Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Management of Penile Cancer pp 77–89Cite as

Prognostic Factors

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 553 Accesses

Abstract

Identification and stratification of patients based on risk factors that predict for recurrence and progression of penile cancer are critical for patient and provider understanding of the disease as well as identification of appropriate therapy. Prognostic factors have primarily been studied in two clinical scenarios in penile cancer: (1) the identification of the patient with invasive primary cancer at high risk for developing inguinal lymph node metastases and (2) among those with inguinal lymph node metastases, predicting cancer-specific survival. Nomograms to predict for nodal metastases will allow the provider to carefully select patients for intervention on the lymph nodes while avoiding the potential side effect that such intervention may generate. Furthermore, a clear understanding of the factors which predict for survival will allow for optimal selection of patients for clinical trials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. AJCC. Penis. In: Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, et al., editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer; 2010. p. 447–55.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 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(6):1478–82.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. McDougal WS. Carcinoma of the penis: improved survival by early regional lymphadenectomy based on the histological grade and depth of invasion of the primary lesion. J Urol. 1995;154(4):1364–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Chaux A, Reuter V, Lezcano C, Velazquez EF, Torres J, Cubilla AL. Comparison of morphologic features and outcome of resected recurrent and nonrecurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: a study of 81 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33(9):1299–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chaux A, Torres J, Pfannl R, Barreto J, Rodriguez I, Velazquez EF, Cubilla AL. Histologic grade in penile squamous cell carcinoma: visual estimation versus digital measurement of proportions of grades, adverse prognosis with any proportion of grade 3 and correlation of a Gleason-like system with nodal metastasis. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33(7):1049–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lopes A, Hidalgo GS, Kowalski LP, Torloni H, Rossi BM, Fonseca FP. Prognostic factors in carcinoma of the penis: multivariate analysis of 145 patients treated with amputation and lymphadenectomy. J Urol. 1996;156(5):1637–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Slaton JW, Morgenstern N, Levy DA, Santos Jr MW, Tamboli P, Ro JY, Ayala AG, Pettaway CA. Tumor stage, vascular invasion and the percentage of poorly differentiated cancer: independent prognosticators for inguinal lymph node metastasis in penile squamous cancer. J Urol. 2001;165(4):1138–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ficarra V, Zattoni F, Cunico SC, Galetti TP, Luciani L, Fandella A, Guazzieri S, Maruzzi D, Sava T, Siracusano S, Pilloni S, Tasca A, Martignoni G, Gardiman M, Tardanico R, Zambolin T, Cisternino A, Artibani W, Gruppo Uro-Oncologico del Nord Est (Northeast Uro-Oncological Group) Penile Cancer Project. Lymphatic and vascular embolizations are independent predictive variables of inguinal lymph node involvement in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: Gruppo Uro-Oncologico del Nord Est (Northeast Uro-Oncological Group) Penile Cancer data base data. Cancer. 2005;103(12):2507–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Solsona E, Iborra I, Ricós JV, Monrós JL, Dumont R, Casanova J, Calabuig C. Corpus cavernosum invasion and tumor grade in the prediction of lymph node condition in penile carcinoma. Eur Urol. 1992;22(2):115–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Solsona E, Iborra I, Rubio J, Casanova JL, Ricós JV, Calabuig C. 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(5):1506–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Solsona E, Algaba F, Horenblas S, Pizzocaro G, Windahl T, European Association of Urology. EAU guidelines on penile cancer. Eur Urol. 2004;46(1):1–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Novara G, Artibani W, Cunico SC, De Giorgi G, Gardiman M, Martignoni G, Siracusano S, Tardanico R, Zattoni F, Ficarra V, GUONE Penile Cancer Project. How accurately do Solsona and European Association of Urology risk groups predict for risk of lymph node metastases in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis? Urology. 2008;71(2):328–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ficarra V, Novara G, Boscolo-Berto R, Artibani W, Kattan MW. How accurate are present risk group assignment tools in penile cancer? World J Urol. 2009;27(2):155–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kattan MW. When and how to use informatics tools in caring for urologic patients. Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2005;2(4):183–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chaux A, Caballero C, Soares F, Guimarães GC, Cunha IW, Reuter V, Barreto J, Rodríguez I, Cubilla AL. The prognostic index: a useful pathologic guide for prediction of nodal metastases and survival in penile squamous cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33(7):1049–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ficarra V, Zattoni F, Artibani W, Fandella A, Martignoni G, Novara G, Galetti TP, Zambolin T, Kattan MW, G.U.O.N.E. Penile Cancer Project Members. Nomogram predictive of pathological inguinal lymph node involvement in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. J Urol. 2006;175(5):1700–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhu Y, Zhang HL, Yao XD, Zhang SL, Dai B, Shen YJ, Ye DW. Development and evaluation of a nomogram to predict inguinal lymph node metastasis in patients with penile cancer and clinically negative lymph nodes. J Urol. 2010;184(2):539–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Srinivas V, Morse MJ, Herr HW, Sogani PC, Whitmore Jr WF. Penile cancer: relation of extent of nodal metastasis to survival. J Urol. 1987;137(5):880–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ornellas AA, Seixas AL, de Moraes JR. Analyses of 200 lymphadenectomies in patients with penile carcinoma. J Urol. 1991;146(2):330–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Pow-Sang JE, Benavente V, Pow-Sang JM, Pow-Sang M. Bilateral ilioinguinal lymph node dissection in the management of cancer of the penis. Semin Surg Oncol. 