Der Urologe

, Volume 57, Issue 4, pp 391–397 | Cite as

Pathologie und histopathologische Begutachtung des Peniskarzinoms




Das Peniskarzinom ist in Deutschland und in den westlichen Industrienationen ein seltener Tumor. Das Wissen über die Pathogenese und die Pathologie dieses Malignoms hat in den letzten Jahren erheblich zugenommen.


Das klinische Management ist komplexer geworden und organerhaltende Therapiestrategien werden heute bevorzugt. Damit steigt auch die Anforderung an die pathohistologische Begutachtung von Biopsien und Operationspräparaten des Penis.

Material und Methoden

Diese Übersichtsarbeit erläutert auf der Grundlage der Leitlinien und der relevanten Literatur die wichtigsten Aspekte, die bei der Klassifikation und bei der pathohistologischen Befunderstellung des Peniskarzinoms berücksichtigt werden müssen.


Die korrekte histologische Subtypisierung des Peniskarzinoms ist wichtig für die Prognose und die Therapieentscheidung. Es gibt auch Besonderheiten in der aktuellen TNM-Klassifikation („tumour, node, metastasis“) dieses Tumors im Vergleich zu anderen Entitäten.


Die Bearbeitung der Gewebepräparate und die histopathologische Typisierung erfordern vom Pathologen Kenntnisse der aktuellen Entwicklungen zur Pathogenese, Klassifikation und Therapie des Peniskarzinoms.


Humane Papillomaviren Neoplasie Vorläuferläsion Malignom Plattenepithelkarzinom 

Pathology and histopathological evaluation of penile cancer



Penile cancer is rare in Germany and in western European countries. Our understanding of the pathogenesis and pathology of this malignancy has increased considerably in recent years.


Clinical management has become more complex, with organ-preserving strategies being increasingly favored. Associated with these developments, the demands on the pathology reports of biopsies and surgical specimens from the penis have also increased.

Materials and methods

According to guidelines and the relevant literature, this review outlines the most important aspects that must be considered in the classification and pathological reporting of penile cancer.


Correct histological subtyping of penile cancer is important for prognostic and therapeutic considerations. There are also some peculiarities with the current TNM classification system of this tumor compared to other entities.


Handling of specimens and histopathological typing must be performed by experienced pathologists according to recent developments in the pathogenesis, classification, and therapeutic strategies of penile cancer.


Human papillomavirus Neoplasms  Precancerous conditions  Malignancy Squamous cell carcinoma 


Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien


A. Erbersdobler gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine vom Autor durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.


