Close
New

Medscape is available in 5 Language Editions – Choose your Edition here.

 

Penile Cancer Workup

  • Author: Stanley A Brosman, MD; Chief Editor: Bradley Fields Schwartz, DO, FACS  more...
 
Updated: Oct 31, 2015
 

Laboratory Studies

See the list below:

  • No specific laboratory studies or tumor markers are diagnostic for penile cancer.
  • A general evaluation, which includes a CBC count; a chemistry panel with liver function tests; and an assessment of cardiac, pulmonary, and renal status, is helpful as a baseline and in the detection of any unsuspected problems.
  • Patients with advanced penile cancer may be anemic, with leukocytosis and hypoalbuminemia.
  • Hypercalcemia has been found in some patients in the absence of metastases.
Next

Imaging Studies

See the list below:

  • MRI and ultrasonography are useful for local cancer staging and for assessing the inguinal lymph nodes. These studies may be helpful for detecting tumor invasion into the corpora. MRI produces sharp images of the penile structures, is accurate for demonstrating invasion of the corpora, and can help the physician determine the extent of the cancer along the surface of the penis in patients with tumors larger than 2 cm. [11]
  • Both MRI and CT scanning can demonstrate enlarged pelvic and retroperitoneal lymph nodes. Positron emission tomography (PET) and CT scanning have not been studied extensively but may be helpful and should be obtained in patients with high-grade and extensive local disease and in those with evidence of inguinal node involvement.
  • CT images in men with proven unilateral or bilateral cancer with central node necrosis and/or irregular nodal borders of the regional nodes are very useful to identify high-risk patients. Graafland et al demonstrated an association between these unfavorable pathologic features and poor prognosis, with a sensitivity of 95%, a specificity of 82% and a diagnostic accuracy of 87%. [12]
  • Rarely, chest radiography can help detect metastases. However, the preferred study to evaluate for metastases is CT scanning.
  • A technique to identify lymph node metastases using MRI following the intravenous injection of ferromagnetic particles has shown a high degree of sensitivity. Tabatabaei et al studied 7 patients with this imaging and found a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 97% and a positive predictive value of 81.2% in the ability to detect micrometastatic disease. [13] Further study are necessary to determine the tumor burden needed for this imaging modality to be effective, but current results indicate that it is more accurate than conventional CT scanning.
  • PET/CT imaging using 18F-FDG was used to study 42 patients with nonpalpable inguinal nodes. Five of these patients had micrometastatic disease but the PET/CT found tumor in only one patient. Another study using 18F-FDG-PET/CT scan imaging conducted by Schlenke r et al on 35 patients with invasive penile carcinoma found that integrating PET/CT scanning into preoperative procedures could avoid surgical staging in selected patients. [14]
Previous
Next

Diagnostic Procedures

The most important diagnostic test is a biopsy. This may be an excisional biopsy if the cancer is small or the lesion is confined to the prepuce and a circumcision is acceptable. The biopsy should contain tissue beneath the tumor, if this is feasible, in order to help stage the disease.

CT-guided or ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of enlarged lymph nodes may aid the urologist in planning therapy. Aspiration biopsies of sentinel nodes using the identification techniques described below have also been reported. Kroon et al reported that only 9 of 23 patients (39%) were detected with fine-needle aspiration biopsy.[15]

Sentinel node biopsy may be of assistance in determining the need for extensive inguinal lymphadenectomy. Various methods have been used to identify the sentinel node. One method involves intradermal injection of 2 mL of patent blue dye around the tumor. Approximately 15 minutes later, the node can be identified and removed for histologic assessment.

Lymphoscintigraphy is another method used to identify the sentinel node. This technique, developed at The Netherlands Cancer Center Institute, involves injecting technetium-99m nanocolloid around the primary tumor. Following the injection, dynamic images are taken with a gamma camera to visualize lymphatic drainage. Static scintigrams are obtained 2 hours after the injection. A hot spot in the inguinal area is considered to be a sentinel node, and its position is marked on the skin. In some instances, both techniques are used to identify the sentinel node. Kroon et al found that that the size of the metastasis was predictive of nonsentinel node metastasis. They reported that, in groins with only micrometastases in the sentinel node, none of the other nodes were involved.[16]

Tabatabaei and McDougal reported on their results using lymphotrophic nanoparticle-enhanced MRI and found that this technique yielded 100% sensitivity and 97% specificity.[17]

The major limitation of these techniques is the need to perform the test in all patients regardless of the presence of clinically normal nodes and histologic features of the primary tumor. Another possible concern is thrombosis of the lymphatic vessels cause by inflammation. Finally, inexperience with these techniques is an obstacle. It has been estimated that experience with 25 patients is needed to achieve the 4.8% false-negative rate reached by the Netherlands group, and few centers see enough patients to become proficient.

Previous
Next

Histologic Findings

Most penile cancers are squamous cell carcinomas that demonstrate keratinization, epithelial pearl formation, and various degrees of mitotic activity. The normal rete pegs are disrupted, and invasive lesions penetrate the basement membrane and surrounding structures.

Erythroplasia of Queyrat, a red, velvety, well-marginated lesion usually occurring on the glans, is characterized by atypical hyperplastic cells that appear disoriented and vacuolated and have hyperchromatic nuclei and multiple mitotic figures. The submucosa shows capillary proliferation and ectasia with a surrounding inflammatory infiltrate rich in plasma cells.