1990;6(4):241–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Ravi R. Correlation between the extent of nodal involvement and survival following groin dissection for carcinoma of the penis. Br J Urol. 1993;72(5 Pt 2):817–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kulkarni JN, Kamat MR. Prophylactic bilateral groin node dissection versus prophylactic radiotherapy and surveillance in patients with N0 and N1-2A carcinoma of the penis. Eur Urol. 1994;26(2):123–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Brkovic D, Kälble T, Dörsam J, Pomer S, Lötzerich C, Banafsche R, Riedasch G, Staehler G. Surgical treatment of invasive penile cancer–the Heidelberg experience from 1968 to 1994. Eur Urol. 1997;31(3):339–42.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Hegarty PK, Kayes O, Freeman A, Christopher N, Ralph DJ, Minhas S. A prospective study of 100 cases of penile cancer managed according to European Association of Urology guidelines. BJU Int. 2006;98(3):526–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Novara G, Galfano A, De Marco V, Artibani W, Ficarra V. Prognostic factors in squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2007;4(3):140–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pandey D, Mahajan V, Kannan RR. Prognostic factors in node-positive carcinoma of the penis. J Surg Oncol. 2006;93(2):133–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ornellas AA, Nóbrega BL, Wei Kin Chin E, Wisnescky A, da Silva PC, de Santos Schwindt AB. Prognostic factors in invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: analysis of 196 patients treated at the Brazilian National Cancer Institute. J Urol. 2008;180(4):1354–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhu Y, Ye DW, Yao XD, Zhang SL, Dai B, Zhang HL. New N staging system of penile cancer provides a better reflection of prognosis. J Urol. 2011;186(2):518–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Chaux A, Cubilla AL. Stratification systems as prognostic tools for defining risk of lymph node metastasis in penile squamous cell carcinomas. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2012;29(2):83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Svatek RS, Munsell M, Kincaid JM, et al. Association between lymph node density and disease specific survival in patients with penile cancer. J Urol. 2009;182:272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhu Y, Ye D-w. Lymph node metastases and prognosis in penile cancer. Chin J Cancer Res. 2012;24(2):90–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Leijte JA, Gallee M, Antonini N, Horenblas S. Evaluation of current TNM classification of penile carcinoma. J Urol. 2008;180(3):933–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhu Y, Zhang SL, Ye DW, et al. Predicting pelvic lymph node metastases in penile cancer patients: a comparison of computed tomography, Cloquet’s node, and disease burden of inguinal lymph nodes. Onkologie. 2008;31:37.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Graafland NM, Moonen LM, van Boven HH, et al. Prognostic significance of extranodal extension in patients with pathological node positive penile carcinoma. J Urol. 2010;184:1347.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Pagliaro LC, Williams DL, Daliani D, Williams MB, Osai W, Kincaid M, Wen S, Thall PF, Pettaway CA. Neoadjuvant paclitaxel, ifosfamide, and cisplatin chemotherapy for metastatic penile cancer: a phase II study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(24):3851–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Kattan MW, Ficarra V, Artibani W, Cunico SC, Fandella A, Martignoni G, Novara G, Galetti TP, Zattoni F, GUONE Penile Cancer Project Members. Nomogram predictive of cancer specific survival in patients undergoing partial or total amputation for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. J Urol. 2006;175(6):2103–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Zini L, Cloutier V, Isbarn H, Perrotte P, Capitanio U, Jeldres C, Shariat SF, Saad F, Arjane P, Duclos A, Lattouf JB, Montorsi F, Karakiewicz PL. A simple and accurate model for prediction of cancer-specific mortality in patients treated with surgery for primary penile squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15(3):1013–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Thuret R, Sun M, Abdollah F, Budaus L, Lughezzani G, Liberman D, Morgan M, Johal R, Jeldres C, Latour M, Shariat SF, Iborra F, Guiter J, Patard JJ, Perrotte P, Karakiewicz PI. Tumor grade improves the prognostic ability of American Joint Committee on Cancer stage in patients with penile carcinoma. J Urol. 2011;185(2):501–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Thuret R, Sun M, Abdollah F, Schmitges J, Shariat SF, Iborra F, Guiter J, Patard JJ, Perrotte P, Karakiewicz PI. Conditional survival predictions after surgery for patients with penile carcinoma. Cancer. 2011;117(16):3723–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of Oklahoma Health Science Center, 920 SL Young Blvd, WP 3150, Oklahoma City, OK, 73104, USA

    Joel Slaton MD

Authors
  1. Joel Slaton MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joel Slaton MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA

    Daniel J. Culkin

Appendix I

Appendix I

Instructions for Physicians: Locate the tumor thickness on the tumor thickness axis. Draw a line straight upward to the Points axis to determine the number of points received for tumor thickness. Repeat this process for the remaining axes, each time drawing straight upward to the Points axis. Sum the points achieved for each predictor and locate the sum on the Total Points axis. Draw a line straight down to find the 5-year cancer-specific survival of the patient.

Instructions to Patient: “Mr. X, if we had 100 men exactly like you, we would expect the predicted percentage from the nomogram to be free of disease-specific death in 5 years, assuming no one died of another cause.”

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Slaton, J. (2014). Prognostic Factors. In: Culkin, D. (eds) Management of Penile Cancer. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0461-7_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0461-7_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-0460-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-0461-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation