학술논문

Evaluation of Prognostic Parameters to Identify Aggressive Penile Carcinomas.
Document Type
Article
Source
Cancers. Oct2023, Vol. 15 Issue 19, p4748. 27p.
Subject
*CANCER prognosis
*PENILE tumors
*CANCER invasiveness
*LYMPH nodes
*METASTASIS
*RETROSPECTIVE studies
*TUMOR classification
*CANCER patients
*PAPILLOMAVIRUS diseases
*HISTOLOGICAL techniques
*DESCRIPTIVE statistics
*TUMOR markers
*OVERALL survival
Language
ISSN
2072-6694
Abstract
Simple Summary: Sufficient prognostic parameters are still lacking in penile cancer. In this study, we sought to evaluate the current TNM classification in terms of its ability to estimate prognosis and to identify additional independent prognostic parameters. We found that lymph node metastasis—as well as lymphovascular invasion in node-negative patients—had the strongest impact on prognosis, whereas HPV did not show an influence on outcome. Furthermore, the pT1b stage seems questionable, and a revision of the current TNM classification is advised. 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: 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: Advanced lymph node metastases (N2, N3) were highly significantly associated with reductions in metastasis-free (MFS), cancer-specific (CS), and overall survival (OS) rates (p = <0.001), while lymphovascular invasion was a significant parameter for reduced CS and OS (p = 0.005; p = 0.007). Concerning the primary tumor stage, a significant difference in MFS was found only between pT1b and pT1a (p = 0.017), whereas CS and OS did not significantly differ between T categories. In patients without lymph node metastasis at the time of primary diagnosis, lymphovascular invasion was a significant prognostic parameter for lower MFS (p = 0.032). Histological subtypes differed in prognosis, with the worst outcome in basaloid carcinomas, but without statistical significance. HPV status was not associated with prognosis, either in the total cohort or in the usual type alone. Conclusion: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]