Treatment Trends and Outcomes for Patients With Lymph Node-Positive Cancer of the Penis.

Importance: Penile cancer is an uncommon disease with minimal level I evidence to guide therapy. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines advocate a lymph node dissection (LND) or radiotherapy with consideration of perioperative chemotherapy for all patients with lymph node-positive (LN+) penile cancer without metastasis. Objectives: To determine temporal trends in use of chemotherapy for patients with LN+ penile cancer without metastasis and to evaluate outcomes between those who did or did not receive LND, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: The US National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for all 1123 patients with LN+, squamous cell carcinoma of the penis without metastasis from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2014. Temporal trends were assessed using Cochran-Armitage tests. Multivariable logistic models were used to examine the association between treatments, clinicopathologic variables, and receipt of chemotherapy. Kaplan-Meier analyses with log-rank tests and multivariable Cox regressions were used to analyze overall survival. Data were analyzed between January 2017 and September 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Use of chemotherapy over time. Survival outcomes by receipt or nonreceipt of LND, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. Results: Of 1123 patients identified, most were white (924 [82.3%]) vs African American (141 [12.6%]) or of other or unknown race (58 [5.2%]). The age of most patients (727 [64.7%]) was between 50 and 75 years, and 750 patients (66.8%) underwent an LND. From 2004 to 2014, the use of systemic therapy significantly increased (26 of 68 patients, 38.2% vs 65 of 136, 47.8%; P < .001). However, only 177 of 335 patients with N3 disease (52.8%) received chemotherapy (N1: 106 of 338, 31.4%; N2: 178 of 450, 39.6%). Following adjustment, older patients (>76 years: OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.15-0.50; P < .001) were less likely to receive chemotherapy. Patients who received radiotherapy (OR, 4.38; 95% CI, 3.10-6.18; P < .001) and those patients with N2 (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.16-2.27; P = .005) or N3 (OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.67-3.22; P < .001) cancer were more likely to receive chemotherapy. On multivariable analysis, LND (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.78; P < .001) was associated with better overall survival, while neither chemotherapy (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80-1.26; P = .95) nor radiotherapy (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70-1.04; P = .11) was associated with overall survival. Conclusions and Relevance: In hospitals reporting to the NCDB, only 66.8% of patients with LN+ penile cancer received an LND. While chemotherapy use has increased since 2004, rates remain low (52.8% for patients with N3 cancer). Receipt of LND, but not chemotherapy or radiotherapy, is associated with overall survival. This may reflect the aggressive natural history of penile cancer as well as the inherent analysis limitation of a relatively small sample size. These data highlight opportunities to improve adherence to guideline-recommended care.

Differences in Survival Associated with Performance of Lymph Node Dissection in Patients with Invasive Penile Cancer: Results from the National Cancer Database.

PURPOSE: Inguinal lymphadenectomy remains under performed in patients with invasive penile cancer. Using a large national cancer registry we assessed temporal trends in inguinal lymphadenectomy performance and evaluated the impact of the procedure on survival in patients in whom inguinal lymphadenectomy was an absolute indication (T1b-4 N0/x-1) according to NCCN® (National Comprehensive Cancer Network®) Guidelines®. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database for all cases of nonmetastatic, T1b-4 N0/x-1 squamous cell carcinoma of the penis from 2004 to 2014. Multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for patient, demographic, and clinicopathological characteristics were used to examine the association between available covariates and receipt of inguinal lymphadenectomy. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was then done to assess the impact of clinical and pathological variables on overall survival. Propensity score weighted analysis was performed to assess the effect of inguinal lymphadenectomy on overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 2,224 patients met analysis criteria, of whom 606 (27.2%) underwent inguinal lymphadenectomy. Following adjustment the procedure was more likely in younger patients, those who presented with palpable adenopathy (cN1), those treated at an academic facility and those with a more contemporary diagnosis. On survival analysis controlling for all known and measured confounders inguinal lymphadenectomy was associated with improved overall survival (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.74-0.84, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: At hospitals that report to the National Cancer Database the overall rate of inguinal lymphadenectomy in patients with invasive penile cancer was only 27.2%. Inguinal lymphadenectomy was associated with increased overall survival, justifying the procedure as an important quality metric for performance reporting in patients with invasive penile cancer.

Effects of interruptions of external beam radiation therapy on outcomes in patients with prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate if interruptions of external beam radiation therapy impact outcomes in men with localized prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: We included men with localized PCa treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) of escalated dose (≥74 Gy in 1.8 or 2 Gy fractions) between 1992 and 2013 at an NCI-designated cancer centre. Men receiving androgen deprivation therapy were excluded. The non-treatment day ratio (NTDR) was defined as the number of non-treatment days divided by the total elapsed days of therapy. NTDR was analysed for each National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group. RESULTS: There were 1728 men included (839 low-risk, 776 intermediate-risk and 113 high-risk), with a median follow up of 53.5 months (range 12-185.8). The median NTDR was 31% (range 23-71%), translating to approximately 2 breaks (each break represents a missed treatment that will be made up) for 8 weeks of RT with 5 treatments per week. The 75 percentile of NTDR was 33%, translating to approximately 4 breaks, which was used as the cutoff for analysis. There were no significant differences in freedom from biochemical failure, freedom from distant metastasis, cancer specific survival, or overall survival for men with NTDR ≥33% compared to NTDR<33% for each risk group. Multivariable analyses including NTDR, age, race, Gleason score, T stage, and PSA were performed using the proportional hazards regression procedure. NTDR≥33% was not significantly associated with increased hazard ratio for outcomes in each risk group compared to NTDR<33%. CONCLUSION: Unintentional treatment breaks during dose escalated external beam radiation therapy for PCa did not cause a significant difference in outcomes, although duration of follow up limits the strength of this conclusion.

