ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
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).
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Centralization or individualization in penile cancer care : Evidence, international insights, and a future framework for Germany].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Preoperative Albumin-to-Alkaline Phosphatase Ratio as an Independent Predictor of Lymph Node Involvement in Penile Cancer.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- The landscape of penile cancer research in Germany and Austria: a survey among professors in academic centers holding chair positions and results of a literature search.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- The Goal of Achieving High-Quality Surgical First-Line Therapy in Patients with Penile Cancer Is Important; However, Some Collective Efforts Are Still Required in Order to Reach It. Comment on Brassetti et al. Combined Reporting of Surgical Quality and Cancer Control after Surgical Treatment for Penile Tumors with Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection: TheCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Combined Reporting of Surgical Quality and Cancer Control after Surgical Treatment for Penile Tumors with Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection: TheCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 14 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPenile cancer represents a rare malignant disease, whereby a small caseload is associated with the risk of inadequate treatment expertise. Thus, we hypothesized that strict guideline adherence might be considered a potential surrogate for treatment quality. This study investigated the influence of the annual hospital caseload on guideline adherence regarding treatment recommendations for penile cancer.
methodsIn a 2018 survey study, 681 urologists from 45 hospitals in four European countries were queried about six hypothetical case scenarios (CS): local treatment of the primary tumor pTis (CS1) and pT1b (CS2); lymph node surgery inguinal (CS3) and pelvic (CS4); and chemotherapy neoadjuvant (CS5) and adjuvant (CS6). Only the responses from 206 head and senior physicians, as decision makers, were evaluated. The answers were assessed based on the applicable European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines regarding their correctness. The real hospital caseload was analyzed based on multivariate logistic regression models regarding its effect on guideline adherence.
resultsThe median annual hospital caseload was 6 (interquartile range (IQR) 3-9). Recommendations for CS1-6 were correct in 79%, 66%, 39%, 27%, 28%, and 28%, respectively. The probability of a guideline-adherent recommendation increased with each patient treated per year in a clinic for CS1, CS2, CS3, and CS6 by 16%, 7.8%, 7.2%, and 9.5%, respectively (each
conclusionsGuideline adherence for most treatment recommendations increases with growing annual penile cancer caseload. Thus, the results of our study call for a stronger centralization of diagnosis and treatment strategies regarding 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.