Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38014575›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association2024

Differences in overall survival of penile cancer patients versus population-based controls.

Lukas Scheipner, Stefano Tappero, Mattia Luca Piccinelli, Francesco Barletta, Cristina Cano Garcia, Reha-Baris Incesu, Simone Morra, Zhe Tian, Fred Saad, Shahrokh F Shariat and 9 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Editorial comment on Differences in overall survival of penile cancer patients vs. population-based controls.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Lukas ScheipnerCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2036-8438
Stefano TapperoCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9712-2685
Mattia Luca PiccinelliCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Francesco BarlettaCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Cristina Cano GarciaCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4829-0241
Reha-Baris IncesuCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Simone MorraCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5340-8569
Zhe TianCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Fred SaadCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Shahrokh F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Carlo TerroneDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy.
Ottavio De CobelliDepartment of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Alberto BrigantiSoldera Prostate Cancer Lab, Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Felix K H ChunVita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Derya TilkiDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7033-1380
Nicola LongoMartini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Maximilian SelesDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Sascha AhyaiDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Pierre I KarakiewiczCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess whether 5-year overall survival (OS) of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis (SCCP) patients differs from age-matched male population-based controls.

methodsWe relied on the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database (2004-2018) to identify newly diagnosed (2004-2013) SCCP patients. For each case, we simulated an age-matched control (Monte Carlo simulation), relying on the Social Security Administration (SSA) Life Tables with 5 years of follow-up. We compared OS between SCCP patients and population-based controls in a stage-specific fashion. Smoothed cumulative incidence plots displayed cancer-specific mortality (CSM) versus other-cause mortality (OCM).

resultsOf 2282 SCCP patients, the stage distribution was as follows: stage I 976 (43%) versus stage II 826 (36%) versus stage III 302 (13%) versus stage IV 178 (8%). At 5 years, OS of SCCP patients versus age-matched population-based controls was as follows: stage I 63% versus 80% (Δ = 17%), stage II 50% versus 80% (Δ = 30%), stage III 39% versus 84% (Δ = 45%), stage IV 26% versus 87% (Δ = 61%). At 5 years, CSM versus OCM in SCCP patients according to stage was as follows: stage I 12% versus 24%, stage II 22% versus 28%, stage III 47% versus 14%, and stage IV 60% versus 14%.

conclusionSCCP patients exhibit worse OS across all stages. The difference in OS at 5 years between SCCP and age-matched male population-based controls ranged from 17% to 61%. At 5 years, CSM accounted for 12% to 60% of all deaths, across all stages.

Indexed as

Penile NeoplasmsHumansMalePenisSEER ProgramCSMOCMpenile cancerpopulationSEERsurvival

Identifiers

PMID38014575

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.