Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Die aktuelle Situation der Chemotherapie des Peniskarzinoms

Ergebnisse einer deutschlandweiten Klinikumfrage

The current state of the art of chemotherapy of penile cancer

Results of a nationwide survey of German clinics

  • Originalien
  • Published:
Der Urologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Einleitung

Die Prognose des fortgeschrittenen Peniskarzinoms ist extrem schlecht. Aufgrund der schlechten Ansprechraten und erheblichen Nebenwirkungsraten der aktuellen Standardtherapien wurden in den letzten Jahren verschiedene neue Schemata zum Einsatz gebracht, um die Prognose des fortgeschrittenen Peniskarzinoms zu verbessern. Mittels einer retrospektiven Umfrage analysierten wir den aktuellen Standard der Chemotherapie des Peniskarzinoms in Deutschland.

Material und Methoden

In einer deutschlandweiten Umfrage wurden Fragebögen an alle urologischen Kliniken und Abteilungen versandt. Der Fragebogen beinhaltete neben allgemeinen Fragen zum Peniskarzinom 7 Fragen zu Indikation und Modalitäten der Chemotherapie.

Ergebnisse

Wir erhielten Antwortbögen aus 129 von 280 angeschriebenen Kliniken (Rücklaufquote 46%). 91 Kliniken berichteten über die Durchführung von Chemotherapie beim Peniskarzinom. Insgesamt wurden dabei 18 verschiedene Therapieschemata zum Einsatz gebracht. Die Kombinationen Cisplatin/Methotrexat/Bleomycin, Vinblastin/Methotrexat/Bleomycin and Cisplatin/5FU kamen am häufigsten zum Einsatz. Die durchschnittliche Zahl der Chemotherapien lag bei 2,3/Jahr/Klinik. Die Mehrheit der antwortenden Kliniken berichtete über Ansprechraten von <30%. Den dringenden Bedarf zur Einführung neuer und wirkungsvollerer Therapieschemata sahen 101 antwortende Kliniken.

Schlussfolgerung

Die aktuellen Standards in der Chemotherapie des Peniskarzinoms variieren in Deutschland sehr stark. Hauptgrund hierfür scheint die Suche nach neuen wirkungsvolleren und nebenwirkungsärmeren Therapieschemata. Ziel sollte es sein, diese Bemühungen in einer neuen deutschlandweiten Registerstudie zu bündeln (Informationen dazu unter http://www.uni-rostock.de/peniskarzinom)

Abstract

Introduction

The prognosis for advanced penile carcinomas is extremely poor. Due to the low response rates and relevant side effects of current chemotherapy regimens, several attempts have been made to improve chemotherapy in recent years. In a retrospective survey the current state of the art of chemotherapy for penile carcinoma in Germany was analysed.

Methods

The study took the form of a retrospective survey among all urological departments in Germany. The questionnaire contained seven questions concerning indications and modalities for chemotherapy of penile carcinoma in addition to general questions.

Results

Out of 280 departments 129 (46%) returned an answered questionnaire. Chemotherapy was reported to be carried out by 91 of the answering departments and overall 18 different chemotherapy regimens were used. The regimens cisplatin/methotrexate/bleomycin, vinblastin/methotrexate/bleomycin and cisplatin/5FU were the most frequently reported. Chemotherapy was carried out on average 2.3 times per year per department. The majority of the departments reported response rates under 30%. Finally 101 of the answering departments confirmed the necessity of new chemotherapy regimens.

Conclusions

The current state of the art for chemotherapy of penile carcinoma showed a very large variation in Germany. The response rates were disappointing. A nationwide study with new chemotherapy approaches is urgently needed (information under www.uni-rostock.de/peniskarzinom).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2

Literatur

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E et al (2007) Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin 57:43–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mobilio G, Ficarra V (2001) Genital treatment of penile carcinoma. Curr Opin Urol 11:299–304

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Protzel C, Hakenberg OW (2009) Chemotherapy in patients with penile carcinoma. Urol Int 82:1–7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dexeus FH, Logothetis CJ, Sella A et al (1991) Combination chemotherapy with methotrexate, bleomycin and cisplatin for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the male genital tract. J Urol 146:1284–1287

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pizzocaro G, Piva L (1988) Adjuvant and neoadjuvant vincristine, bleomycin, and methotrexate for inguinal metastases from squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Acta Oncol 27:823–824

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hussein AM, Benedetto P, Sridhar KS (1990) Chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil for penile and urethral squamous cell carcinomas. Cancer 65:433–438

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Haas GP, Blumenstein BA, Gagliano RG et al (1999) Cisplatin, methotrexate and bleomycin for the treatment of carcinoma of the penis: A southwest oncology group study. J Urol 161:1823–1825

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hakenberg OW, Nippgen JB, Froehner M et al (2006) Cisplatin, methotrexate and bleomycin for treating advanced penile carcinoma. BJU Int 98:1225–1227

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Leijte JA, Kerst JM, Bais E et al (2007) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced penile carcinoma. Eur Urol 52:488–494

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bermejo C, Busby JE, Spiess PE et al (2007) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by aggressive surgical consolidation for metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma. J Urol 177:1335–1338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pizzocaro G, Nicolai N, Milani A (2008) Taxanes in combination with cisplatin and fluorouracil for advanced penile cancer: Preliminary results. Eur Urol 55:546–551

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Theodore C, Skoneczna I, Bodrogi I et al (2008) A phase ii multicentre study of irinotecan (cpt 11) in combination with cisplatin (cddp) in metastatic or locally advanced penile carcinoma (eortc protocol 30992). Ann Oncol 19: 1304–1307

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Power DG, Galvin DJ, Cuffe S et al (2008) Cisplatin and gemcitabine in the management of metastatic penile cancer. Urol Oncol 2:14–18

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kattan J, Culine S, Droz JP et al (1993) Penile cancer chemotherapy: Twelve years‘ experience at institut gustave-roussy. Urology 42:559–562

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Protzel C, Klebingat HJ, Hakenberg OW (2008) Treatment of advanced penile cancer. Do we need new methods for chemotherapy?. Urologe A 47:1229–1232

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Heidenreich A, Thuer D, Pfister D (2008) Value of targeted therapy for penile cancer. Urologe A 47:1320–1327

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Universität, Ernst-Heydemann-Straße 6, 18055, Rostock, Deutschland

    C. Protzel, S. Milerski & O.W. Hakenberg

  2. Klinik für Urologie, Ernst Moritz Arndt-Universität, Greifswald, Deutschland

    S. Ruppin & K.-J. Klebingat

Authors
  1. C. Protzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Ruppin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Milerski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K.-J. Klebingat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. O.W. Hakenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Protzel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Protzel, C., Ruppin, S., Milerski, S. et al. Die aktuelle Situation der Chemotherapie des Peniskarzinoms. Urologe 48, 1495–1498 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-009-2108-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-009-2108-z

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation