The Goal of Achieving High-Quality Surgical First-Line Therapy in Patients with Penile Cancer Is Important; However, Some Collective Efforts Are Still Required in Order to Reach It. Comment on Brassetti et al. Combined Reporting of Surgical Quality and Cancer Control after Surgical Treatment for Penile Tumors with Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection: The Tetrafecta Achievement. Curr. Oncol. 2023, 30, 1882-1892.

We read with great interest the manuscript by Brassetti et al. recently published in your journal and hope it will encourage discussion and debate around the optimization of the surgical management of patients with penile cancer (PECa) [...]

Does the Identification of a Minimum Number of Cases Correlate With Better Adherence to International Guidelines Regarding the Treatment of Penile Cancer? Survey Results of the European PROspective Penile Cancer Study (E-PROPS)

Background: Penile cancer represents a rare malignant disease, whereby a small caseload is associated with the risk of inadequate treatment expertise. Thus, we hypothesized that strict guideline adherence might be considered a potential surrogate for treatment quality. This study investigated the influence of the annual hospital caseload on guideline adherence regarding treatment recommendations for penile cancer. Methods: In a 2018 survey study, 681 urologists from 45 hospitals in four European countries were queried about six hypothetical case scenarios (CS): local treatment of the primary tumor pTis (CS1) and pT1b (CS2); lymph node surgery inguinal (CS3) and pelvic (CS4); and chemotherapy neoadjuvant (CS5) and adjuvant (CS6). Only the responses from 206 head and senior physicians, as decision makers, were evaluated. The answers were assessed based on the applicable European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines regarding their correctness. The real hospital caseload was analyzed based on multivariate logistic regression models regarding its effect on guideline adherence. Results: The median annual hospital caseload was 6 (interquartile range (IQR) 3–9). Recommendations for CS1–6 were correct in 79%, 66%, 39%, 27%, 28%, and 28%, respectively. The probability of a guideline-adherent recommendation increased with each patient treated per year in a clinic for CS1, CS2, CS3, and CS6 by 16%, 7.8%, 7.2%, and 9.5%, respectively (each p < 0.05); CS4 and CS5 were not influenced by caseload. A caseload threshold with a higher guideline adherence for all endpoints could not be perceived. The type of hospital care (academic vs. non-academic) did not affect guideline adherence in any scenario. Conclusions: Guideline adherence for most treatment recommendations increases with growing annual penile cancer caseload. Thus, the results of our study call for a stronger centralization of diagnosis and treatment strategies regarding penile cancer

Adherence to the EAU guideline recommendations for systemic chemotherapy in penile cancer: results of the E-PROPS study group survey

Objectives To validate the adherence of urologists to chemotherapy recommendations given in the EAU guidelines on PeCa. The European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on penile cancer (PeCa) are predominantly based on retrospective studies with low level of evidence. Materials and methods A 14-item-survey addressing general issues of PeCa treatment was developed and sent to 45 European hospitals. 557 urologists participated in the survey of which 43.5%, 19.3%, and 37.2% were in-training, certified, and in leading positions, respectively. Median response rate among participating departments was 85.7% (IQR 75-94%). Three of 14 questions addressed clinical decisions on neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and palliative chemotherapy. Survey results were analyzed by bootstrap-adjusted multivariate logistic-regression-analysis to identify predictors for chemotherapy recommendations consistent with the guidelines. Results Neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and palliative chemotherapy was recommended according to EAU guidelines in 21%, 26%, and 48%, respectively. For neoadjuvant chemotherapy, urologists holding leading positions or performing chemotherapy were more likely to recommend guideline-consistent treatment (OR 1.85 and 1.92 withp((bootstrap)) = 0.007 and 0.003, respectively). Supporting resources (i.e., guidelines, textbooks) were used by 23% of survey participants and significantly improved consistency between treatment recommendations and Guideline recommendations in all chemotherapy settings (p((bootstrap)) = 0.010-0.001). Department size and university center status were no significant predictors for all three endpoints. Conclusions In this study, we found a very low rate of adherence to the EAU guidelines on systemic treatment for PeCa. Further investigations are needed to clarify whether this missing adherence is a consequence of limited individual knowledge level or of the low grade of guideline recommendations