Literature DB >> 25833472

Prognostic factors in patients with penile carcinoma and inguinal lymph node metastasis.

Walter Henriques da Costa1, Renato Almeida Rosa de Oliveira1, Thiago Borges Santana1, Bruno Santos Benigno1, Isabela Werneck da Cunha2, Stênio de Cássio Zequi1, Gustavo Cardoso Guimaraes1, Ademar Lopes1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To identify prognostic factors in patients with penile carcinoma and confirmed lymph node metastasis.
METHODS: Patients were selected from a historical series of patients with penile carcinoma. An experienced pathologist reviewed all cases. Information regarding the total number of lymph nodes excised, the number of positive lymph nodes and the presence of extranodal extension were used. Lymph node ratio was categorized as <0.15 and >0.15.
RESULTS: The 5-year recurrence-free survival and disease-specific survival rates were 55.3% and 64.1%, respectively. Lymphovascular invasion, lymph node ratio and pN status influenced survival rates in univariate analysis. Lymphovascular invasion and lymph node ratio remained as independent predictors of disease-specific survival and recurrence-free survival in the multivariate analysis. A risk stratification of death and tumor recurrence was observed when patients were grouped into three categories: absence of risk factors; the presence of one risk factor; and the presence of two or more risk factors.
CONCLUSIONS: The presence of one or more of the following parameters is correlated with a significantly higher risk of death and tumor recurrence in patients with penile carcinoma and inguinal lymph node metastasis: extranodal extension, lymph node ratio >0.15 and lymphovascular invasion.
© 2015 The Japanese Urological Association.

Entities:  

Keywords:  lymph node; metastasis; penile cancer; penile carcinoma; prognosis

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25833472     DOI: 10.1111/iju.12759

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Urol        ISSN: 0919-8172            Impact factor:   3.369


  9 in total

1.  The analysis of human papillomavirus DNA in penile cancer tissue by in situ hybridization.

Authors:  Daiji Takamoto; Takashi Kawahara; Jun Kasuga; Takeshi Sasaki; Masahiro Yao; Yasushi Yumura; Hiroji Uemura
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2018-03-26       Impact factor: 2.967

2.  Tumor Location May Independently Predict Survival in Patients With M0 Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Penis.

Authors:  Kai Li; Xiang Le; Jianqing Wang; Caibin Fan; Jian Sun
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 5.738

3.  Radical penectomy, a compromise for life: results from the PECAD study.

Authors:  Jamil Ghahhari; Michele Marchioni; Philippe E Spiess; Juan J Chipollini; Peter Nyirády; Judith Varga; Pasquale Ditonno; Stefano Boccasile; Giulia Primiceri; Cosimo De Nunzio; Giorgia Tema; Andrea Tubaro; Alessandro Veccia; Alessandro Antonelli; Gennaro Musi; Ottavio De Cobelli; Andrea Conti; Stefano Puliatti; Salvatore Micali; Mario Álvarez-Maestro; José Quesada Olarte; Erico Diogenes; Marcos Venicio Alves Lima; Andrew Tracey; Georgi Guruli; Riccardo Autorino; Petros Sountoulides; Roman Sosnowski; Luigi Schips; Luca Cindolo
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2020-06

4.  Tumor histologic grade is the most important prognostic factor in patients with penile cancer and clinically negative lymph nodes not submitted to regional lymphadenectomy.

Authors:  Giuliano Amorim Aita; Stênio de Cássio Zequi; Walter Henriques da Costa; Gustavo Cardoso Guimarães; Fernando Augusto Soares; Thais Safranov Giuliangelis
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2016 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.541

5.  Multidimensional integrative analysis uncovers driver candidates and biomarkers in penile carcinoma.

Authors:  Fabio Albuquerque Marchi; David Correa Martins; Mateus Camargo Barros-Filho; Hellen Kuasne; Ariane Fidelis Busso Lopes; Helena Brentani; Jose Carlos Souza Trindade Filho; Gustavo Cardoso Guimarães; Eliney F Faria; Cristovam Scapulatempo-Neto; Ademar Lopes; Silvia Regina Rogatto
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-07-27       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Lymph Node Dissections for T3T4 Stage Penile Cancer Patients Without Preoperatively Detectable Lymph Node Metastasis Bring More Survival Benefits: A Propensity Matching Analysis.

Authors:  Han Li; Yucheng Ma; Zhongyu Jian; Xi Jin; Liyuan Xiang; Hong Li; Kunjie Wang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-09-24       Impact factor: 6.244

7.  Clinical Application of Noninflating Video-Endoscopic Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection.

Authors:  Jinhu Chen; Lei Yan; Guangyue Luo; Weihua Fang; Chaozhao Liang
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2022-06-28       Impact factor: 2.809

Review 8.  Penile cancer: a Brazilian consensus statement for low- and middle-income countries.

Authors:  Andrey Soares; Icaro Thiago de Carvalho; Aluízio Gonçalves da Fonseca; Antonio Machado Alencar; Carlos Heli Bezerra Leite; Diogo Assed Bastos; João Paulo Holanda Soares; Katia Ramos Moreira Leite; Mário Ronalsa Brandão Filho; Ronald Wagner Pereira Coelho; Sandro Roberto de A Cavallero; Stênio de Cassio Zequi; José de Ribamar Rodrigues Calixto
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-10-26       Impact factor: 4.553

9.  Partial penectomy or total penectomy for T1 and T2 squamous cell carcinoma of the penis?

Authors:  Qi-Le Zheng; Yu-Peng Wu; Zi-Ping Zhang; Ning Xu
Journal:  Transl Cancer Res       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 1.241

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.