Penile CancerAssessment of groin

  • Clinical examination

  • Lymphangiography

  • High resolution USG with FNAC

  • Fine needle aspiration cytology

  • Sentinel node biopsy with patent blue dye or lymphoscintigraphy

    Histological evaluation at surgery is the Gold Standard


Penile cancer management of groin nodes crucial questions
Penile Cancer: Management of Groin NodesCrucial questions

  • Predictors of lymph node mets

  • Indications for lymphadenectomy

  • Prophylactic vs therapeutic

  • Extent of lymphadenectomy Superficial vs deep inguinal Inguinal or inguinopelvic Unilateral vs bilateral

No prospective or randomized trials


Inguinopelvic lymphadenectomy good prognostic factors
Inguinopelvic LymphadenectomyGood Prognostic Factors

  • Minimal nodal disease (2 or less nodes)

  • Unilateral involvement

  • No extranodal extension

  • Absence of pelvic node metastases


Penile Cancer

  • Lymphadenectomy is indicated in patients with palpable inguinal lymphadenopathy that persists after treatment of the primary penile lesion following a course of antibiotic therapy

    Srinivas 1987, Ornellas 1994


Penile cancer management of no groin
Penile CancerManagement of No groin

  • Early prophylactic lymphadenectomy

    Versus

  • Surveillance (delayed lymphadenectomy)


Penile cancer early prophylactic lymphadenectomy for n0 groin
Penile CancerEarly Prophylactic Lymphadenectomy for N0 Groin

  • Cure rate may be as high as 80%

  • Lymph node metastases in nearly 30%

  • Reluctance due to substantial morbidity

    • Less likely in prophylactic setting

    • Modified extent of dissection

    • Better surgical technique

    • Preservation of dermis, scarpa’s fascia & saphenous veins

    • Myocutaneous flap coverage


Early vs delayed lymphadenectomy early better
Early vs Delayed LymphadenectomyEarly better

  • Baker 1976 (n=37): 59% vs 61%

  • McDougal 1986 (n=23): 83% vs 36% (66% in patients with N1 with GND)

  • Fraley 1989, Johnson & Lo 1984, Lynch 1997, Ornellas 1999

  • Delayed LND unable to salvage relapses (Fossa 1987, Fraley 1989, Johnson 1984, Ravi 1993, Srinivas 1987)

Early prophylactic better than delayed therapeutic

“Window of opportunity”

Reluctance due to morbidity


Early vs delayed lymphadenectomy no difference
Early vs Delayed LymphadenectomyNo difference

  • Ravi 1993: (n=371): 100% vs. 76% (NS)

  • Probably due to:

    • Patient selection

    • Strict follow up

    • Aggressive treatment at relapse

Can delayed therapeutic dissection reliably &

Effectively salvage inguinal recurrences?


N0 groin treatment options
N0 Groin: Treatment Options

  • Fine needle aspiration cytology

  • Isolated node biopsy

  • Sentinel node biopsy

  • Extended sentinel LN dissection

  • Intraoperative lymphatic mapping

  • Superficial dissection

  • Modified complete dissection

    Is there a role for Spiral CT or PET scan?


Fine needle aspiration cytology
Fine needle aspiration cytology

  • Requires pedal / penile lymphangiograhy for node localization & aspiration under fluoroscopy guidance

  • Multiple nodes to be sampled

  • Sensitivity 71% (Scappini 1986, Horenblas 1993)

  • Can provide useful information to plan therapy when +ve


Sentinel node biopsy
Sentinel Node Biopsy

  • Based on penile lymphangiographic studies of Cabanas (1977)

  • Accuracy questioned: False –ve 10=50% (Cabanas 1977, McDougal 1986, Fossa 1987)

  • Extended sentinel node biopsy: 25% false –ve

  • False –ve due to anatomic variation in position of sentinel node

    Unreliable method: Not recommended


Intraoperative lymphatic mapping
Intraoperative Lymphatic Mapping

  • Potential for precise localization of sentinel node

  • Intradermal inj of vital blue dye or Tc- labeled colloid adjacent to the lesion

  • Horenblas 11/55: All +ve False –ve in 3

  • Pettaway 3/20: All +ve No false –ve

  • Tanis (2002): 18/23 +ve detected (Sensitivity 78%)

    Promising technique for early localization of nodal metastases

    Long-term data needed


Superficial inguinal lnd
Superficial Inguinal LND

  • Removal of nodes superficial to fascia lata

  • If nodes +ve on FS: Complete inguino-pelvic LND

  • Rationale: No spread to deep inguinal nodes when superficial nodes –ve (Pompeo 1995, Parra 1996)

  • No clinical evidence of direct deep node mets when corporal invasion present


Complete modified lnd catalona 1988
Complete Modified LND(Catalona 1988)

  • Smaller incision

  • Limited inguinal dissection (superficial + fossa ovalis)

  • Preservation of saphenous vein

  • Thicker skin flaps

  • No sartorius transposition

Identifies microscopic mets without morbidity

(Colberg 1997, Parra 1996)


Limited inguinal lnd advantages
Limited Inguinal LND: Advantages

  • Provides more information than does biopsy of a single node or group of nodes

  • Avoids missing the sentinel node by removing all potential first echelon nodes

  • Spares patients the morbid consequences associated with traditional LND

  • Can be performed by any surgeon


Penile cancer predictors of lymph node metastases
Penile CancerPredictors of lymph node metastases

  • Tumour histology

  • Corporal invasion

  • Urethral involvement

  • Tumour grade

  • Lymphatic & vascular invasion

  • DNA ploidy


Penile cancer ln mets in stage t1 g1 2 cancers
Penile CancerLN mets in stage T1 G1-2 cancers


