Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Evaluation of Current TNM Classification of Penile Carcinoma

2008; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 180; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.juro.2008.05.011

1527-3792

Joost A.P. Leijte, M.P.W. Gallee, Ninja Antonini, Simon Horenblas,

Urological Disorders and Treatments

No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 Sep 2008Evaluation of Current TNM Classification of Penile Carcinoma Joost A.P. Leijte, Maarten Gallee, Ninja Antonini, and Simon Horenblas Joost A.P. LeijteJoost A.P. Leijte Department of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands , Maarten GalleeMaarten Gallee Department of Pathology, Zaans Medisch Centrum, Zaandam, The Netherlands , Ninja AntoniniNinja Antonini Department of Biometrics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands , and Simon HorenblasSimon Horenblas Department of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.05.011AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: The TNM classification is the most common tool for staging malignancies. The current classification for penile carcinoma has been unchanged since 1987. There are several shortcomings to this classification. Accurate clinical staging can be troublesome because several categories are defined by anatomical structures that cannot readily be identified by physical examination or imaging. A second drawback is substantial variability with respect to survival in certain T and N categories. We analyzed the prognostic value of the TNM classification in patients with penile carcinoma treated at our institute. We propose modifications to improve prognostic stratification and facilitate clinical staging. Materials and Methods: The records of 513 patients treated between 1956 and 2006 were analyzed. All tumors were staged according to the most recent classification. We calculated disease specific survival in the different T and N categories. Survival in the different categories was compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis and the log rank test. Results: Five-year disease specific survival in the entire group was 80.5% at a median followup of 58.7 months. There was no significant difference in survival between T2 and T3 tumors (p = 0.57). Furthermore, no significant survival difference was found between N1 and N2 categories (p = 0.18). Using a modified classification a significant difference in survival was found among all T and N categories. Conclusions: The current TNM classification for penile carcinoma does not adequately differentiate in terms of survival among several T and N categories. With some modifications prognostic stratification improves and clinical staging is facilitated. References 1 : TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. Philadelphia: Wiley-Liss2002. Google Scholar 2 : EAU Guidelines on Penile Cancer. Eur Urol2004; 46: 1. Google Scholar 3 : The case for inguinal lymph node dissection in the treatment of T2–T4, N0 penile cancer. Semin Urol1993; 11: 80. Google Scholar 4 : Penis conserving treatment for T1 and T2 penile carcinoma: clinical implications of a local recurrence. J Urol2006; 176: 575. Link, Google Scholar 5 : Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. III. Treatment of regional lymph nodes. J Urol1993; 149: 492. Link, Google Scholar 6 : Reliability and safety of current dynamic sentinel node biopsy for penile carcinoma. Eur Urol2007; . Google Scholar 7 : Radical excision of the inguinal and iliac lymph glands: A study based upon 450 anatomical dissections and upon supportive clinical observations. Surg Gynecol Obstet1948; 87: 679. Google Scholar 8 : Staging carcinoma of the penis. J Surg Oncol1975; 7: 243. Google Scholar 9 : The treatment of carcinoma of the penis. Br J Surg1966; 53: 33. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 10 : Carcinoma of the penis: improved survival by early regional lymphadenectomy based on the histological grade and depth of invasion of the primary lesion. J Urol1995; 154: 1364. Link, Google Scholar 11 : Corpus cavernosum invasion and tumor grade in the prediction of lymph node condition in penile carcinoma. Eur Urol1992; 22: 115. Google Scholar 12 : Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: multivariate analysis of prognostic factors and natural history in monocentric study with a conservative policy. Ann Oncol1997; 8: 1089. Google Scholar 13 : Penile carcinoma (pT1 G2): surveillance or inguinal lymph node dissection?. Onkologie2005; 28: 135. Google Scholar 14 : Predicting regional lymph node metastasis in Chinese patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma: the role of histopathological classification, tumor stage and depth of invasion. J Urol2006; 176: 1431. Link, Google Scholar 15 : Advanced penile carcinoma. J Urol2003; 170: 359. Link, Google Scholar 16 : Prognostic factors in node-positive carcinoma of the penis. J Surg Oncol2006; 93: 133. Google Scholar 17 : Correlation between the extent of nodal involvement and survival following groin dissection for carcinoma of the penis. Br J Urol1993; 72: 817. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 18 : Pelvic lymph node dissection for penile carcinoma: extent of inguinal lymph node involvement as an indicator for pelvic lymph node involvement and survival. J Urol2007; 177: 947. Link, Google Scholar 19 : Penile cancer: relation of extent of nodal metastasis to survival. J Urol1987; 137: 880. Link, Google Scholar © 2008 by American Urological AssociationFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byWang B, Gu W, Wan F, Wei Y, Xiao W, Lu X, Zhang G, Zhou J, Wang Q, Ding X, Azizi M, Spiess P, Ye D and Zhu Y (2019) Prognosis of the 8th TNM Staging System for Penile Cancer and Refinement of Prognostication by Incorporating High Risk Human Papillomavirus StatusJournal of Urology, VOL. 203, NO. 3, (562-569), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2020.Chang S (2016) Re: Development and External Validation of a Prognostic Tool for Prediction of Cancer-Specific Mortality after Complete Loco-Regional Pathological Staging for Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the PenisJournal of Urology, VOL. 196, NO. 4, (1128-1128), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2016.Lughezzani G, Catanzaro M, Torelli T, Piva L, Biasoni D, Stagni S, Crestani A, Guttilla A, Raggi D, Giannatempo P, Necchi A, Pizzocaro G, Colecchia M, Salvioni R and Nicolai N (2013) The Relationship between Characteristics of Inguinal Lymph Nodes and Pelvic Lymph Node Involvement in Penile Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Single Institution ExperienceJournal of Urology, VOL. 191, NO. 4, (977-982), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2014.Longpre M, Lange P, Kwon J and Black P (2012) Penile Carcinoma: Lessons Learned from Vulvar CarcinomaJournal of Urology, VOL. 189, NO. 1, (17-24), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2013.Zhu Y, Ye D, Yao X, Zhang S, Dai B and Zhang H (2011) New N Staging System of Penile Cancer Provides a Better Reflection of PrognosisJournal of Urology, VOL. 186, NO. 2, (518-523), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2011.Hsiao W, Moses K, Goodman M, Jani A, Rossi P and Master V (2010) Stage IV Prostate Cancer: Survival Differences in Clinical T4, Nodal and Metastatic DiseaseJournal of Urology, VOL. 184, NO. 2, (512-518), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2010.Zhu Y, Zhang H, Yao X, Zhang S, Dai B, Shen Y and Ye D (2010) Development and Evaluation of a Nomogram to Predict Inguinal Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients With Penile Cancer and Clinically Negative Lymph NodesJournal of Urology, VOL. 184, NO. 2, (539-545), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2010.Marconnet L, Rigaud J and Bouchot O (2010) Long-Term Followup of Penile Carcinoma With High Risk for Lymph Node Invasion Treated With Inguinal LymphadenectomyJournal of Urology, VOL. 183, NO. 6, (2227-2232), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2010.Svatek R, Munsell M, Kincaid J, Hegarty P, Slaton J, Busby J, Gaston K, Spiess P, Pagliaro L, Tamboli P and Pettaway C (2009) Association Between Lymph Node Density and Disease Specific Survival in Patients With Penile CancerJournal of Urology, VOL. 182, NO. 6, (2721-2727), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2009. Volume 180 Issue 3 September 2008 Page: 933-938 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2008 by American Urological AssociationKeywordspenispenile neoplasmsneoplasm stagingcarcinomasquamous cellMetrics Author Information Joost A.P. Leijte Department of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands More articles by this author Maarten Gallee Department of Pathology, Zaans Medisch Centrum, Zaandam, The Netherlands More articles by this author Ninja Antonini Department of Biometrics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands More articles by this author Simon Horenblas Department of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...