Campos et al studied E-cadherin (cell adhesion molecules involved in the metastatic process), matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)–2, and MMP-9 (part of a group of enzymes that degrade collagen type IV in the basement membrane). In the 125 available tumor specimens and clinical records, they found that low levels of E-cadherin and high expression of MMP-9 represented independent risk factors for nodal disease.[18]

Guimaraes et al examined the value of proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) and MIB-1/Ki-67 to determine if these might serve as prognostic factors in predicting nodal metastasis. PCNA was an independent factor in univariate and multivariate analysis (RR, 2.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-7.7). Unexpectedly, a high expression of MIB-1/Ki-67 reactivity correlated with a decreased incidence of nodal metastases.[19] Although these markers did have predictive value, they added little to the predictive value of tumor stage and grade and the presence of vascular invasion.

Stankiewicz et al found thatKi-67 was only a moderate surrogate marker for HPV infection in patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma. Ki-67 did not show prognostic value for cancer-specific survival or overall survival.[20]

Previous
Next

Staging

No universal staging system has been established for penile cancer. A detailed and accurate assessment of the primary tumor, including identification of regional and distant metastatic disease, is important for selecting appropriate therapy and for assessing and communicating results.

The Jackson and TNM systems are used, although the TNM system is preferable. In the Jackson system, characteristics of the primary lesion, such as size and confinement to the epidermis (superficial or invasive), are not used. The presence and extent of nodal metastases is not addressed. Histologic criteria are not used, even though the grade and extent of invasion is important.

Solsona et al presented the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on penile cancer. They proposed 3 risk groups for patients with clinically negative or occult nodal metastases: low risk, stage T1, grade 1; intermediate, stage T1, grade 2 or 3; and high, T2-T3, grade 2-3.[21] Most patients with positive sentinel node biopsy findings tend to fall into the high-risk category.

Most penile cancers are low grade, but correlation between grade and survival is lacking. High-grade disease is associated with regional lymph node metastases. The strongest predictor for survival is the presence or absence of nodal metastases.

The optimum surgical margin has been reduced from the classical 2 cm to 1 cm or, in some instances, to 0.5 cm, without any adverse consequences related to cancer recurrence or survival. The advantage of a smaller margin is important because nearly 80% of penile squamous cell carcinomas are distal, presenting on the prepuce, glans, or in the coronal sulcus. These lesions can be managed with local excision and reconstruction.

The Jackson classification is as follows:

  • Stage I (A): The tumor is confined to the glans, prepuce, or both.
  • Stage II (B): The tumor extends onto the shaft of the penis.
  • Stage III (C): The tumor has inguinal metastasis that is operable.
  • Stage IV (D): The tumor involves adjacent structures and is associated with inoperable inguinal metastasis or distant metastasis.

The TNM classification of the primary tumor (T) is below. Note that the following description is devoid of N (node) and M (metastasis) descriptions. These stages simply relate the presence or absence of nodal and distant metastases.

  • TX: Primary tumor cannot be assessed.
  • T0: Primary tumor is not evident.
  • Tis: CIS is present.
  • Ta: Noninvasive verrucous carcinoma is present.
  • T1: Tumor invades subepithelial connective tissue.
  • T2: Tumor invades corpora spongiosum or cavernosum.
  • T3: Tumor invades the urethra or prostate.
  • T4: Tumor invades other adjacent structures.

The WHO histopathological classification is as follows:

  • Grade 1 - Well differentiated, with 33% undifferentiated cells
  • Grade 2 - Moderately differentiated, with 33%-66% undifferentiated cells
  • Grade 3 - Poorly differentiated, with more than 66% undifferentiated cells

Novara and colleagues from the GUONE Penile Cancer Project compared the prognostic accuracy of the Solsona and European Association of Urology (EAU) risk groups in predicting lymph node metastases. They studied clinical and pathology data from 175 patients with squamous cell carcinoma from 1980-2002. Both groups used variations of the pathologic features and primary tumor stage. Although both risk groups could predict the probability of nodal metastases, their prognostic accuracy was poor when the data were analyzed according to the ROC curve analysis.[22]

Previous
 
 
Contributor Information and Disclosures
Author

Stanley A Brosman, MD Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, University of California, Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine

Stanley A Brosman, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Association for Cancer Research, American College of Surgeons, American Medical Association, American Urological Association, Society for Basic Urologic Research, Society of Surgical Oncology, Society of Urologic Oncology, Western Section of the American Urological Association, Association of Clinical Research Professionals, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Societe Internationale d'Urologie (International Society of Urology), International Society of Urological Pathology

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Specialty Editor Board

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Received salary from Medscape for employment. for: Medscape.

Chief Editor

Bradley Fields Schwartz, DO, FACS Professor of Urology, Director, Center for Laparoscopy and Endourology, Department of Surgery, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine

Bradley Fields Schwartz, DO, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, Society of University Urologists, Association of Military Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons, American Urological Association, Endourological Society

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Additional Contributors

Gamal Mostafa Ghoniem, MD, FACS Professor and Vice Chair of Urology, Chief, Division of Female Urology, Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, and Voiding Dysfunction, Department of Urology, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine

Gamal Mostafa Ghoniem, MD, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: American Urogynecologic Society, International Continence Society, International Urogynaecology Association, Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction, American College of Surgeons, American Urological Association

Disclosure: Received honoraria from Astellas for speaking and teaching; Received grant/research funds from Uroplasty for none; Partner received honoraria from Allergan for speaking and teaching.

