Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33230601›Full record

ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2020

Progress on Management of Penile Cancer in 2020.

Mohamed E Ahmed, Mahmoud I Khalil, Mohamed H Kamel, R Jeffrey Karnes, Philippe E Spiess

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current treatment options in oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Living in a rural area as a risk factor for worst outcomes in penile cancer.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Article
  14. Use of flaps in inguinal lymphadenectomy in metastatic penile cancer.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mohamed E AhmedDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Mahmoud I KhalilDepartment of Urology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS), Little Rock, AR, USA.
Mohamed H KamelDepartment of Urology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS), Little Rock, AR, USA.
R Jeffrey KarnesDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Philippe E SpiessDepartment of Genito-Urinary Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA. Philippe.Spiess@moffitt.org.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona · USUniversity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences · USMoffitt Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

opinion statementManagement of penile cancer represents a challenge to urologic oncologists due to the disease's rarity and sparse data in the literature. Squamous cell carcinoma represents the most common histologic subtype of penile cancer. Penile cancer has a disastrous effect on patients' psychological and physical health. Penile cancer accounts for approximately 1% of cancer deaths in the USA annually. However, in recent years, the management of penile cancer has achieved marked progress in both diagnostic and therapeutic approaches with the intent to avoid radical surgeries. The traditional total penile amputation has been replaced by penile preserving procedures in many patients. Nowadays, total penile amputation (total penectomy) is preserved only for patients with proximal lesions. The introduction of minimally invasive surgical techniques in the management of penile cancer-infiltrated lymph nodes has been reported. Given the dismal prognosis with conventional cytotoxic therapies, new systemic therapies have been investigated in patients with locally advanced or metastatic penile cancer. Multiple studies have shown promising outcomes. All these efforts have resulted in a remarkable improvement in patient quality of life. The objectives of our review are to update clinicians on the advances in the management of penile cancer and to summarize the recent guidelines and recommendations.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingDisease ManagementDisease SusceptibilityHumansIncidenceMaleNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingPenile NeoplasmsPractice Guidelines as TopicRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTreatment OutcomeAdvanced penile cancerDiagnosisEarly penile cancerMetastaticRisk factorsTreatment

Identifiers

PMID33230601
OpenAlexW3107100165

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.