Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38922534›Full record

ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2024

Oncologic control and predictors of urologic reconstruction after Mohs micrographic surgery for low-risk penile malignancy.

Brian D Cortese, Raju Chelluri, Alexander J Skokan, Leilei Xia, David A Ostrowski, Daniel S Roberson, Lauren Schwartz, Daniel J Lee, Tess M Lukowiak, Thomas J Guzzo and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International urology and nephrology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Brian D CortesePerelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Raju ChelluriDepartment of Urology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Alexander J SkokanDepartment of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Leilei XiaUniversity of Southern California Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
David A OstrowskiDepartment of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, 800 Walnut Street, Urology Offices, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Daniel S RobersonDepartment of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, 800 Walnut Street, Urology Offices, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Lauren SchwartzDepartment of Pathology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA.
Daniel J LeeDepartment of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, 800 Walnut Street, Urology Offices, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Tess M LukowiakDepartment of Dermatology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson, Somerset, NJ, USA.
Thomas J GuzzoDepartment of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, 800 Walnut Street, Urology Offices, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
S Bruce MalkowiczDepartment of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, 800 Walnut Street, Urology Offices, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Christopher J MillerDepartment of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
R Caleb KovellDepartment of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, 800 Walnut Street, Urology Offices, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Robert.Kovell@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is a low-risk penile cancer management option. However, contemporary patients' short-term oncologic control and preoperative characteristics predicting reconstruction needs are undefined. This study assesses MMS's oncologic efficacy for low-risk penile cancer and identifies baseline predictors of post-resection reconstruction referral.

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 73 adult males with 78 penile cutaneous malignancies treated with MMS from 2005 to 2019. Patients underwent MMS with or without surgical reconstruction. Demographic information, MMS operative details, lesion pathology, and short-term outcomes were recorded. Descriptive statistics for all variables were calculated, and logistic regression identified predictive factors for urologic referral for complex reconstruction.

resultsSeventy-three men with 78 lesions, all staged ≤ cT1a prior to MMS, were identified. Twenty-one men were found to have invasive SCC. Median follow-up was 2.0 years (IQR 0.8-5.2 years). MMS was able to clear the disease in 90.4% of cases. One patient had disease related death following progression. Dermatology closed primarily in 68% of patients. Twenty percent of patients had a complication, most commonly poor wound healing. On univariate and multivariate linear regression analysis, lesion size > 3 cm and involvement of the glans independently predicted the need for referral to a reconstructive surgeon.

conclusionsMMS for penile cancer appears to provide sound oncologic control in the properly selected patient. Involvement of a reconstructive surgeon may be needed for glandular and large lesions, necessitating early referral to a comprehensive multidisciplinary care team.

Indexed as

Mohs SurgeryPenile NeoplasmsPlastic Surgery ProceduresUrologic Surgical Procedures, MaleAgedHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentTreatment OutcomeMohs surgeryNeoplasm recurrenceOncologic outcomesPenile neoplasmsReconstruction

Identifiers

PMID38922534
PMCPMC11534996

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.