Literature DB >> 11257655

Tumor stage, vascular invasion and the percentage of poorly differentiated cancer: independent prognosticators for inguinal lymph node metastasis in penile squamous cancer.

J W Slaton1, N Morgenstern, D A Levy, M W Santos , P Tamboli, J Y Ro, A G Ayala, C A Pettaway.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We determine if histopathological factors of the primary penile tumor can stratify the risk of the development of inguinal lymph node metastases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical records of 48 consecutive patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis who underwent resection of the primary lesion and either inguinal lymph node dissection or were observed for signs of recurrence (median followup 59 months) were reviewed. Parameters examined included pathological tumor stage, quantified depth of invasion and tumor thickness, histological and nuclear grade, percentage of poorly differentiated cancer in the primary tumor, number of mitoses and presence or absence of vascular invasion. Variables were compared in 18 lymph node positive and 30 lymph node negative cases.
RESULTS: Pathological tumor stage, vascular invasion and presence of greater than 50% poorly differentiated cancer were the strongest predictors of nodal metastasis on univariate and multivariate regression analyses. None of 15 pT1 tumors exhibited vascular invasion or lymph node metastases. Of 33 patients with pT2 or greater tumors 21 (64%) had vascular invasion and 18 (55%) had metastases. Only 4 of 25 patients (15%) with 50% or less poorly differentiated cancer in the penile tumor had metastases compared with 14 of 23 patients (61%) with greater than 50% poorly differentiated cancer (p = 0.001). No other variables tested were significantly different among the patient cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS: Pathological stage of the penile tumor, vascular invasion and greater than 50% poorly differentiated cancer were independent prognostic factors for inguinal lymph node metastasis. Prophylactic lymphadenectomy in compliant patients with pT1 lesions without vascular invasion and 50% or less poorly differentiated cancer does not appear warranted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11257655

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  39 in total

1.  Validation of predictors for lymph node status in penile cancer: Results from a population-based cohort.

Authors:  X Melody Qu; D Robert Siemens; Alexander V Louie; Darwin Yip; Aamer Mahmud
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2017-12-22       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 2.  [The significance of inguinal lymphadenectomy in carcinoma of the penis].

Authors:  E Preis; G Jakse
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 3.  Contemporary management of patients with penile cancer and lymph node metastasis.

Authors:  Andrew Leone; Gregory J Diorio; Curtis Pettaway; Viraj Master; Philippe E Spiess
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2017-04-11       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 4.  [Systemic therapy of penile cancer].

Authors:  E Preis; P Albers; G Jakse
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 5.  [Options in palliative therapy for penile cancer].

Authors:  E Preis; G Jakse
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 0.639

6.  Contemporary management of penile cancer: greater than 15 year MSKCC experience.

Authors:  Kelvin A Moses; Andrew Winer; John P Sfakianos; Stephen A Poon; Matthew Kent; Melanie Bernstein; Paul Russo; Guido Dalbagni
Journal:  Can J Urol       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 1.344

7.  What next? Managing lymph nodes in men with penile cancer.

Authors:  Michael Leveridge; D Robert Siemens; Christopher Morash
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 8.  [Penile cancer--aftercare with results. How much is necessary?].

Authors:  R Paul; H van Randenborgh; S Schöler; F May; R Hartung
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 9.  How accurate are present risk group assignment tools in penile cancer?

Authors:  Vincenzo Ficarra; G Novara; R Boscolo-Berto; W Artibani; M W Kattan
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2008-06-17       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 10.  Current trends in the management of carcinoma penis--a review.

Authors:  Iqbal Singh; A Khaitan
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.370

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.