Acknowledgements

Dan Theodorescu, MD, PhD Paul A Bunn Professor of Cancer Research, Professor of Surgery and Pharmacology, Director, University of Colorado Comprehensive Cancer Center

Dan Theodorescu, MD, PhD is a member of the following medical societies: American Cancer Society, American College of Surgeons, American Urological Association, Medical Society of Virginia, Society for Basic Urologic Research, and Society of Urologic Oncology

Disclosure: Key Genomics Ownership interest Co-Founder-50% Stock Ownership; KromaTiD, Inc Stock Options Board membership

References
  1. Cancer Facts & Figures 2015. American Cancer Society. Available at http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@editorial/documents/document/acspc-044552.pdf. Accessed: October 31, 2015.

  2. Barnholtz-Sloan JS, Maldonado JL, Pow-sang J, Giuliano AR. Incidence trends in primary malignant penile cancer. Urol Oncol. 2007 Sep-Oct. 25(5):361-7. [Medline].

  3. Seyam RM, Bissada NK, Mokhtar AA, et al. Outcome of penile cancer in circumcised men. J Urol. 2006 Feb. 175(2):557-61; discussion 561. [Medline].

  4. Madsen BS, van den Brule AJ, Jensen HL, Wohlfahrt J, Frisch M. Risk factors for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis--population-based case-control study in Denmark. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008 Oct. 17(10):2683-91. [Medline].

  5. Harish K, Ravi R. The role of tobacco in penile carcinoma. Br J Urol. 1995 Mar. 75(3):375-7. [Medline].

  6. Maden C, Sherman KJ, Beckmann AM, Hislop TG, Teh CZ, Ashley RL, et al. History of circumcision, medical conditions, and sexual activity and risk of penile cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Jan 6. 85(1):19-24. [Medline].

  7. Hellberg D, Valentin J, Eklund T, Nilsson S. Penile cancer: is there an epidemiological role for smoking and sexual behaviour?. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1987 Nov 21. 295(6609):1306-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  8. de Paula AA, Netto JC, Freitas R Jr, et al. Penile carcinoma: the role of koilocytosis in groin metastasis and the association with disease specific survival. J Urol. 2007 Apr. 177(4):1339-43; discussion 1343. [Medline].

  9. Mannweiler S, Sygulla S, Beham-Schmid C, et al. Penile carcinogenesis in a low-incidence area: a clinicopathologic and molecular analysis of 115 invasive carcinomas with special emphasis on chronic inflammatory skin diseases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011 Jul. 35(7):998-1006. [Medline].

  10. Rippentrop JM, Joslyn SA, Konety BR. Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: evaluation of data from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program. Cancer. 2004 Sep 15. 101(6):1357-63. [Medline].

  11. [Guideline] Hakenberg OW, Compérat EM, Minhas S, Necchi A, Protzel C, Watkin N. EAU Guidelines on Penile Cancer: 2014 Update. Eur Urol. 2015 Jan. 67(1):142-50. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  12. Graafland NM, Teertstra HJ, Besnard AP, van Boven HH, Horenblas S. Identification of high risk pathological node positive penile carcinoma: value of preoperative computerized tomography imaging. J Urol. 2011 Mar. 185(3):881-7. [Medline].

  13. Tabatabaei S, Harisinghani M, McDougal WS. Regional lymph node staging using lymphotropic nanoparticle enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with ferumoxtran-10 in patients with penile cancer. J Urol. 2005 Sep. 174(3):923-7; discussion 927. [Medline].

  14. Schlenker B, Scher B, Tiling R, et al. Detection of inguinal lymph node involvement in penile squamous cell carcinoma by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT: A prospective single-center study. Urol Oncol. 2012 Jan. 30(1):55-9. [Medline].

  15. Kroon BK, Horenblas S, Deurloo EE, Nieweg OE, Teertstra HJ. Ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology before sentinel node biopsy in patients with penile carcinoma. BJU Int. 2005 Mar. 95(4):517-21. [Medline].

  16. Kroon BK, Horenblas S, Meinhardt W, et al. Dynamic sentinel node biopsy in penile carcinoma: evaluation of 10 years experience. Eur Urol. 2005 May. 47(5):601-6; discussion 606. [Medline].

  17. Tabatabaei S, McDougal WS. Invasive carcinoma of the penis: management and prognosis. Ritchie JP, D’Amico AV, eds. Urologic Oncology. Philadelphia: Elsevier/Saunders; 2005. 710-22.

  18. Campos RS, Lopes A, Guimaraes GC, et al. E-cadherin, MMP-2, and MMP-9 as prognostic markers in penile cancer: analysis of 125 patients. Urology. 2006 Apr. 67(4):797-802. [Medline].

  19. Guimaraes GC, Leal ML, Campos RS, et al. Do proliferating cell nuclear antigen and MIB-1/Ki-67 have prognostic value in penile squamous cell carcinoma?. Urology. 2007 Jul. 70(1):137-42. [Medline].

  20. Stankiewicz E, Ng M, Cuzick J, Mesher D, Watkin N, Lam W, et al. The prognostic value of Ki-67 expression in penile squamous cell carcinoma. J Clin Pathol. 2012 Jun. 65(6):534-7. [Medline].

