Impact of the Standardization of Penile Cancer Care on the Quality of Care, Outcomes, and Academic-driven Centralization in a Single eUROGEN Referral Center.

BACKGROUND

Penile cancer (PeCa) represents a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge given the low patient volume, which may result in inadequate physician expertise and poor guideline adherence. Since 2015, we have developed a specific care pathway for PeCa in our tertiary referral center.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of a dedicated PeCa care pathway on patient management, the adequacy of pathological reporting, and oncological outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We retrospectively queried our institutional registry (S-66482) to identify patients who were surgically treated for PeCa between January 1989 and April 2022. The patient numbers were evaluated within a broader national context.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

We compared patient, surgery, tumor, and pathological data before and after 2015. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare local and regional recurrence rates and cancer-specific survival (CSS).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Overall, 313 patients were included, of whom 204 (65.1%) were surgically treated after 2015. The median number of patients treated yearly was significantly higher after 2015 (26 vs 5; p < 0.01). Patients treated after 2015 more frequently had no palpable lymph nodes at diagnosis, despite similar primary tumor stage. After adoption of the PeCa care pathway, organ-sparing surgery (OSS) was more commonly performed (79.9% vs 57.8%; p < 0.01) despite local staging being similar and without observing a significant increase in positive margins. Surgical staging in patients with European Association of Urology intermediate- or high-risk tumors was conducted more frequently after 2015 (90% vs 41%; p < 0.01). Pathology reporting was standardized, and there was more frequent reporting of p16 staining status (81.4% vs 8.3%; p < 0.01), lymphovascular invasion (93.8% vs 44.3%; p < 0.01), and perineural invasion (92.4% vs 44.3%; p < 0.01) following implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a standardized care pathway for PeCa resulted in higher rates of OSS and pathological nodal staging and more complete pathology reports. Considering that these changes were associated with an increase in the number of patients treated, academic-driven centralization may play a role in optimizing the management of these patients.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We evaluated the impact of a care pathway for patients with penile cancer on patient management, the completeness of pathology reporting, and cancer control. We found that implementation of this pathway was associated with an increase in the number of patients treated, higher rates of organ-sparing surgery and lymph node staging, and more complete pathology reports. Centralization of care may play a role in optimizing the management of penile cancer.