Penile cancer corporal invasion vs ln mets
Penile CancerCorporal Invasion vs. LN Mets


Penile cancer risk grouping for inguinal nodal metastases
Penile CancerRisk Grouping for Inguinal Nodal Metastases

Low risk

  • Tis / Ta

  • T1 Grade I-II

  • No vascular invasion

    <10% LN mets

    Surveillance

High risk

  • T2-T3

  • Grade III

  • Vascular invasion

  • Non-compliance

    >50% LN mets

    Early lymphadenectomy


Penile cancer n0 high risk group goals of treatment
Penile Cancer: N0 High Risk GroupGoals of Treatment

  • To determine whether occult metastases exist in inguinal nodes

  • To maximise detection & treatment for those with proven nodal metastases

  • To limit treatment morbidity in those with histologically negative nodes


Management high risk patients
Management: High risk patients

Bilateral N0 groin

Bilateral superficial or modified inguinal LND

Node -ve Unilat +ve Bilat +ve

Conclude Unilat inguino- Bilat inguino-

pelvic LND pelvic LND


Cancer penis management of n groin
Cancer PenisManagement of N+ groin

  • Surgical treatment recommended for operable inguinal metastatic disease

  • Most patients with inguinal LN mets will die if untreated.

  • 20-67% patients with metastatic inguinal LN disease free 5 years after LND. Better survival 82-88% with single / limited mets


Resectable inguinal lymphadenopathy
Resectable Inguinal Lymphadenopathy

  • Complete inguinopelvic lymphadenectomy

  • Therapeutic value justifies morbidity

  • Goals:

    • To eradicate all cancer

    • To cover the vasculature

    • To ensure rapid wound healing


Lymphadenectomy unilateral vs bilateral
LymphadenectomyUnilateral vs. Bilateral

  • Anatomic crossover well-established & bilateral drainage a rule (Lymphangiography & IOLM studies)

  • Synchronous: Contralateral nodes in 50% (Ekstrom 58) Bilateral LND must Contralateral side: Superficial – FS

  • Metachronous: Unilateral may be justified if RFS >12 mo


Should pelvic lymphadenectomy be performed in patients with positive inguinal nodes
Should pelvic lymphadenectomy be performed in patients with positive inguinal nodes?

  • Pelvic LN mets related to inguinal LN mets (Ravi 1993, Srinivas 1987, Kamat 1993)

  • Inguinal nodes Pelvic nodes

    -ve -ve

    1-3 +ve 22%

    >3 +ve 57%

  • Although overall survival 10%, occasional

  • long-term survivals reported


Pelvic lymphadenectomy
Pelvic Lymphadenectomy positive inguinal nodes?

  • Staging tool

  • Identifies patients likely to benefit from adjuvant chemo

  • Adds to locoregional control

  • No additional morbidity

  • If pre-op pelvic node identified : NACT followed by surgery in responders

    Value of pelvic LND unproven

    Patients with minimal inguinal disease & limited pelvic LN mets may benefit


Inguinopelvic lymphadenectomy pathologic criteria for long term survival
Inguinopelvic Lymphadenectomy positive inguinal nodes?Pathologic criteria for long-term survival

  • Minimal nodal metastases (upto 2)

  • Unilateral involvement

  • No extranodal extension

  • Absence of pelvic node metastases

80% five year survival


Penile cancer pelvic ln mets vs survival
Penile Cancer positive inguinal nodes?Pelvic LN Mets vs. Survival


Cancer penis substratification of ln vs survival
Cancer Penis positive inguinal nodes?Substratification of LN vs survival

  • Survival with metastatic inguinal LN 20-25%

  • Survival related to : - No. of metastatic nodes - Bilaterality - Level of metastatic nodes - Perinodal extension

    (Srinivas 1989, Tongaonkar 1992)


Inguinopelvic lymphadenectomy indications for adjuvant therapy
Inguinopelvic Lymphadenectomy positive inguinal nodes?Indications for adjuvant therapy

  • >2 metastatic inguinal nodes

  • Extranodal extension of disease

  • Pelvic lymph node metastases


Penile cancer management of fixed nodes
Penile Cancer positive inguinal nodes?Management of fixed nodes

  • Neoadjuvant chemo + surgery in responders

  • Palliative chemotherapy

  • Chemotherapy + radiation therapy


Complications of lymphadenectomy
Complications of lymphadenectomy positive inguinal nodes?

  • Persistent lymphorrhoea

  • Wound breakdown, necrosis, infection

  • Lymphocyst

  • Femoral blowout

  • Lymphangitis

  • Lymphoedema of lower extremity


Cancer penis measures to reduce morbidity of gnd
Cancer Penis positive inguinal nodes?Measures to reduce morbidity of GND

  • Choice of incision

  • Downscaling of template

  • Saphenous vein sparing

  • Reconstructive techniques

  • Lymphovenous shunts


Tensor fascia lata myocutaneous flap positive inguinal nodes?


Measures to reduce morbidity of gnd tmh experience n 100
Measures to reduce morbidity of GND positive inguinal nodes?TMH experience (n = 100)

  • Elective excision of skin overlying the lymph node area

  • Reconstruction with TFL or anterolateral thigh flap

    Significant reduction in early & late morbidity

    ? Improved disease control


Penile cancer conclusions
Penile Cancer: Conclusions positive inguinal nodes?

  • Uncommon disease

  • No systematic study & complete absence of RCTs

  • Small no of patients over a long time

  • Poor decision making, treatment delays, poor compliance to treatment & follow up

    RCTs to develop guidelines essential


ad