  21. Solsona E, Algaba F, Horenblas S, et al. EAU Guidelines on Penile Cancer. Eur Urol. 2004 Jul. 46(1):1-8. [Medline].

  22. Novara G, Artibani W, Cunico SC, et al. How accurately do Solsona and European Association of Urology risk groups predict for risk of lymph node metastases in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis?. Urology. 2008 Feb. 71(2):328-33. [Medline].

  23. Bermejo C, Busby JE, Spiess PE, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by aggressive surgical consolidation for metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2007 Apr. 177(4):1335-8. [Medline].

  24. Pagliaro LC, Williams DL, Daliani D, Williams MB, Osai W, Kincaid M. Neoadjuvant paclitaxel, ifosfamide, and cisplatin chemotherapy for metastatic penile cancer: a phase II study. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Aug 20. 28(24):3851-7. [Medline].

  25. Haas GP, Blumenstein BA, Gagliano RG, Russell CA, Rivkin SE, Culkin DJ, et al. Cisplatin, methotrexate and bleomycin for the treatment of carcinoma of the penis: a Southwest Oncology Group study. J Urol. 1999 Jun. 161(6):1823-5. [Medline].

  26. Shindel AW, Mann MW, Lev RY, et al. Mohs micrographic surgery for penile cancer: management and long-term followup. J Urol. 2007 Nov. 178(5):1980-5. [Medline].

  27. Brandes SB, Sengelmann R, Hruza G. Mohs micrographic surgery for penile cancer: management and long term follow-up [abstract 708]. J Urol. 2001. 165:172.

  28. Gulino G, Sasso F, Falabella R, et al. Distal urethral reconstruction of the glans for penile carcinoma: results of a novel technique at 1-year of followup. J Urol. 2007 Sep. 178(3 Pt 1):941-4. [Medline].

  29. Ozsahin M, Jichlinski P, Weber DC, et al. Treatment of penile carcinoma: to cut or not to cut?. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Nov 1. 66(3):674-9. [Medline].

  30. Djajadiningrat RS, van Werkhoven E, Horenblas S. Prophylactic pelvic lymph node dissection in penile cancer patients. J Urol. 2014 Dec 10. [Medline].

  31. Kroon BK, Horenblas S, Lont AP, et al. Patients with penile carcinoma benefit from immediate resection of clinically occult lymph node metastases. J Urol. 2005 Mar. 173(3):816-9. [Medline].

  32. Bouchot O, Rigaud J, Maillet F, et al. Morbidity of inguinal lymphadenectomy for invasive penile carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2004 Jun. 45(6):761-5; discussion 765-6. [Medline].

  33. d'Ancona CA, de Lucena RG, Querne FA, et al. Long-term followup of penile carcinoma treated with penectomy and bilateral modified inguinal lymphadenectomy. J Urol. 2004 Aug. 172(2):498-501; discussion 501. [Medline].

  34. Horenblas S, Bex A, Tanis PJ. Sentinel node biopsy in squamous cell carcinoma of the penis [abstract 710]. J Urol. 2001. 165:173.

  35. Izawa J, Tamboli P, Ainslie N. Intraoperative lymphatic mapping (IOLM) for squamous penile cancer: The M.D. Anderson experience [abstract 711]. J Urol. 2001. 165:173.

  36. Horenblas S, Jansen L, Meinhardt W, et al. Detection of occult metastasis in squamous cell carcinoma of the penis using a dynamic sentinel node procedure. J Urol. 2000 Jan. 163(1):100-4. [Medline].

  37. Perdona S, Autorino R, De Sio M, et al. Dynamic sentinel node biopsy in clinically node-negative penile cancer versus radical inguinal lymphadenectomy: a comparative study. Urology. 2005 Dec. 66(6):1282-6. [Medline].

  38. Lont AP, Kroon BK, Gallee MP, et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection for penile carcinoma: extent of inguinal lymph node involvement as an indicator for pelvic lymph node involvement and survival. J Urol. 2007 Mar. 177(3):947-52; discussion 952. [Medline].

  39. Tobias-Machado M, Tavares A, Ornellas AA, et al. Video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy: a new minimally invasive procedure for radical management of inguinal nodes in patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2007 Mar. 177(3):953-7; discussion 958. [Medline].

  40. Graafland NM, Moonen LM, van Boven HH, et al. Inguinal recurrence following therapeutic lymphadenectomy for node positive penile carcinoma: outcome and implications for management. J Urol. 2011 Mar. 185(3):888-93. [Medline].

  41. Thuret R, Sun M, Abdollah F, Budaus L, et al. Tumor grade improves the prognostic ability of American Joint Committee on Cancer stage in patients with penile carcinoma. J Urol. 2011 Feb. 185(2):501-7. [Medline].

  42. Zini L, Cloutier V, Isbarn H, et al. A simple and accurate model for prediction of cancer-specific mortality in patients treated with surgery for primary penile squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Feb 1. 15(3):1013-8. [Medline].

  43. Novak JA, Dvoaeek J. Interstitial brachytherapy for penile carcinoma [abstract 709]. J Urol. 2001. 165:173.

  44. Hegarty PK, Kayes O, Freeman A, et al. A prospective study of 100 cases of penile cancer managed according to European Association of Urology guidelines. BJU Int. 2006 Sep. 98(3):526-31. [Medline].

  45. Slaton JW, Huang SF, Levy DA. Lymph node-positive squamous penile carcinoma: Extent of nodal involvement predicts 3-year disease-free survival [abstract 712]. J Urol. 2001. 165:173.

