ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Ahead of Print

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced penile cancer: an updated evidence


1 Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
2 Department of Urology, People's Hospital of Deyang City, Deyang 618000, China
3 Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China

Correspondence Address:
Jian-Zhong Ai,
Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041
China
Lu Yang,
Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041
China
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/aja202188

PMID: 34975068

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has shown promising results in patients with locally advanced penile cancer. However, no consensus exists on its applications for locally advanced penile cancer. Thus, it is unclear which kind of chemotherapy regimen is the best choice. Consequently, a systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE was performed in March 2021 to assess the efficacy and safety of NAC for the treatment of patients with locally advanced penile cancer. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias in each study. This study synthesized 14 published studies. The study revealed that patients who achieved an objective response to NAC obtained a better survival outcome compared with those who did not achieve an objective response. In addition, the objective response rates (ORRs) and pathological complete response (pCR) rates were 0.57 and 0.11, respectively. The incidence of grade ≥3 toxicity was 0.36. Subgroup analysis found that the ORR and pCR of the taxane–platinum (TP) regimen group performed better than those of the nontaxane–platinum (NTP) regimen group (0.57 vs 0.54 and 0.14 vs 0.07, respectively). Moreover, the TP regimen group had more frequent toxicity than the NTP regimen group (0.41 vs 0.26). However, further studies were warranted to confirm the findings.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]
Print this article
Search
 Back
 
  Search Pubmed for
 
    -  Yi XY
    -  Cao DH
    -  You PH
    -  Xiong XY
    -  Zheng XN
    -  Peng G
    -  Liao DZ
    -  Li H
    -  Yang L
    -  Ai JZ
 Citation Manager
 Article Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed263    
    PDF Downloaded20    

Recommend this journal