ArticleThe Journal of urology2024
Total Margin Control Is Superior to Traditional Margin Assessment for Treatment of Low-Stage Penile Squamous Cell Carcinoma.
Article in The Journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Total margin control surgery achieves local control in four high-stage penile squamous cell carcinoma cases.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposePenile cancer is rare, with significant morbidity and limited literature assessing utility of peripheral and deep en face margin assessment (PDEMA) vs traditional margin assessment (vertical sections) on treatment outcomes. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a 32-year retrospective multicenter cohort study at 3 academic tertiary care centers. The cohort consisted of 189 patients with histologic diagnosis of in situ or T1a cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the penis at Brigham and Women's, Massachusetts General Hospital (1988-2020), and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (1995-2020) treated with PDEMA surgical excision, excision/circumcision, or penectomy/glansectomy. Local recurrence, metastasis, and disease-specific death were assessed via multivariable Cox proportional hazard models.
resultsThe cohort consisted of 189 patients. Median age at diagnosis was 62 years. Median tumor diameter was 1.3 cm. The following outcomes of interest occurred: 30 local recurrences, 13 metastases, and 5 disease-specific deaths. Primary tumors were excised with PDEMA (N = 30), excision/circumcision (N = 110), or penectomy/glansectomy (N = 49). Of patients treated with traditional margin assessment (non-PDEMA), 12% had narrow or positive margins. Five-year proportions were as follows with respect to local recurrence-free survival, metastasis-free survival, and disease-specific survival/progression-free survival, respectively: 100%, 100%, and 100% following PDEMA; 82%, 96%, and 99% following excision/circumcision; 83%, 91%, and 95% following penectomy/glansectomy. A limitation is that this multi-institutional cohort study was not externally validated.
conclusionsInitial results are encouraging that PDEMA surgical management effectively controls early-stage penile squamous cell carcinoma.
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.