Utility of Minimally Invasive Technology for Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection in Penile Cancer

• Authors: Reza Nabavizadeh, Emory University; Benjamin Petrinec, Emory University; Andrea Necchi, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori; Igor Tsaur, University of Medicine Mainz; Maarten Albersen, University Hospital Leuven; Viraj Master, Emory University
• Journal Title: Journal of Clinical Medicine
• Volume: Volume 9, Number 8
• Publisher: MDPI | 2020-08-01, Pages 1-15
• Type of Work: Article | Final Publisher PDF
• Publisher DOI: http://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9082501
• Subjects: Health Sciences, Oncology; Health Sciences, Medicine and Surgery; Health Sciences, Immunology
• Keywords: Science & Technology; Life Sciences & Biomedicine; Medicine, General & Internal; General & Internal Medicine; penile cancer; inguinal lymph nodes; inguinal lymphadenectomy; minimally invasive; robotic; endoscopic; video-assisted; Clinical practice guidelines; Postoperative complications; Lymphadenectomy; Carcinoma; Management; Survival; Improves survival; ILND

Abstract

Our aim is to review the benefits as well as techniques, surgical outcomes, and complications of minimally invasive inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) for penile cancer. The PubMed, Wiley Online Library, and Science Direct databases were reviewed in March 2020 for relevant studies limited to those published in English and within 2000–2020. Thirty-one articles describing minimally invasive ILND were identified for review. ILND has an important role in both staging and treatment of penile cancer. Minimally invasive technologies have been utilized to perform ILND in penile cancer patients with non-palpable inguinal lymph nodes and intermediate to high-risk primary tumors or patients with unilateral palpable non-fixed inguinal lymph nodes measuring less than 4 cm, including videoscopic endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) and robotic videoscopic endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (RVEIL). Current data suggest that VEIL and RVEIL are feasible and safe with minimal intra-operative complications. Perhaps the strongest appeal for the use of minimally-invasive approaches is their faster post-operative recovery and less post-operative complications. As a result, patients can tolerate this procedure better and surgeons can offer surgery to patients who otherwise would not be a candidate or personally willing to undergo surgery. When compared to open technique, VEIL and RVEIL have similar dissected nodal count, a surrogate metric for oncological adequacy, and a none-inferior inguinal recurrence rate. Larger randomized studies are encouraged to investigate long-term outcome and survival rates using these minimally-invasive techniques for ILND.