Men's health supplement use and outcomes in men receiving definitive intensity-modulated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 50% of newly diagnosed cancer patients start taking dietary supplements. Men's health supplements (MHSs), which we define as supplements that are specifically marketed with the terms men's health and prostate health (or similar permutations), are often mislabeled as having potential anticancer benefits. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effects of MHSs on patient outcomes and toxicities in patients who were undergoing definitive intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer. DESIGN: This retrospective analysis included patients who were being treated at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center and consented to have information stored in a prospective database. MHSs were queried online. Outcome measures were freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) (biochemical failure was defined with the use of the prostate-specific antigen nadir + 2-ng/mL definition), freedom from distant metastasis (FFDM), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) as well as toxicities. Kaplan-Meier analysis, log-rank tests, Fine and Gray competing-risk regression (to adjust for patient and lifestyle factors), and Cox models were used. RESULTS: From 2001 to 2012, 2207 patients were treated with IMRT with a median dose of 78 Gy, and a median follow-up of 46 mo. Of these patients, 43% were low risk, 37% were intermediate risk, and 20% were high risk; 10% used MHSs. MHSs contained a median of 3 identifiable ingredients (range: 0-78 ingredients). Patients who were taking an MHS compared with those who were not had improved 5-y OS (97% compared with 92%, respectively; P = 0.01), but there were no differences in the FFBF (94% compared with 89%, respectively; P = 0.12), FFDM (96% compared with 97%, respectively; P = 0.32), or CSS (100% compared with 99%, respectively; P = 0.22). The unadjusted association between MHS use and improved OS was attenuated after adjustment for patient lifestyle factors and comorbidities. There was no difference in toxicities between the 2 groups (late-grade 3-4 genitourinary <3%; gastrointestinal <4%). CONCLUSION: The use of MHSs is not associated with outcomes or toxicities.

Disparities in Treatment of Patients With High-risk Prostate Cancer: Results From a Population-based Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the variation in primary treatment of high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) by different hospital characteristics in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the National Cancer Data Base to identify patients diagnosed with pretreatment high-risk PCa from 2004 to 2011. The primary outcomes were different forms of primary therapy or watchful waiting (WW) across different types of hospitals (community, comprehensive cancer community, and academic hospitals). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to test for differences in treatment by hospital type. RESULTS: During the study period, we identified 102,701 men diagnosed with high-risk PCa. Overall, the most common treatment was radical prostatectomy (37.0%) followed by radiation therapy (33.2%) and WW (8.5%). Compared with white men with high-risk PCa, black men had lower adjusted odds ratios (OR) for surgery at comprehensive community (OR: 0.64; P <.001) and academic (OR: 0.62; P <.001) hospitals. Similarly, black men were also more likely to be managed with WW at community (OR: 1.49; P <.001), comprehensive cancer community (OR: 1.24; P <.001), and academic (OR: 1.55; P <.001) hospitals, as well as with radiation therapy at comprehensive cancer community (OR: 1.27; P <.001) and academic hospitals (OR: 1.23; P <.001). CONCLUSION: Disparities in the use of WW and different primary treatments among patients with high-risk PCa persisted across different types of hospitals and over time. Our findings highlight a significant racial disparity in the use of curative therapy for high-risk PCa that should be urgently addressed to ensure that all men with PCa receive appropriate care across all racial groups and cancer care facilities.

Effects of Time to Treatment on Biochemical and Clinical Outcomes for Patients With Prostate Cancer Treated With Definitive Radiation.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate if time to treatment (TTT) has an effect on outcomes for patients with localized prostate cancer treated with definitive external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included 4064 patients (1549 low-risk, 1612 intermediate-risk, and 903 high-risk) treated with EBRT. For each National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group, TTT (defined as the time between initial positive prostate biopsy and start of RT) was analyzed in 4 intervals: < 3, 3-6, 6-9, and 9-24 months. We recorded the use of androgen deprivation therapy among patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk disease. RESULTS: The median TTT was 3.3 months (range, 0.6-23.5 months), and it was similar for each risk group (range, 3.3-3.4 months). The median follow up was 64 months. There were no significant differences in biochemical failure, distant metastasis, or overall survival for patients with TTT < 3, 3-6, 6-9, or 9-24 months for each risk group. There were also no significant differences in the outcomes at 5 years when patients with TTT > 3.3 months were compared with those with TTT ≤ 3.3 months for each risk group. For high-risk men, 328 of 450 (72.9%) with TTT > 3.3 months were on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus 299 of 453 (66%) with TTT ≤ 3.3 months. Among men with high-risk cancer treated without ADT, there remained no significant difference in outcomes between TTT > 3.3 months and TTT ≤ 3.3 months. CONCLUSION: TTT was not associated with significant differences in outcomes among each risk group of men with localized prostate cancer treated with EBRT. Among the high-risk patients, there were no observed detriments in outcomes with TTT > 3.3 months regardless of androgen deprivation therapy use.

