The landscape of penile cancer research in Germany and Austria: a survey among professors in academic centers holding chair positions and results of a literature search.

BACKGROUND: Research on penile cancer (PeCa) is predominantly conducted in countries with centralized treatment of PeCa-patients. In Germany and Austria (G + A), no state-regulated centralization is established, and no information is available on how PeCa-research is organized. METHODS: Current research competence in PeCa was assessed by a 36-item questionnaire sent to all chairholders of urological academic centers in G + A. Based on PubMed records, all scientific PeCa-articles of 2012-2022 from G + A were identified. Current research trends were assessed by dividing the literature search into two periods (P1: 2012-2017, P2: 2018-2022). A bibliometric analysis was supplemented. RESULTS: Response rate of the questionnaire was 75%, a median of 13 (IQR: 9-26) PeCa-patients/center was observed in 2021. Retrospective case series were conducted by 38.9% of participating clinics, while involvement in randomized-controlled trials was stated in 8.3% and in basic/fundamental research in 19.4%. 77.8% declared an interest in future multicenter projects. 205 PeCa-articles were identified [median impact factor: 2.77 (IQR: 0.90-4.37)]. Compared to P1, P2 showed a significant increase in the median annual publication count (29 (IQR: 13-17) vs. 15 (IQR: 19-29), p < 0.001), in multicenter studies (79.1% vs. 63.6%, p = 0.018), and in multinational studies (53% vs. 28.9%, p < 0.001); the proportion of basic/fundamental research articles significantly declined (16.5% vs. 28.9%, p = 0.041). Four of the top-5 institutions publishing PeCa-articles are academic centers. Bibliometric analyses revealed author networks, primary research areas in PeCa, and dominant journals for publications. CONCLUSIONS: Given the lack of centralization in G + A, this analysis highlights the need for research coordination within multicenter PeCa-projects. The decline in basic/fundamental research should be effectively addressed by the allocation of funded research projects.

Centralizing Penile Cancer Care in Germany and Austria: Just a Dream or a Fast-Approaching Reality? Results of a Survey Study among Urological Department Chairs and Modeling of Real Treatment Numbers of Penile Cancer Patients.

INTRODUCTION: In countries characterized by a centralization of therapy management, patients with penile cancer (PeCa) have shown improvements in guideline adherence and ultimately, improved carcinoma-specific survival. Germany and Austria (G + A) have no state-regulated centralization of PeCa management, and the perspectives of urological university department chairs (UUDCs) in these countries, who act as drivers of professional and political developments, on this topic are currently unknown. METHODS: Surveys containing 36 response options, including specific questions regarding perspectives on PeCa centralization, were sent to the 48 UUDC in G + A in January 2023. In addition to analyzing the responses, closely following the CROSS checklist, a modeling of the real healthcare situation of in-house PeCa patients in G + A was conducted. RESULTS: The response rate was 75% (36/48). 94% and 89% of the UUDCs considered PeCa centralization meaningful and feasible in the medium term, respectively. Among the UUDCs, 72% estimated centralization within university hospitals as appropriate, while 28% favored a geographically oriented approach. Additionally, 97% of the UUDCs emphasized the importance of bridging the gap until implementation of centralization by establishing PeCa second-opinion portals. No country-specific differences were observed. The median number of in-house PeCa cases at the university hospitals in G + A was 13 (interquartile range: 9-26). A significant positive correlation was observed between the annual number of in-house PeCa cases at a given university hospital and the perspective of the UUDCs that centralization as meaningful by its UUDC (0.024). Under assumptions permissible for modeling, the average number of in-house PeCa cases in academic hospitals in G + A was approximately 30 times higher than in nonacademic hospitals. CONCLUSION: This study provides the first data on the perspectives of UUDCs in G + A concerning centralization of PeCa therapy management. Even without state-regulated centralization in G + A, there is currently a clear focusing of PeCa treatments in university hospitals. Further necessary steps toward a structured PeCa centralization are discussed in this manuscript.

[Are there any volume-related effects on treatment options for patients with penile cancer? Results of a survey among university hospitals in Germany and Austria]. / Gibt es fallzahlabhängige Effekte auf Behandlungsangebote für Patienten mit einem Peniskarzinom? Ergebnisse einer Umfrage an Universitätsklinika in Deutschland und Österreich.

BACKGROUND: Currently, 959 men in Germany and 67 in Austria are diagnosed with penile cancer each year, with an increase of approximately 20% in the last decade [RKI 2021, Statcube.at 2023]. Despite the rising incidence, the number of cases per hospital remains low. The median annual number of penile cancer cases at university hospitals in the DACH region was 7 patients (IQR 5-10) in 2017 [E-PROPS group 2021]. The compromised institutional expertise due to low case numbers is compounded with inadequate adherence to penile cancer guidelines, as shown in several studies. The centralization, which is rigorously implemented in countries such as the UK, enabled a significant increase in organ-preserving primary tumor surgery and stage-adapted lymphadenectomies, as well as improved patient survival in cases of penile cancer, resulting in a claim for a similar centralization in Germany and Austria. The aim of this study was to determine the current effects of case volume on penile cancer related treatment options at university hospitals in Germany and Austria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In January 2023, a survey was sent to the heads of 48 urological university hospitals in Germany and Austria, including questions regarding case volume in 2021 (total number of inpatient and penile cancer cases), treatment options for primary tumors and inguinal lymphadenectomy (ILAE), the availability of a designated penile cancer surgeon, and the professional responsibility for systemic therapies in penile cancer. Correlations and differences related to case volume were statistically analyzed without adjustments. RESULTS: The response rate was 75% (n=36/48). In total, 626 penile cancer patients were treated at the 36 responding university hospitals in 2021, representing approximately 60% of the expected incidence in Germany and Austria. The annual median total number of cases was 2807 (IQR 1937-3653), and for penile cancer, it was 13 (IQR 9-26). There was no significant correlation between the total inpatient and penile cancer caseloads (p=0.34). The number of organ-preserving therapy procedures for the primary tumor, the availability of modern ILAE procedures, the presence of a designated penile cancer surgeon, and the responsibility for systemic therapies were not significantly influenced by the total inpatient or penile cancer case volume of the treating hospitals, regardless of whether the case volumes were dichotomized at the median or upper quartile. No significant differences between Germany and Austria were observed. CONCLUSION: Despite a significant increase in the annual number of penile cancer cases at university hospitals in Germany and Austria compared to 2017, we found no case volume-related effects on structural quality with respect to penile cancer therapy. In the light of the proven benefits of centralization, we interpret this result as an argument for the necessity of establishing nationally organized penile cancer centers with even higher case volumes compared to the status quo, in light of the proven benefits of centralization.