ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2021
Impact of radiation therapy on perineal urethrostomy for penile cancer.
Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Updates in the use of radiotherapy in the management of primary and locally-advanced penile cancer.Asian journal of urology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 8 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveA lack of demonstrated clinical benefit precludes radiotherapy (RT) from being recommended for pN1/pN2 penile cancer (PeCa) lesions; but it may be recommended in case of extranodal (pN3) disease or for positive resection margins. Perineal urethrostomy (PU) is a technique of urinary diversion in patients with PeCa requiring total or subtotal penectomy as primary therapy. Prior studies suggest PU failure rates of up to 30%, without specific mention of the potential role of RT. When RT is delivered for PeCa it is usually to the pre-pubic fat, groin and lateral pelvis, and not to the region of the PU. Here we describe the role of perioperative RT in a large, multi-institutional registry of PU for PeCa.
methodsIn our cohort, 299 patients from seven international, high-volume centers in Belgium, Brazil, China, Netherlands, United Kingdom and the United States underwent PU as urinary diversion for PeCa between 2000 and 2020. Demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics were reviewed.
resultsMedian patient age was 67 years and median follow-up was 19 months. Seven patients (2.3%) received pre-operative RT; six of them with chemotherapy. 37 received RT post-operatively, 21 (57%) with chemotherapy. Stenosis of the PU occurred in 35 (12%) of the total population. The majority of these patients (74%) required surgical revision at a median of 6.1 months post-operatively. RT delivery was neither significantly related to PU stenosis (p = 0.16) or to subsequent revision (
conclusionReceipt of RT was not significantly associated with increased stenosis risk in PeCa patients who underwent PU.
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.