Evaluation of factors predicting the presence of penile cancer inguinal lymph node metastases
Article published in Urologia Polska 2006/59/4.

authors

Tomasz Kalinowski, Tomasz Demkow, Roman Sosnowski, Tomasz Chwaliński: Klinika Nowotworów Układu Moczowego, Centrum Onkologii - Instytut im. Marii Skłodowskiej-Curie w Warszawie

keywords

penis, penile cancer, inguinal lymph nodes, inguinal lymphadenectomy, prognostic factors

summary

Introduction. Penile cancer is relatively uncommon malignancy. The best prognostic factor of survival of patients with penile cancer is the presence of metastases in regional lymph nodes.

The aim of the study is to assess histological stage (pT), grade (G) and vascular invasion (MVI) of the primary tumor as the prognostic factors predicting the presence of regional lymph nodes metastasis. The complications following lymph nodes dissection were assessed.

Material and methods. We assessed retrospectively 63 cases of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Pathological stage and grade of treated patients were as follows: pT1 - 29 pts (46.7%), pT2 - 21 pts (33.9%), pT3 - 11 pts (17.8%), pT4 - 1 pt (1.6%), G1 - 6 pts (9.7%), G2 - 34 pts (54.8%), G3 - 22 pts (35.5%). In one case stage and grade were not assessed. In 43 pts MVI was evaluated. On physical examination the lymph nodes were enlarged in 38 pts (60.3%).

Results. 5-year survival of patients with N0 and N(+) was 89% and 39% respectively (p=0,006). There was no statistical coincidence among MVI (+) and survival curve and MVI (+) and N(+). Tumor grade was not a prognostic factor for inguinal metastases. Learning curve and lymph nodes metastases have no impact on complications rate.

Conclusions. In penile carcinoma patients tumor stage, tumor grade, primary tumor vascular invasion do not influence the presence of inguinal lymph node metastases.

references

Didkowska J, Wojciechowska U, Tarkowski W, Zatoński W: Nowotwory złośliwe w Polsce w 2000 r. Centrum Onkologii - Instytut im. Marii Skłodowskiej-Curie, Warszawa 2003, str. 46,50, 55, 85.
Schellhammer PF: Penile cancer. Clinical Urology 1994, 87, 1259-1269.
Catalona WJ. Modified inguinal lymphadenectomy for carcinoma of the penis with preservation of saphenous vein: technique and preliminary results. J Urol 1988, 140, 306-310.
Lopes A, Hidalgo GS, Kowaski LP et al: Prognostis factors in carcinoma of the penis: multivariate analysis of 145 patients teated wuth amputation and lymphadenectomy. J Urol 1996, 154, 1637-1642.
Solsona E, Iborra I, Ricos JV et al: Corpus cavernosum invasion and tumor grade in the prediction of lymph node condition in penile carcinoma. Eur Urol 1992, 22, 115-118.
Villavicencio H, Rubio-Briones J, Regalado R et al: Grade, local stage and growth pattern as prognostic factors in carcinoma of the penis. Eur Urol 1997, 32, 442-447.
Lopes A, Rossi BM, Fonseca FP, Morini S: Unreliability of modified inguinal lymphadenectomy for clinical staging of penile carcinoma. Cancer 1996, 77, 10, 2099-2102.
Mc Dougal WS, Kirchner FK Edwards RH, Killion LT: Treatment of carcinoma of the penis: The case of primary lymphadenectomy. J Urol 1986, 136, 38-41.
Catalona WJ: Role of lymphadenectomy in carcinoma of the penis. Urol Clin North Am 1980, 7, 785-787.
Ornellas AA, Seixas ALC, DeMorales JA: Analysis of 200 lymphadenectomies in patients with penile carcinoma. J Urol 1991, 146, 330-332.
Horenblas S, van Tinteren H: Squamos cell carcinoma of the penis IV. Prognostic factors of survival: analysis of tumor, nodes and metastasis classification system. J Urol 1994, 15, 1239-1243.
Solsona E, Iborra I, Ricos JV et al: Corpus cavernosum invasion and tumor grade in the prediction of lymph node condition in penile carcinoma. Eur Urol 1992, 22, 115-118.
Wajsman Z, Moore RH, Merrin CE, Murphy GP: Surgical treatment of penile cancer: a follow-up report. Cancer 1977, 40, 1697-1701.
Horenblas S: Lymphadenectomy for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Part 1: Diagnosis of lymph node metastasis. BJ Urol Inter 2001, 88, 467-472.
Puras-Baez A: Indication for lymph node dissection in the patient with penile cancer. AUA News 2000, 5, 1-3.
Srinivas V, Morse MJ, Herr HW et al: Penile cancer. Relation of extent of nodal metastasis to survival. J Urol 1987, 137, 880-882.
Fraley EE, Zhang G, Manivel C, Niehans GA: The role of ilioinguinal lymphadenectomy and significance of histological differentiation in treatment of carcinoma of the penis. J Urol 1989, 142, 1478-1482.
Vapnek Jm, Hricak H, Carroll PR: Recent advances in imaging studies for staging of penile and urethral carcinoma. Urol Clin North Am 1992, 19, 2, 257-265.
Ayyappan K, Ananthakrishnan N, Sankaran V: Can regional lymp node involement be predicted in patients with carcinoma of the penis? Br J Urol 1994, 73, 549-453.
Turyka W: Analiza czynników rokowniczych z uwzględnieniem wybranych parametrów biologicznych u chorych na zaawansowanego raka płaskonabłonkowego prącia. Centrum Onkologii - Instytut im. Marii Skłodowskiej-Curie, Gliwice 1999, praca doktorska.
Burgers JK, Badalament RA, Drago JR: Penile cancer. Clinical Presentation, diagnosis, and staging. Urologic Clinics of North America 1992, vol 19, 247-255.
Fair WR, Fuks ZY, Scher HI: Cancer of the Urethra and Penis w: DeVita TV, Hellmans JS, Rosenberg SA Cancer Principles and Practice of Oncology Lippincott Company 4 th edition Lippincott Company 1993, 1114-1125.
Solsona E, Iborra I, Rubio J et al: Prospective validation of the association of local tumor stage and grade as a predictive factor for occult lymph node micrometastasis in patients with penile carcinoma and clinically negative inguinal lymph nodes. J Urol 2001, 165, 1506-1509.
Ravi R: Morbiditi following groin dissection for penile carcinoma. Br J Urol 1993, 72: 941-945.

correspondence