Articles Tập 67 Số CĐ9-Hội Y học Giới tính 29/07/2026

CLINICOPATHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND OUTCOMES OF VIDEO ENDOSCOPIC INGUINAL LYMPHADENECTOMY FOR PENILE CANCER: EXPERIENCE FROM BINH DAN HOSPITAL

Tran Doan Thien Quoc1,2,3,4, Mai Ba Tien Dung1,2,3,4, Nguyen Cong Minh1,2,3,4
1 Pham Ngoc Thach University of Medicine
2 Department of Andrology, Binh Dan Hospital
3 Trường Đại học Y khoa Phạm Ngọc Thạch
4 Khoa Nam học, Bệnh viện Bình Dân
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v67iCD9.5805
27 Views
0 Downloads
Abstract

Objectives: To describe the clinicopathological characteristics and evaluate surgical outcomes of video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) for penile cancer at Binh Dan Hospital.

Methods: A prospective descriptive case series was conducted from May 2023 to June 2025 at Binh Dan Hospital. A total of 38 penile cancer patients underwent bilateral VEIL. Variables included clinicopathological features, surgical outcomes, complications (Clavien-Dindo classification), and oncological results.

Results: Mean age of the patients was 54.6 ± 10.9 (32-73 years). pT3 accounted for 60.5% and cN2 for 71.1%; G1 histological grade predominated (60.5%). All 38 cases (100%) completed bilateral VEIL without conversion. Mean total operative time was 189.5 ± 23.2 min (120-240 min). The great saphenous vein was preserved in 97.4% per side. Mean lymph node yield was 16.0 ± 2.3 per patient (range 13-23). Pathological staging: pN0 78.9%; pN1 13.2%; pN2 7.9%; extranodal extension detected in 1 case (2.6%). Subclinical lymphocele 68.4%; symptomatic lymphocele 21.1%. Wound infection 5.3%; no skin necrosis or deep vein thrombosis. Mean hospital stay 5.6 ± 2.3 days. Recurrence rate 13.2%; mean disease-free survival 26.2 ± 13.0 months.

Conclusion: VEIL is a feasible, safe and oncologically adequate inguinal lymphadenectomy technique for penile cancer, with low major complication rates and adequate node yield per EAU-ASCO (2026) criteria.

 

References
[1]
Zhu W, Chen W, Zou D et al. Global pattern and trends in penile cancer incidence: population-based study. JMIR Public Health Surveill, 2022, 8 (7): e34874. doi: 10.2196/34874. Google Scholar
[2]
Brouwer O.R, Tagawa S.T, Albersen M et al. EAU-ASCO guidelines on penile cancer. European Association of Urology, 2026. https://uroweb.org/guidelines/penile-cancer Google Scholar
[3]
Eskenazi F, Medina L.G, Soto Suarez R et al. Optimizing inguinal lymph node dissection for penile cancer: a pathway to improve outcomes and complications - a narrative review. Complications, 2025, 2 (3). doi: 10.3390/complications2030020 Google Scholar
[4]
Brouwer O.R, Clavell-Hernandez J, Huo J et al. Systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of studies comparing conventional and videoendoscopic inguinal lymph node dissection in penile cancer. Eur Urol Oncol, 2023, 6 (2): 168-177. doi: 10.1111/bju.16661 Google Scholar
[5]
Suartz C.V et al. Comparing open and video endoscopic lymphadenectomy for penile cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. BJU International, 2025, 135 (4): 567-576. doi: 10.1111/bju.16661 Google Scholar
[6]
Aydin A.M, Biben E, Yu A, Chakiryan N.H, Mehrazin R, Spiess P.E. Minimally invasive management of inguinal lymph nodes in penile cancer: recent progress and remaining challenges. Cancers (Basel), 2024, 16 (17): 2935. doi: 10.3390/cancers16172935. Google Scholar
[7]
Lohia N, Nazeer T, Chava S et al. Long-term oncological and surgical outcomes after video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) in patients with penile cancer. Int Braz J Urol, 2023, 49 (5): 580-589. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2023.0065. Google Scholar
[8]
Brassetti A, Anceschi U, Cozzi G et al. Combined reporting of surgical quality and cancer control after surgical treatment for penile tumors with inguinal lymph node dissection: the tetrafecta achievement. Curr Oncol, 2023, 30 (2): 1882-1892. doi: 10.3390/curroncol30020146. Google Scholar