ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2020
Radical penectomy, a compromise for life: results from the PECAD study.
Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic and treatment delays in penile cancer: a call to improve awareness and referral.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Penile squamous cell carcinoma in neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1): RAS-pathway mechanisms and management - A case report.Urology case reports · 2025Article
- The prognostic value of lymph node ratio in comparison to positive lymph node count in penile squamous cell carcinoma.International urology and nephrology · 2021Article
- Lymph Node Dissections for T3T4 Stage Penile Cancer Patients Without Preoperatively Detectable Lymph Node Metastasis Bring More Survival Benefits: A Propensity Matching Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
30 authors at 13 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of organ sparing strategies to treat penile cancer (PC) is currently supported by evidence that has indicated the safety, efficacy and benefit of this surgery. However, radical penectomy still represents up to 15-20% of primary tumor treatments in PC patients. The aim of the study was to evaluate efficacy in terms of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of radical penectomy in PC patients.
methodsData from a retrospective multicenter study (PEnile Cancer ADherence study, PECAD Study) on PC patients treated at 13 European and American urological centers (Hospital "Sant'Andrea", Sapienza University, Roma, Italy; "G.D'Annunzio" University, Chieti and ASL 2 Abruzzo, Hospital "S. Pio da Pietrelcina", Vasto, Italy; Department of Genitourinary Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA; Hospital of Budapest, Hungary; Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, Urology and Andrology Unit II, University of Bari, Italy; Hospital "Spedali Civili", Brescia, Italy; Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; University of Modena & Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain; Ceara Cancer Institute, Fortaleza, Brazil; Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA; Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece; Maria Skłodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center, Warsaw, Poland) between 2010 and 2016 were used. Medical records of patients who specifically underwent radical penectomy were reviewed to identify main clinical and pathological variables. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate 1- and 5-year OS and DFS.
resultsOf the entire cohort of 425 patients, 72 patients (16.9%) treated with radical penectomy were extracted and were considered for the analysis. The median age was 64.5 (IQR, 57.5-73.2) years. Of all, 41 (56.9%) patients had pT3/pT4 and 31 (43.1%) pT1/pT2. Moreover, 36 (50.0%) were classified as pN1-3 and 5 (6.9%) M1. Furthermore, 61 (84.7%) had a high grade (G2-G3) with 6 (8.3%) positive surgical margins. The 1- and 5-year OS rates were respectively 73.3% and 59.9%, while the 1- and 5-year DFS rates were respectively 67.3% and 35.1%.
conclusionsPC is an aggressive cancer particularly in more advanced stage. Overall, more than a third of patients do not survive at 5 years and more than 60% report a disease recurrence, despite the use of a radical treatment.
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.