Value and efficiency of sentinel lymph node diagnostics in patients with penile carcinoma with palpable inguinal lymph nodes as a new multimodal, minimally invasive approach.

PURPOSE: The international guidelines recommend sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for lymph node staging in penile cancer with non-palpable inguinal lymph nodes (LN) but it is not recommended with palpable inguinal LN. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and morbidity of SLNB in combination with an ultrasound-guided resection of suspect inguinal LNs as a new multimodal, minimally invasive staging approach in these patients. METHODS: We performed SLNB in 26 penile cancer patients with 42 palpable inguinal LNs. Prior to the combined staging procedures the patients underwent an ultrasound examination of the groins as well as planar lymphatic drainage scintigraphy and SPECT/CT scans. During the surgical procedure, the radioactive-labelled sentinel lymph nodes and, in addition, sonographically suspect LNs, were resected under ultrasound guidance. Follow-up screening was done by ultrasound examination of the groins according to the guidelines of the European Association of Urology. RESULTS: Nineteen groins of 42 preoperatively palpable inguinal findings were histologically tumor-positive. SLNB alone showed lymphogenic metastases in 14 groins. Sonography revealed five further metastatic groins, which would not have been detected during SLNB due to a tumor-related blockage of lymphatic drainage or a so-called re-routing of the tracer. During follow-up, none of the 28 groins with tumor-negative LN status showed any LN recurrence in this combined investigation technique. The median follow-up period was 46 (24 to 92) months. Morbidity of this procedure was low at 4.76 % in relation to the number of groins resp. 7.69 % in relation to the number of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that this combined procedure is a reliable multimodal diagnostic approach for treatment of penile cancer patients with palpable inguinal LNs. It is associated with low morbidity rates. SLNB alone would lead to a significantly higher false-negative rate in these patients. The encouraging results of this work can extend the range of indications for nuclear medicine in the form of SLNB using radioactive tracers in this patient group.

Reliability of dynamic sentinel node biopsy combined with ultrasound-guided removal of sonographically suspicious lymph nodes as a diagnostic approach in patients with penile cancer with palpable inguinal lymph nodes.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Dynamic sentinel node biopsy (DSNB) is considered "unsuitable" in patients with penile cancer and palpable inguinal lymph nodes. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic reliability of DSNB combined with ultrasound (US)-guided removal of additional suspicious lymph nodes as a minimally invasive diagnostic approach in these patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 23 consecutive patients with penile cancer and unilaterally or bilaterally palpable inguinal lymph nodes underwent DSNB according to the 2-day protocol. Before the combined staging procedure, the patients underwent preoperative US of both groins. During surgery, sentinel nodes and additional suspicious lymph nodes as determined by the US examination were removed under US guidance. A complete inguinal lymph node dissection was only performed in patients who had tumor-positive nodes. Follow-up consisted of control visits according to the European Association of Urology guidelines, including US investigation of the groins. RESULTS: The primary tumors were staged as T1, T2, and T3 carcinomas in 12, 8, and 3 patients, respectively. Grading was good, moderate, and poor in 2, 16, and 4 cases, respectively. Tumor grading could not be determined in 1 patient who underwent surgery of the invasive part of the primary tumor elsewhere. Sentinel nodes or nonsentinel nodes or both were positive in 15 of 36 palpatory-positive groins. DSNB alone showed lymphatic spread in 10 inguinal regions. US-guided removal of suspicious nonsentinel nodes revealed 5 further inguinal basins with metastases, which would have been missed by DSNB owing to rerouting or complete blockage of the lymphotropic tracer. So far, no lymph node relapse has been observed in the 12 patients with node-negative disease by this combined diagnostic approach with a median follow-up of 42 (16-84) months. The morbidity (postoperative bleeding and prolonged lymphorrhea) associated with this procedure was minor (6%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study imply that DSNB combined with US-guided removal of suspicious lymph nodes is a reliable diagnostic approach in patients with penile cancer with palpable inguinal lymph nodes. DSNB alone in these patients leads to a significant false-negative rate. These early and promising results have to be confirmed in larger cohort studies.