Use of Postprostatectomy Radiation Therapy at an NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center.

PURPOSE: Characterize use of postprostatectomy radiation (PPRT) for patients with prostate cancer at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: We queried our prospective prostate cancer database for patients treated with 60 to 68 Gy of radiation therapy (RT) to the prostate bed after prostatectomy from 2003 to 2011. Prostatectomy cases were obtained from billing records. Patients with an intact prostate treated with definitive RT served as a control for the change in volume of patients with prostate cancer treated in the department. Chi-square analysis assessed differences between adjuvant and salvage RT cohorts. Spearman correlation assessed yearly trends in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level at the time of referral for RT. Linear regression models tested trends for number of PPRT cases, prostatectomies, and patients with intact prostate receiving radiation across years. RESULTS: PPRT was used to treat 475 men at Fox Chase Cancer Center from 2003 to 2011 (83 adjuvant and 392 salvage). Over time, an increased proportion of patients receiving RT to the prostate were treated with PPRT. No increase was seen in the proportion of patients treated with adjuvant RT compared with salvage RT (P=.5). Patients receiving adjuvant RT were younger, had higher pathologic Gleason score, pathologic T stage, and rates of positive margins than those receiving salvage RT. Pre-RT PSA values were inversely correlated with year (P=.005). The number of patients referred for salvage RT with a PSA of 0.5 ng/mL or less increased significantly from 7.9% in 2003 to 26.6% in 2011 (P=.002). CONCLUSIONS: A larger proportion of patients treated with RT for localized prostate cancer are now receiving PPRT. No increase was seen in the proportion of patients treated with adjuvant RT. Over time, patients with lower PSAs were referred for salvage RT.

The rise and fall of prostate brachytherapy: use of brachytherapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer in the National Cancer Data Base.

BACKGROUND: Brachytherapy has been shown to be an efficacious and cost-effective treatment among patients with localized prostate cancer. In this study, the authors examined trends in brachytherapy use for localized prostate cancer using a large national cancer registry. METHODS: In the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB), a total of 1,547,941 patients with localized prostate cancer were identified from 1998 through 2010. Excluding patients with lymph node-positive or metastatic disease, the authors examined primary treatment trends focusing on the use of brachytherapy over time. Patients with available data (2004-2009) were stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk criteria. Controlling for year of diagnosis and demographic, clinical, and pathologic characteristics, multivariate analyses were performed examining the association between patient characteristics and receipt of brachytherapy. RESULTS: In the study cohort, brachytherapy use reached a peak of 16.7% in 2002, and then steadily declined to a low of 8% in 2010. Of the 719,789 patients with available data for risk stratification, 41.1%, 35.3%, and 23.6%, respectively, met low, intermediate, and high National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk criteria. After adjustment, patients of increasing age and those with Medicare insurance were more likely to receive brachytherapy. In contrast, patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk disease, Medicaid insurance, increasing comorbidity count, and increasing year of diagnosis were less likely to receive brachytherapy. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with localized prostate cancer who are treated at National Cancer Data Base institutions, there has been a steady decline in brachytherapy use since 2003. For low-risk patients, the declining use of brachytherapy monotherapy compared with more costly emerging therapies has significant health policy implications.

Inguinal canal recurrence of colorectal adenocarcinoma following cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemotherapy.

Peritoneal carcinomatosis, the second most common cause of death among patients with colorectal carcinoma, may be managed with cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant intraoperative peritoneal hyperthermic chemotherapy (IHPC). We present the case of a 35-year-old male with locally recurrent colorectal adenocarcinoma in the inguinal canal and testis following intraperitoneal debulking and IPHC. When communicating with the peritoneal cavity, the inguinal canal may act as an anatomic sanctuary site and allow peritoneal carcinomatosis to escape the effects of intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

Bladder diverticulum arising adjacent to an ectopic ureter presenting as a cystic mass.

Acquired bladder diverticula due to bladder outlet obstruction are not uncommon in the adult male population. Congenital diverticula originate adjacent to the trigone and are rarely diagnosed in adults. We report an unusual case of a diverticulum arising adjacent to an ectopic ureter located on the left lateral wall near the dome of the bladder. Although the diverticulum appeared to be congenital, its large size was likely a result of high pressure voiding. The patient underwent a transurethral resection of the prostate to reduce his bladder outlet obstruction, and subsequently underwent an open diverticulectomy.