Mahmoud I Khalil1, Mohamed H Kamel1, Jasreman Dhillon2, Viraj Master3, Rodney Davis1, Ali J Hajiran4, Philippe E Spiess5. 1. Department of Urology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS), Little Rock, AR, USA. 2. Department of Anatomic Pathology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA. 3. Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. 4. Department of Genito-Urinary Oncology and Tumor Biology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. 5. Department of Genito-Urinary Oncology and Tumor Biology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. Philippe.Spiess@moffitt.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to discuss the updates in the 8th edition (8E) of The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging for penile cancer and to provide relevant evidence associated with the major changes that occurred. METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed® and Web of Science® was performed for relevant English language articles from 2004 through 2019. Literature resulting from this search were reviewed and articles pertinent to penile cancer staging changes were included. RESULTS: Modifications were observed in the tumor and nodal staging. In the 8E AJCC, Ta disease indicates noninvasive localized squamous cell carcinoma, which allows for inclusion of other historical variants. T1 is subcategorized into T1a and T1b according to existence of lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion and high-grade tumor. This subcategorization demonstrates different risks for lymph node (LN) metastases and will affect decision strategy when opting for inguinal lymphadenectomy. Urethral invasion is no longer a differentiator between T2 and T3 disease, as T2 includes invasion of the corpus spongiosum and T3 involves invasion of the corpus cavernosum. For nodal staging, pN1 has been increased from a single LN metastases to two unilateral inguinal LN metastases, while pN2 has been modified to three or more inguinal LN metastases. This change was evidenced by demonstrating no significant difference in disease specific mortality between the previous edition's pN1 and pN2. CONCLUSIONS: The 8E penile cancer staging provides several modifications that have relevant clinical implications in the management of penile cancer. Nevertheless, it requires refinements that allow for better staging of penile tumors.
PURPOSE: We sought to discuss the updates in the 8th edition (8E) of The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging for penile cancer and to provide relevant evidence associated with the major changes that occurred. METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed® and Web of Science® was performed for relevant English language articles from 2004 through 2019. Literature resulting from this search were reviewed and articles pertinent to penile cancer staging changes were included. RESULTS: Modifications were observed in the tumor and nodal staging. In the 8E AJCC, Ta disease indicates noninvasive localized squamous cell carcinoma, which allows for inclusion of other historical variants. T1 is subcategorized into T1a and T1b according to existence of lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion and high-grade tumor. This subcategorization demonstrates different risks for lymph node (LN) metastases and will affect decision strategy when opting for inguinal lymphadenectomy. Urethral invasion is no longer a differentiator between T2 and T3 disease, as T2 includes invasion of the corpus spongiosum and T3 involves invasion of the corpus cavernosum. For nodal staging, pN1 has been increased from a single LN metastases to two unilateral inguinal LN metastases, while pN2 has been modified to three or more inguinal LN metastases. This change was evidenced by demonstrating no significant difference in disease specific mortality between the previous edition's pN1 and pN2. CONCLUSIONS: The 8E penile cancer staging provides several modifications that have relevant clinical implications in the management of penile cancer. Nevertheless, it requires refinements that allow for better staging of penile tumors.
Authors: Mahul B Amin; Frederick L Greene; Stephen B Edge; Carolyn C Compton; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Robert K Brookland; Laura Meyer; Donna M Gress; David R Byrd; David P Winchester Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: R H A Verhoeven; M L G Janssen-Heijnen; K U Saum; R Zanetti; A Caldarella; B Holleczek; D H Brewster; T Hakulinen; S Horenblas; H Brenner; A Gondos Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-12-08 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Diego F Sanchez; Sofía Cañete; María José Fernández-Nestosa; Cecilia Lezcano; Ingrid Rodríguez; José Barreto; Isabel Alvarado-Cabrero; Antonio L Cubilla Journal: Semin Diagn Pathol Date: 2014-12-30 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Juan Chipollini; Grant Pollock; Chiu-Hsieh Hsu; Ken Batai; Alejandro Recio-Boiles; Benjamin R Lee Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-10-10 Impact factor: 4.452