Antonio L Cubilla1. 1. Department of Pathology, Facultad de Ciencias Medicas, Instituto de Patología e Investigación, Universidad Nacional de Asunción, Martín Brizuela 325, Asunción, Paraguay. acubilla@institutodepatologia.com.py
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this review was to identify prognostic pathologic factors which are independent from other clinical or molecular variables. METHODS: We reviewed the literature on morphological prognostic factors emphasizing our personal experience. RESULTS: We found that for a proper evaluation of prognostic factors a familiarity with penile complex anatomy is required. A biopsy of the primary tumor is not useful for a complete evaluation of prognostic factors other than malignancy and a resected specimen should be utilized. Penile carcinomas have a fairly predictable pattern of local, regional and systemic spread. Pathologic factors affecting patients outcome are multiple but it is difficult from the available studies using heterogeneous pathologic methodologies, different therapeutic approaches and ecologically variable patient populations to ascertain the independent validity of these factors. Invasion of perineural spaces by tumor, lymphatic-venous embolization and histological grade appear to be the most important pathologic predictors of nodal spread and cancer mortality. Other commonly cited factors influencing prognosis are tumor depth or thickness, anatomical site and size of the primary tumor, patterns of growth, irregular front of invasion, pathologic subtypes of the SCC, positive margins of resection and urethral invasion. A combination of two factors, histological grade and depth has been reported as significant predictor of cancer regional spread. After a preselection of significant factors, nomograms have been constructed to collectively evaluate the predictive power of various clinical and pathological indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Among various factors perineurial invasion, vascular invasion and high histological grade appear to be the most important adverse pathological prognostic factors.
PURPOSE: The aim of this review was to identify prognostic pathologic factors which are independent from other clinical or molecular variables. METHODS: We reviewed the literature on morphological prognostic factors emphasizing our personal experience. RESULTS: We found that for a proper evaluation of prognostic factors a familiarity with penile complex anatomy is required. A biopsy of the primary tumor is not useful for a complete evaluation of prognostic factors other than malignancy and a resected specimen should be utilized. Penile carcinomas have a fairly predictable pattern of local, regional and systemic spread. Pathologic factors affecting patients outcome are multiple but it is difficult from the available studies using heterogeneous pathologic methodologies, different therapeutic approaches and ecologically variable patient populations to ascertain the independent validity of these factors. Invasion of perineural spaces by tumor, lymphatic-venous embolization and histological grade appear to be the most important pathologic predictors of nodal spread and cancer mortality. Other commonly cited factors influencing prognosis are tumor depth or thickness, anatomical site and size of the primary tumor, patterns of growth, irregular front of invasion, pathologic subtypes of the SCC, positive margins of resection and urethral invasion. A combination of two factors, histological grade and depth has been reported as significant predictor of cancer regional spread. After a preselection of significant factors, nomograms have been constructed to collectively evaluate the predictive power of various clinical and pathological indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Among various factors perineurial invasion, vascular invasion and high histological grade appear to be the most important adverse pathological prognostic factors.
Authors: J Rubio-Briones; H Villavicencio; R Regalado; G Chéchile; F Algaba; F Monreal; S J Lee; J Palou; J Vicente Journal: Arch Esp Urol Date: 1997-06 Impact factor: 0.436
Authors: Bin K Kroon; Simon Horenblas; Willem Meinhardt; Henk G van der Poel; Axel Bex; Harm van Tinteren; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Omgo E Nieweg Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2005-01-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Mónica Santos; Clara Montagut; Begoña Mellado; Angel García; Santiago Ramón y Cajal; Antonio Cardesa; Lluís M Puig-Tintoré; Jaume Ordi Journal: Int J Gynecol Pathol Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Suzanne Richter; J Dean Ruether; Lori Wood; Christina Canil; Patricia Moretto; Peter Venner; Joel Gingerich; Urban Emmenegger; Andrea Eisen; Pawel Zalewski; Anthony Joshua; Som Dave Mukherjee; Daniel Heng; Piotr Czaykowski; Denis Soulieres; Norman Blais; Ricardo Rendon; Neil Fleshner; Juanita M Crook; Srikala S Sridhar Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2013 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Karl Kashofer; Elke Winter; Iris Halbwedl; Andrea Thueringer; Marisa Kreiner; Stefan Sauer; Sigrid Regauer Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2017-04-07 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Lara Termini; José H Fregnani; Enrique Boccardo; Walter H da Costa; Adhemar Longatto-Filho; Maria A Andreoli; Maria C Costa; Ademar Lopes; Isabela W da Cunha; Fernando A Soares; Luisa L Villa; Gustavo C Guimarães Journal: BMC Clin Pathol Date: 2015-03-03