Kenntnisse von deutschsprachigen Urologen zur Häufigkeit der Assoziation des Peniskarzinoms mit dem Humanen Papillomavirus – Survey-Ergebnisse der European PROspective Penile Cancer Study (E-PROPS)

Lebentrau, Steffen; Wolff, Ingmar; Hempel, Marie Christine; Haccius, Marlene; Kluth, Luis A.; Pycha, Armin; Brookman-May, Sabine; Schneider, Till Rasmus; Hermanns, Thomas; Distler, Florian A.; Bögemann, Martin; Kübler, Hubert; Shariat, Shahrokh F.; Burger, Maximilian und May, Matthias (2022): Kenntnisse von deutschsprachigen Urologen zur Häufigkeit der Assoziation des Peniskarzinoms mit dem Humanen Papillomavirus – Survey-Ergebnisse der European PROspective Penile Cancer Study (E-PROPS). In: Aktuelle Urologie, Bd. 53, Nr. 5: S. 461-467

Abstract

Background A recent meta-analysis showed that penile cancer (PeC) is associated with the human papilloma virus (HPV) in 50 % of patients in Europe. It is unknown whether urologists are aware of the impact of viral carcinogenesis. Methods A (German-language) survey comprising 14 items was created and sent to urologists of 45 clinical centres in Germany (n = 34), Austria (n = 8), Switzerland (n = 2) and Italy/South Tyrol (n = 1) once in Q3/2018. According to a predefined quality standard, a total of 557 surveys were eligible for final data analysis (response rate: 85.7 %). Among other questions, urologists were asked to state the frequency of HPV-associated PeC in Europe. 4 potential answers were provided: (A)-< 25 %, (B)-25 - 50 %, (C)-> 50 - 75 %, (D)-level of association unknown. For the final calculation, a tolerance of +/- 50 % was considered acceptable, so B and C were deemed correct answers. Based on a bootstrap-adjusted multivariate logistic regression model, criteria independently predicting a correct answer were identified. Results Categories A-D were selected in 19.2 % (n = 107), 48.8 % (n = 272), 12.9 % (n = 72) and 19 % (n = 106), respectively, representing a rate of 61.8 % of urologists (n = 344) reaching the endpoint (B + C). Autonomous performance of chemotherapy for PeC by urologists within the given centre (OR 1.55, p[Bootstrap] = 0.036) and the centre's number of urological beds (OR 1.02, p[Bootstrap] = 0.025) were the only parameters showing a significant independent impact on the endpoint. In contrast, the status of a university centre (p = 0.143), a leading position of the responding urologist (p = 0.375) and the number of PeC patients treated per year and centre (p = 0.571) did not significantly predict a correct answer. Conclusions Our results demonstrate insufficient knowledge on the association of PeC and HPV among German-speaking urologists.

• Dokumententyp: Zeitschriftenartikel
• Fakultät: Medizin
• Themengebiete: 600 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften > 610 Medizin und Gesundheit
• ISSN: 0001-7868
• Sprache: Deutsch