ArticleEuropean urology open science2023
Nationwide Data Support Centralised Decision-making in Penile Cancer Care: A Before-and-After Study on Guideline Adherence and Disease-specific survival for Patients with an Indication for Perioperative Oncological Treatment.
Article in European urology open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- From Divergent Guidelines to Delphi-Ready Items: Tutorial for Large Language Model-Assisted Guideline Harmonization Using Penile Cancer as a Worked Example.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Lymph node surgery after centralization of penile cancer care in Sweden: Extent of use and complications.BJUI compass · 2026Article
- Soluble immune checkpoint proteins as predictive biomarkers for lymph node metastases in penile cancer.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- [Centralization or individualization in penile cancer care : Evidence, international insights, and a future framework for Germany].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Expression of PD-L1, TIGIT, and CD155, and Human Papillomavirus Status in Patients with Advanced Penile Cancer.European urology open science · 2025Article
- The past, present and future of penile cancer in the Nordic countries. Results from NORDCAN.BJUI compass · 2025Article
- Clinical Practice Guidelines Adherence and the Impact on Health Outcomes in Oncology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The benefit of perioperative oncological treatment in men with penile cancer is uncertain. In 2015, treatment recommendations were centralised in Sweden and treatment guidelines were updated. Objective: To evaluate if the use of oncological treatment in men with penile cancer increased after the introduction of centralised recommendations, and whether such therapy is associated with better survival. Design setting and participants: This was a retrospective cohort study including a total of 426 men diagnosed with penile cancer with lymph node or distant metastases in Sweden during 2000-2018. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We first assessed the change in the proportion of patients with an indication for perioperative oncological treatment who actually received such treatment. Second, we used Cox regression to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for disease-specific mortality associated with perioperative treatment. Comparisons were made for both all men without perioperative treatment and for those who did not receive treatment but who lacked apparent contraindications for treatment. Results and limitations: The use of perioperative oncological treatment increased from 2000 to 2018, from 32% of patients with an indication for treatment during the first 4 yr to 63% during the last 4 yr. In comparison to patients potentially eligible for oncological treatment who did not receive it, those who were treated had a 37% lower risk of disease-specific death (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40-0.98). Stage migration because of improvements in diagnostic tools over time may have inflated the more recent survival estimates. An influence of residual confounding due to comorbidity and other potential confounders cannot be excluded. Conclusions: The use of perioperative oncological treatment increased after the centralisation of penile cancer care in Sweden. Although the observational study design precludes causal inference, the findings suggest that perioperative treatment in patients with penile cancer eligible for treatment may be associated with better survival. Patient summary: In this study, we looked at the use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy for men with penile cancer and lymph node metastases in Sweden during 2000-2018. We found an increase in the use of cancer therapy and an increase in survival for patients who received such therapy.
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.