  46. Agrawal A, Pai D, Ananthakrishnan N, et al. The histological extent of the local spread of carcinoma of the penis and its therapeutic implications. BJU Int. 2000 Feb. 85(3):299-301. [Medline].

  47. Algaba F, Horenblas S, Pizzocaro-Luigi Piva G, et al. EAU guidelines on penile cancer. Eur Urol. 2002 Sep. 42(3):199-203. [Medline].

  48. Bermejo C, Busby JE, Spiess PE, Heller L, Pagliaro LC, Pettaway CA. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by aggressive surgical consolidation for metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2007 Apr. 177(4):1335-8. [Medline].

  49. Bevan-Thomas R, Slaton JW, Pettaway CA. Contemporary morbidity from lymphadenectomy for penile squamous cell carcinoma: the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Experience. J Urol. 2002 Apr. 167(4):1638-42. [Medline].

  50. Bhagat SK, Gopalakrishnan G, Kekre NS, et al. Factors predicting inguinal node metastasis in squamous cell cancer of penis. World J Urol. 2010 Feb. 28(1):93-8. [Medline].

  51. Bissada NK. Conservative extirpative treatment of cancer of the penis. Urol Clin North Am. 1992 May. 19(2):283-90. [Medline].

  52. Bissada NK, Yakout HH, Fahmy WE, et al. Multi-institutional long-term experience with conservative surgery for invasive penile carcinoma. J Urol. 2003 Feb. 169(2):500-2. [Medline].

  53. Brennhovd B, Johnsrud K, Berner A, et al. Sentinel node procedure in low-stage/low-grade penile carcinomas. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2006. 40(3):204-7. [Medline].

  54. Brown CT, Minhas S, Ralph DJ. Conservative surgery for penile cancer: subtotal glans excision without grafting. BJU Int. 2005 Oct. 96(6):911-2. [Medline].

  55. Burgers JK, Badalament RA, Drago JR. Penile cancer. Clinical presentation, diagnosis, and staging. Urol Clin North Am. 1992 May. 19(2):247-56. [Medline].

  56. Busby JE, Pettaway CA. What's new in the management of penile cancer?. Curr Opin Urol. 2005 Sep. 15(5):350-7. [Medline].

  57. Catalona WJ. Modified inguinal lymphadenectomy for carcinoma of the penis with preservation of saphenous veins: technique and preliminary results. J Urol. 1988 Aug. 140(2):306-10. [Medline].

  58. Chaux A, Velazquez EF, Algaba F, Ayala G, Cubilla AL. Developments in the pathology of penile squamous cell carcinomas. Urology. 2010 Aug. 76(2 Suppl 1):S7-S14. [Medline].

  59. Chen MF, Chen WC, Wu CT, Chuang CK, Ng KF, Chang JT. Contemporary management of penile cancer including surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy: an experience in Taiwan. World J Urol. 2004 Apr. 22(1):60-6. [Medline].

  60. Coblentz TR, Theodorescu D. Morbidity of modified prophylactic inguinal lymphadenectomy for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. J Urol. 2002 Oct. 168(4 Pt 1):1386-9. [Medline].

  61. Colberg JW, Andriole GL, Catalona WJ. Long-term follow-up of men undergoing modified inguinal lymphadenectomy for carcinoma of the penis. Br J Urol. 1997 Jan. 79(1):54-7. [Medline].

  62. Crispen PL, Mydlo JH. Penile intraepithelial neoplasia and other premalignant lesions of the penis. Urol Clin North Am. 2010 Aug. 37(3):335-42. [Medline].

  63. Crook J, Ma C, Grimard L. Radiation therapy in the management of the primary penile tumor: an update. World J Urol. 2009 Apr. 27(2):189-96. [Medline].

  64. Cubilla AL, Ayala AG, Dillner J, et al. Tumours of the penis. Eble JN, Sauter G, Epstein JI, Sesterhenn IA, eds. Pathology and Genetics of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2004.

  65. Culkin DJ, Beer TM. Advanced penile carcinoma. J Urol. 2003 Aug. 170(2 Pt 1):359-65. [Medline].

  66. Dai B, Ye DW, Kong YY, et al. Predicting regional lymph node metastasis in Chinese patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma: the role of histopathological classification, tumor stage and depth of invasion. J Urol. 2006 Oct. 176(4 Pt 1):1431-5; discussion 1435. [Medline].

  67. Daling JR, Madeleine MM, Johnson LG, et al. Penile cancer: importance of circumcision, human papillomavirus and smoking in in situ and invasive disease. Int J Cancer. 2005 Sep 10. 116(4):606-16. [Medline].

  68. Das S. Penile amputations for the management of primary carcinoma of the penis. Urol Clin North Am. 1992 May. 19(2):277-82. [Medline].

  69. Davis JW, Schellhammer PF, Schlossberg SM. Conservative surgical therapy for penile and urethral carcinoma. Urology. 1999 Feb. 53(2):386-92. [Medline].

  70. Dewire D, Lepor H. Anatomic considerations of the penis and its lymphatic drainage. Urol Clin North Am. 1992 May. 19(2):211-9. [Medline].

  71. Dillner J, von Krogh G, Horenblas S, et al. Etiology of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl. 2000. 189-93. [Medline].

  72. Donat SM. Surgery of penile and urethral carcinoma. Campbell's Urology. 8th ed. 2002. 2985-3004.

  73. Eisenberger MA. Chemotherapy for carcinomas of the penis and urethra. Urol Clin North Am. 1992 May. 19(2):333-8. [Medline].

