Morbidity and risk factors for complications of inguinal lymph node dissection in penile cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess the morbidity of inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) in penile cancer, then to compare this morbidity with that of ILND performed in the context of skin cancer treatment. METHODS: We retrospectively included all patients having undergone ILND between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2019 in our centre's urology department in the context of treatment of penile cancer or skin cancer. Postoperative complications were reported in accordance with the Clavien-Dindo classification system. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-two ILNDs were performed in 122 patients with penile cancer and 56 ILNDs were performed in 56 patients with skin cancer. The most common early complication was postoperative fluid collection (lymphocele or haematoma), which complicated 44% of ILNDs overall and 60% of radical lymphadenectomies. The most common late complication was leg lymphoedema, found in up to 36% of radical lymphadenectomies. Major complications (grade ≥ III) were very rare (4% of radical lymphadenectomies). Radical lymphadenectomies resulted in significantly more cases of postoperative fluid collection, skin necrosis and dehiscence, as well as leg lymphoedema, than modified lymphadenectomy techniques. Two factors significantly increasing postoperative morbidity were demonstrated: ASA score = 3 (OR = 3.09) and operating time (OR = 1.01). CONCLUSION: ILNDs are morbid surgical procedures for which the indications must be well defined. However, the complications are almost exclusively minor, for a major oncological benefit.

Long-term oncological results in penile cancer treated by inguinal lymphadenectomy.

PURPOSE: In 95% of cases, penile cancer is a squamous cell carcinoma whose specificity is lymphatic spread with the inguinal lymph nodes as the first relay route. Inguinal lymph node dissection is a primordial part of the treatment. The objective was to assess the oncological results of inguinal lymph node dissection in penile cancer at our centre. METHODS: We retrospectively included all patients having undergone inguinal lymph node dissection at our centre between 1 January 2004 and 1 January 2020 for the treatment of penile cancer. Patients for whom lymphadenopathy was palliative were excluded. Depending on indications, the procedures consisted in either dynamic sentinel node biopsy, modified lymphadenectomy or radical lymphadenectomy. All cancers were reclassified using the 2016 TNM classification system. Survival was analysed according to the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: 242 inguinal lymph node dissections were performed in 122 patients. There were 71 pN0 (58%), 9 pN1 (7%), 4 pN2 (3%) and 38 pN3 (31%). Mean follow-up was 51 ± 45 months. The 3-year recurrence-free survival rate was 76% in pN0 patients and 17% in pN3 patients. The 5-year specific and overall survival rates were, respectively, 82% and 73% for pN0 stages, and 14% and 17% for pN3 stages. Extracapsular extension on an inguinal lymphadenopathy appeared as a highly negative prognostic factor. CONCLUSION: Inguinal lymph node dissection is essential in the treatment of penile cancer. Recurrence-free, specific and overall survival are closely linked to the lymph node stage. Extracapsular extension and pelvic lymph node invasion are highly negative prognostic factors.