MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377107538 · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2023.04.018

Management of Lymph Node–positive Penile Cancer: A Systematic Review

2023· review· en· W4377107538 on OpenAlexaff
Ashwin Sachdeva, Luke A. McGuinness, Łukasz Zapała, I. Greco, Herney Andrés García‐Perdomo, Mithun Kailavasan, Tiago Antunes‐Lopes, Benjamin Ayres, Lenka Barreto, Riccardo Campi, Juanita Crook, Peter A.S. Johnstone, Vivekanandan Kumar, Kenneth Manzie, Jack David Marcus, Andrea Necchi, Pedro Oliveira, John Osborne, Lance C. Pagliaro, Chris Protzel, R. Bryan Rumble, Diego F. Sánchez, Philippe E. Spiess, Scott T. Tagawa, Michiel S. van der Heijden, Arie Parnham, Curtis A. Pettaway, Maarten Albersen, Vijay Sangar, Oscar R. Brouwer, Vasileios Sakalis

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Urology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenital Health and Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePenile cancerLymph nodeOncologyGeneral surgeryPenisGynecologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Lymph node (LN) involvement in penile cancer is associated with poor survival. Early diagnosis and management significantly impact survival, with multimodal treatment approaches often considered in advanced disease. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness of treatment options available for the management of inguinal and pelvic lymphadenopathy in men with penile cancer. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and other databases were searched from 1990 to July 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), nonrandomised comparative studies (NRCSs), and case series (CSs) were included. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified 107 studies, involving 9582 patients from two RCTs, 28 NRCSs, and 77 CSs. The quality of evidence is considered poor. Surgery is the mainstay of LN disease management, with early inguinal LN dissection (ILND) associated with better outcomes. Videoendoscopic ILND may offer comparable survival outcomes to open ILND with lower wound-related morbidity. Ipsilateral pelvic LN dissection (PLND) in N2-3 cases improves overall survival in comparison to no pelvic surgery. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in N2-3 disease showed a pathological complete response rate of 13% and an objective response rate of 51%. Adjuvant radiotherapy may benefit pN2-3 but not pN1 disease. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy may provide a small survival benefit in N3 disease. Adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy improve outcomes after PLND for pelvic LN metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Early LND improves survival in nodal disease in penile cancer. Multimodal treatments may provide additional benefit in pN2-3 cases; however, data are limited. Therefore, individualised management of patients with nodal disease should be discussed in a multidisciplinary team setting. PATIENT SUMMARY: Spread of penile cancer to the lymph nodes is best managed with surgery, which improves survival and has curative potential. Supplementary treatment, including the use of chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, may further improve survival in advanced disease. Patients with penile cancer with lymph node involvement should be treated by a multidisciplinary team.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean UrologySame topicGenital Health and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207