  74. Emerson RE, Ulbright TM, Eble JN, et al. Predicting cancer progression in patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma: the importance of depth of invasion and vascular invasion. Mod Pathol. 2001 Oct. 14(10):963-8. [Medline].

  75. Ficarra V, Akduman B, Bouchot O, Palou J, Tobias-Machado M. Prognostic factors in penile cancer. Urology. 2010 Aug. 76(2 Suppl 1):S66-73. [Medline].

  76. Ficarra V, Zattoni F, Artibani W, et al. Nomogram predictive of pathological inguinal lymph node involvement in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. J Urol. 2006 May. 175(5):1700-4; discussion 1704-5. [Medline].

  77. Ficarra V, Zattoni F, Artibani W, et al. Nomogram predictive of pathological inguinal lymph node involvement in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. J Urol. 2006 May. 175(5):1700-4; discussion 1704-5. [Medline].

  78. Ficarra V, Zattoni F, Cunico SC, et al. Lymphatic and vascular embolizations are independent predictive variables of inguinal lymph node involvement in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: Gruppo Uro-Oncologico del Nord Est (Northeast Uro-Oncological Group) Penile Cancer data base data. Cancer. 2005 Jun 15. 103(12):2507-16. [Medline].

  79. Fossa SD, Hall KS, Johannessen NB, et al. Cancer of the penis. Experience at the Norwegian Radium Hospital 1974-1985. Eur Urol. 1987. 13(6):372-7. [Medline].

  80. Fraley EE, Zhang G, Manivel C, et al. The role of ilioinguinal lymphadenectomy and significance of histological differentiation in treatment of carcinoma of the penis. J Urol. 1989 Dec. 142(6):1478-82. [Medline].

  81. Gerbaulet A, Lambin P. Radiation therapy of cancer of the penis. Indications, advantages, and pitfalls. Urol Clin North Am. 1992 May. 19(2):325-32. [Medline].

  82. Grossman HB. Premalignant and early carcinomas of the penis and scrotum. Urol Clin North Am. 1992 May. 19(2):221-6. [Medline].

  83. Hakenberg OW, Nippgen JB, Froehner M, et al. Cisplatin, methotrexate and bleomycin for treating advanced penile carcinoma. BJU Int. 2006 Dec. 98(6):1225-7. [Medline].

  84. Hatzichristou DG, Apostolidis A, Tzortzis V, et al. Glansectomy: an alternative surgical treatment for Buschke-Löwenstein tumors of the penis. Urology. 2001 May. 57(5):966-9. [Medline].

  85. Hegarty PK, Dinney CP, Pettaway CA. Controversies in ilioinguinal lymphadenectomy. Urol Clin North Am. 2010 Aug. 37(3):421-34. [Medline].

  86. Heyns CF, Fleshner N, Sangar V, Schlenker B, Yuvaraja TB, van Poppel H. Management of the lymph nodes in penile cancer. Urology. 2010 Aug. 76(2 Suppl 1):S43-57. [Medline].

  87. Heyns CF, Mendoza-Valdés A, Pompeo AC. Diagnosis and staging of penile cancer. Urology. 2010 Aug. 76(2 Suppl 1):S15-23. [Medline].

  88. Hoffman MA, Renshaw AA, Loughlin KR. Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis and microscopic pathologic margins: how much margin is needed for local cure?. Cancer. 1999 Apr 1. 85(7):1565-8. [Medline].

  89. Horenblas S. Lymphadenectomy for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Part 1: diagnosis of lymph node metastasis. BJU Int. 2001 Sep. 88(5):467-72. [Medline].

  90. Horenblas S. Lymphadenectomy for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Part 2: the role and technique of lymph node dissection. BJU Int. 2001 Sep. 88(5):473-83. [Medline].

  91. Horenblas S, van Tinteren H. Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. IV. Prognostic factors of survival: analysis of tumor, nodes and metastasis classification system. J Urol. 1994 May. 151(5):1239-43. [Medline].

  92. Horenblas S, van Tinteren H, Delemarre JF, et al. Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. II. Treatment of the primary tumor. J Urol. 1992 Jun. 147(6):1533-8. [Medline].

  93. Horenblas S, van Tinteren H, Delemarre JF, et al. Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. III. Treatment of regional lymph nodes. J Urol. 1993 Mar. 149(3):492-7. [Medline].

  94. Kattan MW, Ficarra V, Artibani W, Cunico SC, Fandella A, Martignoni G. Nomogram predictive of cancer specific survival in patients undergoing partial or total amputation for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. J Urol. 2006 Jun. 175(6):2103-8; discussion 2108. [Medline].

  95. Krieg R, Hoffman R. Current management of unusual genitourinary cancers. Part 1: Penile cancer. Oncology (Williston Park). 1999 Oct. 13(10):1347-52. [Medline].

  96. Kroon BK, Horenblas S, Deurloo EE, et al. Ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology before sentinel node biopsy in patients with penile carcinoma. BJU Int. 2005 Mar. 95(4):517-21. [Medline].

  97. Kroon BK, Horenblas S, Estourgie SH, et al. How to avoid false-negative dynamic sentinel node procedures in penile carcinoma. J Urol. 2004 Jun. 171(6 Pt 1):2191-4. [Medline].

  98. Kroon BK, Lont AP, Valdes Olmos RA, et al. Morbidity of dynamic sentinel node biopsy in penile carcinoma. J Urol. 2005 Mar. 173(3):813-5. [Medline].

