Impact of radiation therapy on perineal urethrostomy for penile cancer
Name:
1-s2.0-S2405630821000732-main.pdf
Size:
3.389Mb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Final Published Version
Author
A. S. Johnstone, P.de Vries, H.M.
Chipollini, J.
Daniel Grass, G.
Boyd, F.
Korkes, F.
Albersen, M.
Roussel, E.
Zhu, Y.
Ye, D.-W.
Master, V.
Le, T.-L.
Muneer, A.
Brouwer, O.R.
Spiess, P.E.
Affiliation
Department of Urology, University of ArizonaIssue Date
2021
Metadata
Show full item recordPublisher
Elsevier Ireland LtdCitation
A. S. Johnstone, P., de Vries, H. M., Chipollini, J., Daniel Grass, G., Boyd, F., Korkes, F., Albersen, M., Roussel, E., Zhu, Y., Ye, D.-W., Master, V., Le, T.-L., Muneer, A., Brouwer, O. R., & Spiess, P. E. (2021). Impact of radiation therapy on perineal urethrostomy for penile cancer. Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology, 30, 84–87.Rights
Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology. This is an open access article underthe CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Collection Information
This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.Abstract
Objective: A lack of demonstrated clinical benefit precludes radiotherapy (RT) from being recommended for pN1/pN2 penile cancer (PeCa) lesions; but it may be recommended in case of extranodal (pN3) disease or for positive resection margins. Perineal urethrostomy (PU) is a technique of urinary diversion in patients with PeCa requiring total or subtotal penectomy as primary therapy. Prior studies suggest PU failure rates of up to 30%, without specific mention of the potential role of RT. When RT is delivered for PeCa it is usually to the pre-pubic fat, groin and lateral pelvis, and not to the region of the PU. Here we describe the role of perioperative RT in a large, multi-institutional registry of PU for PeCa. Methods: In our cohort, 299 patients from seven international, high-volume centers in Belgium, Brazil, China, Netherlands, United Kingdom and the United States underwent PU as urinary diversion for PeCa between 2000 and 2020. Demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics were reviewed. Results: Median patient age was 67 years and median follow-up was 19 months. Seven patients (2.3%) received pre-operative RT; six of them with chemotherapy. 37 received RT post-operatively, 21 (57%) with chemotherapy. Stenosis of the PU occurred in 35 (12%) of the total population. The majority of these patients (74%) required surgical revision at a median of 6.1 months post-operatively. RT delivery was neither significantly related to PU stenosis (p = 0.16) or to subsequent revision (p = 0.75). Conclusion: Receipt of RT was not significantly associated with increased stenosis risk in PeCa patients who underwent PU. © 2021 The AuthorsNote
Open access journalISSN
2405-6308Version
Final published versionae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1016/j.ctro.2021.08.005
Scopus Count
Collections
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology. This is an open access article underthe CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).