ReviewWorld journal of urology2020
Making surgery safer by centralization of care: impact of case load in penile cancer.
Review in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-Term Follow-Up of the Reliability, Accuracy, and Morbidity of Dynamic Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Patients with Intermediate- and High-Risk Penile Cancer and Clinically Negative Lymph Node Status.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Diagnostic and treatment delays in penile cancer: a call to improve awareness and referral.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- The Financial Argument for Centralization of Care for Esophagectomy.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026Article
- [Organ preservation or radical surgery? Modern surgical concepts within the complex interplay between function and oncology].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- [Centralization or individualization in penile cancer care : Evidence, international insights, and a future framework for Germany].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Management of boys with posterior urethral valves (PUV): a world-wide survey.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- The case for centralization of care in penile cancer - respecting geographical needs.Nature reviews. Urology · 2024Article
- Epidemiology of penile cancer in Poland compared to other European countries.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Racial differences in survival for early stage (T1) penile cancer: Analysis from the SEER database.Urologic oncology · 2023Article
- Immune-based therapies in penile cancer.Nature reviews. Urology · 2022Review
- High cardiovascular disease mortality after penile squamous cell carcinomas diagnosis: Results from the United States SEER population, 2005-2016.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Systemic treatment of penile squamous cell carcinoma-hurdles and hopes of preclinical models and clinical regimens: a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2021Review
- [Quality of care criteria in the treatment of penile cancer].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2021Review
- Does the Identification of a Minimum Number of Cases Correlate With Better Adherence to International Guidelines Regarding the Treatment of Penile Cancer? Survey Results of the European PROspective Penile Cancer Study (E-PROPS).Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Long-term outcomes of pelvic organ prolapse repair using a mesh-capturing device when comparing single- versus multicenter use.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2021Article
- Adherence to the EAU Guideline Recommendations for Local Tumor Treatment in Penile Cancer: Results of the European PROspective Penile Cancer Study Group Survey (E-PROPS).Advances in therapy · 2020Article
- Why is the principle of "as much radicality as needed, as much organ preservation as possible" only insufficiently implemented in daily practice in the surgical treatment of penile cancer patients?Translational andrology and urology · 2020Article
- Surgical safety.World journal of urology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePenile cancer is a rare but aggressive disease, often requiring a rapid and extensive surgical treatment of the primary tumor and staging or treatment of the inguinal lymph node basins. Current management and guidelines of the disease are mainly based on retrospective data, as there is a lack of controlled trials or large series. The purpose of this work is to review contemporary data on the impact of centralization and formation of rare disease networks on penile cancer care and outcomes.
methodsThis narrative, non-systematic review is based on publications retrieved by a PubMed and EMBASE search and on the current guidelines of the European Association of Urology, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the National Comprehensive Cancer network.
resultsThe low case load, particularly in non-specialized centres, combined with limited evidence regularly results in a disparity between the treatment strategy and the guidelines. The suboptimal guideline adherence is specifically the case for organ-sparing surgery and surgical staging of the groin areas in selected cases. Treatment of the disease in high-volume referral centres has been shown to improve the use of organ-sparing surgery, the utilization of invasive lymph node staging in high-risk patients, and finally has resulted in increased survival rates.
conclusionsThe management of penile cancer in disease networks and in countries where centralized healthcare is offered positively influences functional and oncological outcomes. We propose that governments and health care providers should be encouraged to centralize healthcare for rare tumors such as penile cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.