  99. Kulkarni JN, Kamat MR. Prophylactic bilateral groin node dissection versus prophylactic radiotherapy and surveillance in patients with N0 and N1-2A carcinoma of the penis. Eur Urol. 1994. 26(2):123-8. [Medline].

  100. Leijte A, Graafland N, Valdes R. Prospective evaluation of hybrd 18F-fluorodeoxy-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in staging clinically node-negative patients with penile carcinoma. BJU Int. January 2009. 104:640-5.

  101. Leijte JA, Kerst JM, Bais E, Antonini N, Horenblas S. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced penile carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2007 Aug. 52(2):488-94. [Medline].

  102. Leijte JA, Kroon BK, Valdes Olmos RA, et al. Reliability and safety of current dynamic sentinel node biopsy for penile carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2007 Jul. 52(1):170-7. [Medline].

  103. Lont AP, Horenblas S, Tanis PJ, et al. Management of clinically node negative penile carcinoma: improved survival after the introduction of dynamic sentinel node biopsy. J Urol. 2003 Sep. 170(3):783-6. [Medline].

  104. Lubke WL, Thompson IM. The case for inguinal lymph node dissection in the treatment of T2-T4, N0 penile cancer. Semin Urol. 1993 May. 11(2):80-4. [Medline].

  105. Lynch DF Jr, Pettaway CA. Tumors of the Penis. Campbell MR, Walsh PC, Retik AB, eds. Campbell's Urology. 8th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 2002. 2945-82.

  106. Marconnet L, Rigaud J, Bouchot O. Long-term followup of penile carcinoma with high risk for lymph node invasion treated with inguinal lymphadenectomy. J Urol. 2010 Jun. 183(6):2227-32. [Medline].

  107. McCance DJ, Kopan R, Fuchs E, et al. Human papillomavirus type 16 alters human epithelial cell differentiation in vitro. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1988 Oct. 85(19):7169-73. [Medline].

  108. McDougal WS. Carcinoma of the penis: improved survival by early regional lymphadenectomy based on the histological grade and depth of invasion of the primary lesion. J Urol. 1995 Oct. 154(4):1364-6. [Medline].

  109. McDougal WS. Phallic preserving surgery in patients with invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. J Urol. 2005 Dec. 174(6):2218-20, discussion 2220. [Medline].

  110. McLean M, Akl AM, Warde P, et al. The results of primary radiation therapy in the management of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993 Mar 15. 25(4):623-8. [Medline].

  111. Micali G, Nasca MR, Tedeschi A. Topical treatment of intraepithelial penile carcinoma with imiquimod. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2003 Nov. 28 Suppl 1:4-6. [Medline].

  112. Minhas S, Manseck A, Watya S, Hegarty PK. Penile cancer--prevention and premalignant conditions. Urology. 2010 Aug. 76(2 Suppl 1):S24-35. [Medline].

  113. Misra S, Chaturvedi A, Misra NC. Penile carcinoma: a challenge for the developing world. Lancet Oncol. 2004 Apr. 5(4):240-7. [Medline].

  114. Mobilio G, Ficarra V. Genital treatment of penile carcinoma. Curr Opin Urol. 2001 May. 11(3):299-304. [Medline].

  115. Mohs FE, Snow SN, Larson PO. Mohs micrographic surgery for penile tumors. Urol Clin North Am. 1992 May. 19(2):291-304. [Medline].

  116. Mukamel E, deKernion JB. Early versus delayed lymph-node dissection versus no lymph-node dissection in carcinoma of the penis. Urol Clin North Am. 1987 Nov. 14(4):707-11. [Medline].

  117. Nelson BA, Cookson MS, Smith JA Jr, et al. Complications of inguinal and pelvic lymphadenectomy for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: a contemporary series. J Urol. 2004 Aug. 172(2):494-7. [Medline].

  118. Nordenvall C, Chang ET, Adami HO, Ye W. Cancer risk among patients with condylomata acuminata. Int J Cancer. 2006 Aug 15. 119(4):888-93. [Medline].

  119. Novara G, Galfano A, De Marco V, Artibani W, Ficarra V. Prognostic factors in squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2007 Mar. 4(3):140-6. [Medline].

  120. Novara G, Galfano A, De Marco V, Artibani W, Ficarra V. Prognostic factors in squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2007 Mar. 4(3):140-6. [Medline].

  121. Opjordsmoen S, Fosså SD. Quality of life in patients treated for penile cancer. A follow-up study. Br J Urol. 1994 Nov. 74(5):652-7. [Medline].

  122. Ornellas AA, Kinchin EW, Nobrega BL, et al. Surgical treatment of invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: Brazilian National Cancer Institute long-term experience. J Surg Oncol. 2008 May 1. 97(6):487-95. [Medline].

  123. Ornellas AA, Nobrega BL, Wei Kin Chin E, et al. Prognostic factors in invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: analysis of 196 patients treated at the Brazilian National Cancer Institute. J Urol. 2008 Oct. 180(4):1354-9. [Medline].

  124. Ornellas AA, Seixas AL, Marota A, et al. Surgical treatment of invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: retrospective analysis of 350 cases. J Urol. 1994 May. 151(5):1244-9. [Medline].

