Evaluation of Prognostic Parameters to Identify Aggressive Penile Carcinomas.
HPV
histological subtype
p16
penile cancer
prognosis
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Sep 2023
27 Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
29
08
2023
revised:
11
09
2023
accepted:
20
09
2023
medline:
14
10
2023
pubmed:
14
10
2023
entrez:
14
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Advanced penile carcinoma is characterized by poor prognosis. Most data on prognostic factors are based on small study cohorts, and even meta-analyses are limited in patient numbers. Therefore, there is still a lack of evidence for clinical decisions. In addition, the most recent TNM classification is questionable; in line with previous studies, we found that it has not improved prognosis estimation. We evaluated 297 patients from Germany, Russia, and Portugal. Tissue samples from 233 patients were re-analyzed by two experienced pathologists. HPV status, p16, and histopathological parameters were evaluated for all patients. Advanced lymph node metastases (N2, N3) were highly significantly associated with reductions in metastasis-free (MFS), cancer-specific (CS), and overall survival (OS) rates ( Lymphatic involvement has the highest impact on prognosis in penile cancer, whereas HPV status alone is not suitable as a prognostic parameter. The pT1b stage, which includes grading, as well as lymphovascular and perineural invasion in the T stage, seems questionable; a revision of the TNM classification is therefore required.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Advanced penile carcinoma is characterized by poor prognosis. Most data on prognostic factors are based on small study cohorts, and even meta-analyses are limited in patient numbers. Therefore, there is still a lack of evidence for clinical decisions. In addition, the most recent TNM classification is questionable; in line with previous studies, we found that it has not improved prognosis estimation.
METHODS
METHODS
We evaluated 297 patients from Germany, Russia, and Portugal. Tissue samples from 233 patients were re-analyzed by two experienced pathologists. HPV status, p16, and histopathological parameters were evaluated for all patients.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Advanced lymph node metastases (N2, N3) were highly significantly associated with reductions in metastasis-free (MFS), cancer-specific (CS), and overall survival (OS) rates (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Lymphatic involvement has the highest impact on prognosis in penile cancer, whereas HPV status alone is not suitable as a prognostic parameter. The pT1b stage, which includes grading, as well as lymphovascular and perineural invasion in the T stage, seems questionable; a revision of the TNM classification is therefore required.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37835442
pii: cancers15194748
doi: 10.3390/cancers15194748
pmc: PMC10571727
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
J Cancer. 2021 Jan 30;12(7):1960-1966
pubmed: 33753994
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2014;10(7):2109-11
pubmed: 25424825
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2021 Feb 11;7(1):11
pubmed: 33574340
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20(1):145-158
pubmed: 30573285
J Clin Med. 2018 Aug 27;7(9):
pubmed: 30150513
Adv Anat Pathol. 2021 Jul 1;28(4):209-227
pubmed: 34050061
J Urol. 2020 Mar;203(3):562-569
pubmed: 31596650
Andrologia. 2019 Feb;51(1):e13154
pubmed: 30255596
Eur Urol. 2016 Jul;70(1):93-105
pubmed: 26935559
J Urol. 2015 Feb;193(2):526-31
pubmed: 25150641
Am J Surg Pathol. 2000 Apr;24(4):505-12
pubmed: 10757397
Virchows Arch. 2019 Aug;475(2):211-221
pubmed: 30972551
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Dec 07;14(24):
pubmed: 36551510
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2022 Jul 6;8(7):e34874
pubmed: 35793140
Front Microbiol. 2020 Jan 21;10:3116
pubmed: 32038557
Lancet Oncol. 2007 May;8(5):420-9
pubmed: 17466899
BMC Cancer. 2019 May 21;19(1):476
pubmed: 31113402
Hum Pathol. 2015 Apr;46(4):532-40
pubmed: 25661481
J Urol. 1996 Nov;156(5):1637-42
pubmed: 8863559
World J Urol. 2009 Apr;27(2):141-50
pubmed: 18607597
Am J Surg Pathol. 1998 Jun;22(6):755-61
pubmed: 9630184
Vaccine. 2013 Dec 31;31 Suppl 7:H1-31
pubmed: 24332295
Am J Surg Pathol. 2009 Jul;33(7):1049-57
pubmed: 19384188
Curr Probl Cancer. 2015 May-Jun;39(3):126-36
pubmed: 26076979
Nat Rev Cancer. 2018 May;18(5):269-282
pubmed: 29497144
Can Urol Assoc J. 2018 Apr;12(4):119-125
pubmed: 29319487
Int J Cancer. 1992 Mar 12;50(5):694-701
pubmed: 1312062
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2018 Sep 28;115(39):646-652
pubmed: 30375327
Cell. 1995 May 5;81(3):323-30
pubmed: 7736585
J Clin Microbiol. 1995 Apr;33(4):901-5
pubmed: 7790457
Cancers (Basel). 2023 Jul 21;15(14):
pubmed: 37509374
Cancer. 2001 Jun 15;91(12):2315-21
pubmed: 11413520
Int J Cancer. 2006 Sep 1;119(5):1078-81
pubmed: 16570278
Urologe A. 2020 Feb;59(2):209-218
pubmed: 32020240
Cancer. 2005 Jun 15;103(12):2507-16
pubmed: 15856474
Urologe A. 2005 Jun;44(6):657-61
pubmed: 15891865
Mol Oncol. 2007 Dec;1(3):350-5
pubmed: 19383307
J Clin Oncol. 2023 Jul 24;:JCO2202894
pubmed: 37487169
Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2006 Sep;7(9):667-77
pubmed: 16921403