OBJECTIVES: In penile carcinoma, the most reliable staging method for lymph node involvement remains radical dissection with its associated high morbidity. However, the patient's prognosis is closely associated with lymph node status, and radical dissection is potentially curative. We report our experience with surgical lymph node staging and evaluate which group of patients could be assigned to a wait-and-see strategy or dynamic sentinel node biopsy and which group should undergo groin dissection. METHODS: From 1979 to 2004, 56 consecutive patients with penile cancer underwent surgical inguinal lymph node staging. On the basis of the histopathologic results, we defined risk stratification into low, high, and intermediate-risk groups according to the clinical examination findings, stage, and grade. RESULTS: Tumor stage (P = 0.019) and tumor grade (P <0.001) correlated significantly with lymph node status. Stratification into low (pT1G1, pT1G2), high (all G3 tumors), and intermediate-risk (all others) groups found 7.7% of low-risk patients with metastases. In the intermediate and high-risk groups, 28.6% and 75.0% had nodal metastases, respectively. Correlation with nodal involvement according to risk group was R2 = 0.608 (P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Risk stratification might enable a modified staging strategy for lymph node status according to stage, grade, and clinical examination findings. Highly motivated low-risk patients could be included in a surveillance program; however, high-risk patients should undergo bilateral inguinal dissection. Dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy might be encouraged for intermediate-risk patients in the future.
OBJECTIVES: In penile carcinoma, the most reliable staging method for lymph node involvement remains radical dissection with its associated high morbidity. However, the patient's prognosis is closely associated with lymph node status, and radical dissection is potentially curative. We report our experience with surgical lymph node staging and evaluate which group of patients could be assigned to a wait-and-see strategy or dynamic sentinel node biopsy and which group should undergo groin dissection. METHODS: From 1979 to 2004, 56 consecutive patients with penile cancer underwent surgical inguinal lymph node staging. On the basis of the histopathologic results, we defined risk stratification into low, high, and intermediate-risk groups according to the clinical examination findings, stage, and grade. RESULTS:Tumor stage (P = 0.019) and tumor grade (P <0.001) correlated significantly with lymph node status. Stratification into low (pT1G1, pT1G2), high (all G3 tumors), and intermediate-risk (all others) groups found 7.7% of low-risk patients with metastases. In the intermediate and high-risk groups, 28.6% and 75.0% had nodalmetastases, respectively. Correlation with nodal involvement according to risk group was R2 = 0.608 (P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Risk stratification might enable a modified staging strategy for lymph node status according to stage, grade, and clinical examination findings. Highly motivated low-risk patients could be included in a surveillance program; however, high-risk patients should undergo bilateral inguinal dissection. Dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy might be encouraged for intermediate-risk patients in the future.