  125. Pagliaro LC, Williams DL, Daliani D, et al. Neoadjuvant paclitaxel, ifosfamide, and cisplatin chemotherapy for metastatic penile cancer: a phase II study. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Aug 20. 28(24):3851-7. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  126. Pandey D, Mahajan V, Kannan RR. Prognostic factors in node-positive carcinoma of the penis. J Surg Oncol. 2006 Feb 1. 93(2):133-8. [Medline].

  127. Pettaway C, Lynch D, Davis J. Tumors of the penis. Wein AJ, Kavoussi L, Novick A. Campbell-Walsh Urology. 9. St Louis: WB Saunders; 2007. 31.

  128. Pettaway CA, Pagliaro L, Theodore C, Haas G. Treatment of visceral, unresectable, or bulky/unresectable regional metastases of penile cancer. Urology. 2010 Aug. 76(2 Suppl 1):S58-65. [Medline].

  129. Pietrzak P, Corbishley C, Watkin N. Organ-sparing surgery for invasive penile cancer: early follow-up data. BJU Int. 2004 Dec. 94(9):1253-7. [Medline].

  130. Pizzocaro G, Nicolai N, Milani A. Taxanes in combination with cisplatin and fluorouracil for advanced penile cancer: preliminary results. Eur Urol. 2009 Mar. 55(3):546-51. [Medline].

  131. Poblet E, Alfaro L, Fernander-Segoviano P, et al. Human papillomavirus-associated penile squamous cell carcinoma in HIV-positive patients. Am J Surg Pathol. 1999 Sep. 23(9):1119-23. [Medline].

  132. Pow-Sang MR, Ferreira U, Pow-Sang JM, Nardi AC, Destefano V. Epidemiology and natural history of penile cancer. Urology. 2010 Aug. 76(2 Suppl 1):S2-6. [Medline].

  133. Pugliese JM, Morey AF, Peterson AC. Lichen sclerosus: review of the literature and current recommendations for management. J Urol. 2007 Dec. 178(6):2268-76. [Medline].

  134. Sarin R, Norman AR, Steel GG, et al. Treatment results and prognostic factors in 101 men treated for squamous carcinoma of the penis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997 Jul 1. 38(4):713-22. [Medline].

  135. Seixas AL, Ornellas AA, Marota A, et al. Verrucous carcinoma of the penis: retrospective analysis of 32 cases. J Urol. 1994 Nov. 152(5 Pt 1):1476-8; discussion 1478-9. [Medline].

  136. Seyam RM, Bissada NK, Mokhtar AA, Mourad WA, Aslam M, Elkum N, et al. Outcome of penile cancer in circumcised men. J Urol. 2006 Feb. 175(2):557-61; discussion 561. [Medline].

  137. Shindel AW, Mann MW, Lev RY, Sengelmann R, Petersen J, Hruza GJ, et al. Mohs micrographic surgery for penile cancer: management and long-term followup. J Urol. 2007 Nov. 178(5):1980-5. [Medline].

  138. Slaton JW, Morgenstern N, Levy DA, et al. Tumor stage, vascular invasion and the percentage of poorly differentiated cancer: independent prognosticators for inguinal lymph node metastasis in penile squamous cancer. J Urol. 2001 Apr. 165(4):1138-42. [Medline].

  139. Solsona E, Bahl A, Brandes SB, Dickerson D, Puras-Baez A, van Poppel H, et al. New developments in the treatment of localized penile cancer. Urology. 2010 Aug. 76(2 Suppl 1):S36-42. [Medline].

  140. Solsona E, Iborra I, Rubio J, et al. Prospective validation of the association of local tumor stage and grade as a predictive factor for occult lymph node micrometastasis in patients with penile carcinoma and clinically negative inguinal lymph nodes. J Urol. 2001 May. 165(5):1506-9. [Medline].

  141. Srinivas V, Morse MJ, Herr HW, et al. Penile cancer: relation of extent of nodal metastasis to survival. J Urol. 1987 May. 137(5):880-2. [Medline].

  142. Tabatabaei S, Harisinghani M, McDougal WS. Regional lymph node staging using lymphotropic nanoparticle enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with ferumoxtran-10 in patients with penile cancer. J Urol. 2005 Sep. 174(3):923-7; discussion 927. [Medline].

  143. Tanis PJ, Lont AP, Meinhardt W, et al. Dynamic sentinel node biopsy for penile cancer: reliability of a staging technique. J Urol. 2002 Jul. 168(1):76-80. [Medline].

  144. Taussky D, Crook J, Al Ghamdi A, et al. Treatment of the inguinal regions in penile cancer: a review of the literature and treatment proposal. Can J Urol. 2006 Feb. 13(1):2978-83. [Medline].

  145. Theodore C, Skoneczna I, Bodrogi I, Leahy M, Kerst JM, Collette L. 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. 2008 Jul. 19(7):1304-7. [Medline].

  146. Theodorescu D, Russo P, Zhang ZF, et al. Outcomes of initial surveillance of invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis and negative nodes. J Urol. 1996 May. 155(5):1626-31. [Medline].

  147. Tietjen DN, Malek RS. Laser therapy of squamous cell dysplasia and carcinoma of the penis. Urology. 1998 Oct. 52(4):559-65. [Medline].

  148. von Krogh G, Horenblas S. The management and prevention of premalignant penile lesions. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl. 2000. 220-9. [Medline].

 
Previous
Next
 
Squamous cell carcinoma (Image courtesy of Hon Pak, MD).
 
 
 
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2016 by WebMD LLC. This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.