Literature DB >> 8863559

Prognostic factors in carcinoma of the penis: multivariate analysis of 145 patients treated with amputation and lymphadenectomy.

A Lopes1, G S Hidalgo, L P Kowalski, H Torloni, B M Rossi, F P Fonseca.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The major issue in penile cancer is deciding who should or should not undergo lymph node dissection. Clinical and invasive methods are not reliable for staging. Clinical and pathological factors involved in lymph node metastases and prognosis were evaluated in 145 patients with penile carcinoma staged according to the 1978 TNM system, and treated with amputation and lymphadenectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical factors studied were patient age, race, disease evolution time, symptoms, and clinical T and N stages. Pathological factors of the primary tumor considered were tumor thickness, histological grade, lymphatic and venous embolization, infiltration of the corpora cavernosa, corpus spongiosum and urethra, mononuclear and eosinophilic infiltrates, and cell alterations suggestive of human papillomavirus. All slides were reviewed by 1 pathologist. The Cox regression hazards method for multifactorial analysis was used.
RESULTS: Followup ranged from 0.7 to 453.2 months (mean 85.8, median 32.7). The 5-year disease-free and overall survival rates were 45.3 and 54.3%, respectively. Venous and lymphatic embolizations were the main factors affecting significantly the incidence of lymph node metastasis, which were the main risks factors for recurrence and death. Pathologically proved infiltration of the corpora cavernosa, urethra and adjacent structures, which corresponded to stages T2, T3 and T4 disease, respectively, of the current TNM classification, were not significant predictors for incidence of lymph node metastasis, disease-free and overall survival or risk factors for recurrence and death.
CONCLUSIONS: Because venous and lymphatic embolizations were related to greatest risk of lymph node metastasis, we propose their evaluation in staging and therapeutic planning of patients with infiltrative tumors of the penis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8863559     DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(01)65471-5

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


  35 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.  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

3.  Penile cancer: a case for guidelines.

Authors:  N P Munro; P J Thomas; G P Deutsch; N J Hodson
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 1.891

Review 4.  [The significance of lymphadenectomy in the management of penile cancer].

Authors:  M Angerer-Shpilenya; G Jakse
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 0.639

5.  Neoadjuvant paclitaxel, ifosfamide, and cisplatin chemotherapy for metastatic penile cancer: a phase II study.

Authors:  Lance C Pagliaro; Dallas L Williams; Danai Daliani; Michael B Williams; William Osai; Michael Kincaid; Sijin Wen; Peter F Thall; Curtis A Pettaway
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-07-12       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Management of carcinoma of the penis: Consensus statement from the Canadian Association of Genitourinary Medical Oncologists (CAGMO).

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

7.  The expression of metaloproteinases-2 and -9 is different according to the patterns of growth and invasion in squamous cell carcinoma of the penis.

Authors:  Fernando A Soares; Isabela Werneck da Cunha; Gustavo Cardoso Guimarães; Sueli Nonogaki; Rodrigo Sousa Madeira Campos; Ademar Lopes
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2006-10-27       Impact factor: 4.064

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.  The role of pathologic prognostic factors in squamous cell carcinoma of the penis.

Authors:  Antonio L Cubilla
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2008-09-03       Impact factor: 4.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.