Dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy and its role in invasive staging of cN0 penile cancer. A 10-year experience of one institution
Authors:
Ivan Trávníček 1; Matúš Mlynarčík 1; Jiří Ferda 2; Alexander Malán 2; Květoslava Michalová 3; Denisa Kacerovská 3; Milan Hora 1
Authors‘ workplace:
Urologická klinika, Fakultní nemocnice a Lékařská fakulta v Plzni
1; Klinika zobrazovacích metod, Fakultní nemocnice a Lékařská fakulta v Plzni
2; Šiklův ústav patologie, Fakultní nemocnice a Lékařská fakulta v Plzni
3
Published in:
Ces Urol 2022; 26(2): 111-121
Category:
Original article
Overview
Aim: Invasive staging of the inguinal lymph nodes is indicated in penile cancer in intermediateand high-risk tumours (T1 G2 and higher). Dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy (DSLNB) or modified inguinal lymph node dissection (mILND) or minimally invasive modified video-endoscopic inguinal lymph node dissection (mVEILND) are used. Minimally invasive VEILND can also be performed robotically. The aim of this study is to evaluate the results of DSLNB at a single institution over a period of more than 10 years.
Material and methods: A total of 112 patients with penile cancer (mean age 64.2 years, 24-90 years) were hospitalized between 12/2010 and 6/2021. A total of 62 patients underwent invasive lymph node staging. In 50 of them, we chose the DSLNB method for at least one groin, targeting 92 cN0 inguinal regions. In the case of a non-labeled lymph node, mILND or mVEILND was performed. For high-risk tumors (≥cT2 or G3) or suspected metastases by imaging (18F-FDG PET/CT/MRI), we chose mVEILND as the primary treatment. We evaluated the applicability and sensitivity of DSLNB.
Results: Sixty-eight groins out of 92 (73.9%) were well scintigraphically labeled. In 2 cases (2.9%; 2/68), cancer metastasis was correctly identified and the procedure was extended to include radical lymphadenectomy. In 2 cases (2.9%; 2/68), DSLNB was false negative with subsequent development of metastatic involvement of the groin after previous negative DSLNB. In our cohort, DSLNB has a sensitivity of 50% (2/4).
In 24 groins, no labeling occurred (26.1%). Of these, 16 groins were then managed with mILND, in one case the nodes were not captured and metastasis developed further down the line. The other 3 groins were managed by mVEILND without metastasis finding. Five groins were elected for follow up, and in 1 case, progression of unrecognized nodal metastasis occurred.
Conclusion: In more than a quarter of cases, there was no scintigraphic labeling of the sentinel node, so DSLNB could not be applied. However, even with good labeling and proper performance of DSLNB, 2 of the 4 nodal metastases present were not detected and subsequent progression of metastatic involvement of the groin occurred. The sensitivity of DSLNB is 50% in our series. Therefore, in invasive staging for penile cancer, we always consider mILND and especially minimally invasive mVEILND.
Keywords:
sentinel lymph node – penile cancer – lymph node dissection – invasive staging
Sources
1. Dusek L, Muzik J, Kubasek M, et al. Epidemiology of malignant tumours in Czech Republic (online). SVOD.cz, 2005. Available from: www.svod.cz.
2. Protzel C, Alcaraz A, Horenblas S, et al. Lymphadenectomy in the Surgical Management of Penile Cancer. European Urology. 2009; 55: 1075–1088. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009. 02. 021.
3. Chen X, Li X, Garcia MM, et al. Prognostic Factors in Chinese Patients With Penile Invasive Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Journal of Andrology. 2012; 33: 1276–1281. DOI: 10.2164/jandrol.112.016378.
4. Clark PE, Spiess PE, Agarwal N, et al. Penile Cancer. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013; 11: 594–615. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0075.
5. Veeratterapillay R, Teo L, Asterling S, Greene D. Oncologic Outcomes of Penile Cancer Treatment at a UK Supraregional Center. Urology. 2015; 85: 1097–1103. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2014. 11. 048.
