ArticleTranslational cancer research2019
Partial penectomy or total penectomy for T1 and T2 squamous cell carcinoma of the penis?
Article in Translational cancer research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess prognostic factors and survival outcomes for partial penectomy (PP) and total penectomy (TP) patients with T1 and T2 squamous cell carcinoma of the penis.
methodsThe Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was used to identify 708 penile cancer patients. Among these, 607 underwent PP and 101 underwent TP. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare survival outcomes between PP and TP patients. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to determine prognostic factors.
resultsThere were significant differences in marital status and regional lymph node removal between patients of the PP and TP groups. Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that age [odds ratio (OR) =1.045; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.034-1.057; P<0.0001], T2 carcinoma (OR =1.388; 95% CI: 1.077-1.788; P=0.0114), node stage N1-3 (OR =3.351; 95% CI: 2.317-4.847; P<0.0001), and ≥4 regional lymph nodes removed (OR =0.498; 95% CI: 0.255-0.972; P=0.0411) were independent predictors of overall survival (OS). Age (OR =1.019; 95% CI: 1.005-1.033; P=0.0065), stage N1-3 (OR =5.127; 95% CI: 3.213-8.181; P<0.0001), and ≥4 regional lymph nodes removed (OR =0.452; 95% CI: 0.219-0.932; P=0.0315) were independent predictors of cancer specific survival (CSS). However, there was no significant difference between PP and TP in terms of OS and CSS.
conclusionsThere was no significant difference in terms of OS and CSS between patients treated by PP or TP. T2 was associated with shorter OS, while age and N1-3 were associated with shorter OS and CSS. Removal of ≥4 regional lymph nodes was associated with longer OS and CSS.
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.