Over the past few decades, some principles in the treatment of penile cancer have changed fundamentally. While 15 years ago a negative surgical margin of at least 2 cm was considered mandatory, organ-sparing surgery permitting minimal negative surgical margins has a high priority nowadays. The current treatment principle requires as much organ preservation as possible and as much radicality as necessary. The implementation of organ-sparing and reconstructive surgical techniques has improved the quality of life of surviving patients. However, oncological and functional outcomes are still unsatisfactory. Alongside with adequate local treatment of the primary tumour, a consistent management of inguinal lymph nodes is of fundamental prognostic significance. In particular, clinically inconspicuous inguinal lymph nodes staged T1b and upwards need a surgical approach. Sentinel node biopsy, minimally-invasive surgical techniques and modified inguinal lymphadenectomy have reduced morbidity compared to conventional inguinal lymph node dissection. Multimodal treatment with surgery and chemotherapy is required in all patients with lymph node-positive disease; neoadjuvant chemotherapy has been established for patients with locally advanced lymph node disease, and adjuvant treatment after radical inguinal lymphadenectomy for lymph node-positive disease. An increasing understanding of the underlying tumour biology, in particular the role of the human papilloma virus (HPV) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status, has led to a new pathological classification and may further enhance treatment options. This review summarises current aspects in the therapeutic management of penile cancer.

IntroductionThe aim of the study was to collect information regarding the quality of communication of risk-determining factors or risk profile, and the guideline conformity of recommendations for adjuvant treatment in patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) between clinical and ambulatory urologists.Material and methodsAt three German urological clinics during the period between 2012-2014, epicrises of 1,033 NMIBC-patients were retrospectively summarised to 505 tumour episodes (tumour resection including any re-resections) and analysed regarding the endpoints 1) risk profile is explicitly named or recorded risk factors are sufficient for the determination of risk profile, and 2) guideline conformity of treatment recommendation. Independent factors influencing the endpoints were determined by means of multivariate logistic regression models.ResultsThe risk profile was explicitly named for 3.6% of tumour episodes; for 68.9% a risk profile could be derived from the information in the epicrises. Treatment recommendations were given for 93.7% of tumour episodes, but only 17.8% were guideline compliant. 42.6% of the recommendations were not reliably effective; 33.1% and 0.2% resulted in under- and overtreatment respectively. Neither endpoint showed gender specific or regional differences, but both were considerably less likely to be achieved in case of recurrence.ConclusionsThe discrepancy between treatment recommendation (93.7%) and guideline compliance (17.8%) could indicate a lack of familiarity with guidelines. The quality of the epicrises of NMIBC-patients was poor and bore the potential risk of undertreatment. The results of this study are not necessarily applicable to other clinics, but could, however, prompt physicians to re-examine epicrises for the fulfillment of the quality criteria examined here.