Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29494739›Full record

ArticleJAMA oncology2018

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

Shreyas S Joshi, Elizabeth Handorf, David Strauss, Andres F Correa, Alexander Kutikov, David Y T Chen, Rosalia Viterbo, Richard E Greenberg, Robert G Uzzo, Marc C Smaldone and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shreyas S JoshiDivision of Urologic Oncology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple Health, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Elizabeth HandorfDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple Health, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
David StraussLewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Andres F CorreaDivision of Urologic Oncology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple Health, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Alexander KutikovDivision of Urologic Oncology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple Health, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
David Y T ChenDivision of Urologic Oncology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple Health, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Rosalia ViterboDivision of Urologic Oncology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple Health, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Richard E GreenbergDivision of Urologic Oncology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple Health, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Robert G UzzoDivision of Urologic Oncology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple Health, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Marc C SmaldoneDivision of Urologic Oncology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple Health, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Daniel M GeynismanDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple Health, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Fox Chase Cancer Center · USTemple University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCombined Modality TherapyHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLymphatic MetastasisMaleMedical OncologyMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingOdds RatioPatient Outcome AssessmentPenile Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID29494739
PMCPMC5885184
OpenAlexW2793016728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.