A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Complex Decision Making for Individual Patients With Penile Cancer: Benchmarking Divergent Practices in European High-Volume Reference Centers: Results From eUROGEN Survey. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background And Objectives: Penile cancer (PeCa) remains a challenge due to its rarity and the lack of prospective studies, leading to treatment challenges and controversies. Guidelines offer recommendations, but discrepancies with clinical practice persist. This study analyzed treatment practices among specialists managing high-risk PeCa in European reference centers.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey included 39 PeCa specialists from 13 European countries representing high-volume centers. Descriptive analysis assessed (neo)adjuvant therapy preferences, systemic regimen choices, immunotherapy use, and next-generation sequencing (NGS) integration.

Key Findings And Limitations: Variations in managing high-risk PeCa, especially in (neo)adjuvant therapy utilization, were noted among participants. The differences highlight the influence of professional backgrounds and variations in treatment approaches between participants. Systemic regimen preferences and immunotherapy utilization also varied. Limited NGS integration indicated gaps in precision medicine adoption. Limitations included sample size, self-reported data, and cross-sectional design.

Conclusions And Clinical Implications: This study offered insights into PeCa management by specialists in high-volume European reference centers, stressing the need for evidence-based recommendations, guideline adherence, and collaboration to enhance PeCa care.

Patient Summary: Managing PeCa is complex due to its rarity and treatment controversies. This study examined practices among specialists in European reference centers, revealing treatment variations. The findings emphasize the importance of evidence-based care and collaboration in optimizing PeCa management.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2024.102275DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

reference centers
12
european reference
12
penile cancer
8
peca
8
practices specialists
8
managing high-risk
8
high-risk peca
8
specialists european
8
neoadjuvant therapy
8
systemic regimen
8

Similar Publications