6. Solsona E, Iborra I, Rubio J, et al. Prospective validation of the association of local tumor stage and grade as a predictive factor for occult lymph node micrometastasis in patients with penile carcinoma and clinically negative inguinal lymph nodes. Journal of Urology. 2001; 165: 1506–1509. DOI: 10.1016/S0022- 5347(05)66337-9.
7. Schlenker B, Tilki D, Gratzke C, Seitz M, et al. Intermediate‑differentiated invasive (pT1 G2) penile cancer – oncological outcome and follow‑up. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations. 2011; 29: 782–787. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2009. 08. 022.
8. Naumann CM, Alkatout I, Al‑Najar A, et al. Lymph‑node metastases in intermediate‑risk squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. BJU International. 2008; 102: 1102–1106. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07744.x.
9. Hakenberg OW, Compérat EM, Minhas S, et al. EAU Guidelines on Penile Cancer: 2014 Update. European Urology. 2015; 67: 142–150. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014. 10. 017.
10. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, et al. The Clavien‑Dindo Classification of Surgical Complications: Five‑Year Experience. Annals of Surgery. 2009; 250.
11. Cabanas RM. An approach for the treatment of penile carcinoma. Cancer. 1977; 39: 456–466. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(197702)39:2<456:AID‑CNCR2820390214> 3. 0. CO;2-I.
12. Joost AP, Leijte RA, Valdés Olmos RA, Omgo E. Nieweg and Simon Horenblas: Anatomical Mapping of Lymphatic Drainage in Penile Carcinoma with SPECT‑CT: Implications for the Extent of Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection. European urology. 2008; 54: 885–892.
13. Brouwer OR, van den Berg NS, Mathe’ron HM, et al. A Hybrid Radioactive and Fluorescent Tracer for Sentinel Node Biopsy in Penile Carcinoma as a Potential Replacement for Blue Dye. European Urology. 2014; 65: 600–609.
14. Souhrn údajů o přípravku – SPC Senti‑Scint‑kit, Nanocoll‑kit, Nano‑Albumon‑kit. Online: http:// www.sukl.cz/modules/medication/.
15. Sadeghi R, Gholami H, Zakavi SR, et al. Accuracy of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Inguinal Lymph Node Staging of Penile Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Systematic Review and Meta‑Analysis of the Literature. The Journal of urology. 2012; 187: 25–31.
16. De Vries HM, Lee HJ, Lam W, et al. Clinicopathological predictors of finding additional inguinal lymph node metastases in penile cancer patients after positive dynamic sentinel node biopsy: a European multicentre evaluation. BJU International n/a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15678.
17. Sahdev V, Albersen M, Christodoulidou M, et al. Management of non‑visualization following dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. BJU International. 2016; 119: 573–578. DOI: 10.1111/bju.13680.
18. Hungerhuber E, Schlenker B, Frimberger D, et al. Lymphoscintigraphy in penile cancer: limited value of sentinel node biopsy in patients with clinically suspicious lymph nodes. World Journal of Urology. 2006; 24: 319–324. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-006-0073-3.
19. Brenot‑Rossi I, Houvenaeghel G, Jacquemier J, et al. Nonvisualization of Axillary Sentinel Node During Lymphoscintigraphy: Is There a Pathologic Significance in Breast Cancer? Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2003; 44: 1232–1237.
20. Hirche C, Engel H, Hirche Z, et al. Real‑Time Lymphography by Indocyanine Green Fluorescence: Improved Navigation for Regional Lymph Node Staging. Annals of Plastic Surgery Publish Ahead of Print, 9000.
21. Hora M, Trávníček I, Nykodýmová Š, et al. VEILND (Video Endoscopic Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection) with Florescence Indocyanine Green (ICG): A Novel Technique to Identify the Sentinel Lymph Node in Men with ≥ pT1G2 and cN0 Penile Cancer. Contrast Media & Molecular Imaging. 2021: 5575730, 2021. DOI: 10.1155/2021/5575730.
Labels
Paediatric urologist Nephrology UrologyArticle was published in
Czech Urology
2022 Issue 2
Most read in this issue
- Urethral duplication in children – three cases
- A symptomatic non inflammatory paraurethral cyst in the corpus spongiosum of bulbar urethra
- Urolithiasis in pregnancy
- Malignant solitary fibrous tumor of the scrotum