  1. 1.
    Alemany L, Cubilla A, Halec G et al (2016) Role of human papillomavirus in penile carcinomas worldwide. Eur Urol 69:953–961CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Algaba F, Arce Y, Lopez-Beltran A et al (2005) Intraoperative frozen section diagnosis in urological oncology. Eur Urol 47:129–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alvarado-Cabrero I, Sanchez DF, Piedras D et al (2017) The variable morphologic spectrum of penile basaloid carcinomas: differential diagnosis, prognostic factors and outcome report in 27 cases classified as classic and mixed variants. Appl Cancer Res. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barreto JE, Velazquez EF, Ayala E et al (2007) Carcinoma cuniculatum: a distinctive variant of penile squamous cell carcinoma: report of 7 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 31:71–75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chaux A, Caballero C, Soares F et al (2009) The prognostic index: a useful pathologic guide for prediction of nodal metastases and survival in penile squamous cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 33:1049–1057CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chaux A, Soares F, Rodriguez I et al (2010) Papillary squamous cell carcinoma, not otherwise specified (NOS) of the penis: clinicopathologic features, differential diagnosis, and outcome of 35 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 34:223–230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cubilla AL (2009) The role of pathologic prognostic factors in squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. World J Urol 27:169–177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cubilla AL, Amin MB, Ayala A et al (2016) Tumours of the penis. In: Moch H, Humphrey PA, Ulbright TM et al (Hrsg) WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Lyon, S 259–286Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cubilla AL, Lloveras B, Alejo M et al (2011) Value of p16(INK4a) in the pathology of invasive penile squamous cell carcinomas: a report of 202 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 35:253–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cubilla AL, Velazques EF, Reuter VE et al (2000) Warty (condylomatous) squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: a report of 11 cases and proposed classification of ‘verruciform’ penile tumors. Am J Surg Pathol 24:505–512CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cubilla AL, Velazquez EF, Young RH (2004) Pseudohyperplastic squamous cell carcinoma of the penis associated with lichen sclerosus. An extremely well-differentiated, nonverruciform neoplasm that preferentially affects the foreskin and is frequently misdiagnosed: a report of 10 cases of a distinctive clinicopathologic entity. Am J Surg Pathol 28:895–900CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Downes MR (2015) Review of in situ and invasive penile squamous cell carcinoma and associated non-neoplastic dermatological conditions. J Clin Pathol 68:333–340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes (2015) Seltene bösartige Tumoren. In: Robert Koch Institut, Gesellschaft der epidemiologischen Krebsregister in Deutschland e. V. (Hrsg) Krebs in Deutschland 2011/2012. Robert Koch Institut, Berlin, S 134Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gunia S, Erbersdobler A, Hakenberg OW et al (2012) P16(INK4a) is a marker of good prognosis for primary invasive penile squamous cell carcinoma: a multi-institutional study. J Urol 187:899–907CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gunia S, Kakies C, Erbersdobler A et al (2012) Expression of p53, p21 and cyclin D1 in penile cancer: p53 predicts poor prognosis. J Clin Pathol 65:232–236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Graafland NM, van Boven HH, van Werkhoven E et al (2010) Prognostic significance of extranodal extension in patients with pathological node positive penile carcinoma. J Urol 184:1347–1353CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hakenberg OW, Comperat EM, Minhas S et al (2015) EAU guidelines on penile cancer: 2014 update. Eur Urol 67:142–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kakies C, Lopez-Beltran A, Comperat E et al (2014) Reproducibility of histopathologic tumor grading in penile cancer–results of a European project. Virchows Arch 464:453–461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kashofer K, Winter E, Halbwedl I et al (2017) HPV-negative penile squamous cell carcinoma: disruptive mutations in the TP53 gene are common. Mod Pathol 30:1013–1030CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leijte JA, Kroon BK, Valdes Olmos RA et al (2007) Reliability and safety of current dynamic sentinel node biopsy for penile carcinoma. Eur Urol 52:170–177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mentrikoski MJ, Frierson HF, Stelow EB et al (2014) Lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma of the penis: association with human papilloma virus infection. Histopathology 64:312–315CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Minhas S, Kayes O, Hegarty P et al (2005) What surgical resection margins are required to achieve oncological control in men with primary penile cancer? BJU Int 96:1040–1043CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sanchez DF, Rodriguez IM, Piris A (2016) Clear cell carcinoma of the penis: an HPV-related variant of squamous cell carcinoma: a report of 3 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 40:917–922CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stankiewicz E, Kudahetti SC, Prowse DM et al (2009) HPV infection and immunochemical detection of cell-cycle markers in verrucous carcinoma of the penis. Mod Pathol 22:1160–1168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stankiewicz E, Prowse DM, Ktori E et al (2011) The retinoblastoma protein/p16 INK4A pathway but not p53 is disrupted by human papillomavirus in penile squamous cell carcinoma. Histopathology 58:433–439CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    UICC Union for International Cancer Control (2017) Penis. In: Wittekind Ch (Hrsg) TNM classification of malignant tumours. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, S 242–244Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Velazquez EF, Ayala G, Liu H et al (2008) Histologic grade and perineural invasion are more important than tumor thickness as predictor of nodal metastasis in penile squamous cell carcinoma invading 5 to 10 mm. Am J Surg Pathol 32:974–979CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Velazquez EF, Cubilla AL (2003) Lichen sclerosus in 68 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: frequent atypias and correlation with special carcinoma variants suggests a precancerous role. Am J Surg Pathol 27:1448–1453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Velazquez EF, Soskin A, Bock A et al (2004) Positive resection margins in partial penectomies: sites of involvement and proposal of local routes of spread of penile squamous cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 28:384–389CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Villavicencio H, Rubio-Briones J, Regalado R et al (1997) Grade, local stage and growth pattern as prognostic factors in carcinoma of the penis. Eur Urol 32:442–447PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für PathologieUniversitätsmedizin RostockRostockDeutschland

Personalised recommendations