Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Le carcinome épidermoïde du pénis: évaluation clinique et thérapeutique des aires ganglionnaires

Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: clinical and therapeutic evaluation of lymph nodes

  • Mise au Point / Update
  • Published:
Oncologie

Résumé

La mise en évidence d’une métastase ganglionnaire dans le cancer du pénis est un facteur pronostique majeur. Si une survie à 80 % est possible pour un envahissement ganglionnaire limité à deux ganglions inguinaux unilatéraux, sans dépassement capsulaire, un envahissement plus important impose un traitement multimodal. Il est alors important de pouvoir réaliser un bilan d’extension le plus précis possible, avec l’utilisation de la lymphoscintigraphie dynamique (dynamic lymphoscintigraphy) ou la tomographie par émission de positron (positron emission tomography), en fonction des situations cliniques.

Abstract

The presence of lymph node metastasis in the case of penile cancer is a major prognosis indicator. A survival rate of 80% can be reached in the case of a nodal invasion limited to 2 unilateral groin nodes (without extension out of the node), whereas a larger invasion requires a multimodal treatment. It is then important to realize the most precise assessment of the tumor’s spread, thanks to the use of dynamic lymphoscintigraphy for biopsy of inguinal sentinel node in patients cN0, or the positron emission tomography (18F-FDG PET-scan) in patients cN+.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Références

  1. Bipat S, Fransen GA, Spijkerboer AM, et al. (2006) Is there a role for magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of inguinal lymph node metastases in patients with vulva carcinoma? Gynecol Oncol 103: 1001–1006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Crawshaw JW, Hadway P, Hoffland D, et al. (2009) Sentinel lymph node biopsy using dynamic lymphoscintigraphy combined with ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in penile carcinoma. Br J Radiol 82: 41–48

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Daseler EH, Anson BJ, Reimann AF (1948) Radical excision of the inguinal and iliac lymph glands; a study based upon 450 anatomical dissections and upon supportive clinical observations. Surg Gynecol Obstet 87: 679–694

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ficarra V, Zattoni F, Artibani W, et al. (2006) Nomogram predictive of pathological inguinal lymph node involvement in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. J Urol 175: 1700–1704

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ficarra V, Akduman B, Bouchot O, et al. (2010) Prognostic factors in penile cancer. Urology 76: S66–S73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Graafland NM, Leijte JA, Valdes Olmos RA, et al. (2009) Repeat dynamic sentinel node biopsy in locally recurrent penile carcinoma. BJU Int 105: 1121–1124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Graafland NM, Leijte JA, Valdes Olmos RA, et al. (2009) Scanning with 18F-FDG-PET/CT for detection of pelvic nodal involvement in inguinal node-positive penile carcinoma. Eur Urol 56: 339–345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Graafland NM, Valdes Olmos RA, Teertstra HJ, et al. (2010) (18)F-FDG PET/CT for monitoring induction chemotherapy in patients with primary inoperable penile carcinoma: first clinical results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37: 1474–1480

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Graafland NM, Lam W, Leijte JA, et al. (2010) Prognostic factors for occult inguinal lymph node involvement in penile carcinoma and assessment of the high-risk EAU subgroup: a two-institution analysis of 342 clinically node-negative patients. Eur Urol 58: 742–747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hadway P, Smith Y, Corbishley C, et al. (2007) Evaluation of dynamic lymphoscintigraphy and sentinel lymph-node biopsy for detecting occult metastases in patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma. BJU Int 100: 561–565

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Horenblas S, Van Tinteren H, Delemarre JF, et al. (1991) Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: accuracy of tumor, nodes and metastasis classification system, and role of lymphangiography, computerized tomography scan and fine needle aspiration cytology. J Urol 146: 1279–1283

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Horenblas S, van Tinteren H (1994) Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. IV. Prognostic factors of survival: analysis of tumor, nodes and metastasis classification system. J Urol 151: 1239–1343

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hughes B, Leijte J, Shabbir M, et al. (2008) Non-invasive and minimally invasive staging of regional lymph nodes in penile cancer. World J Urol 27: 197–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kroon BK, Valdes Olmos RA, van Tinteren H, et al. (2005) Reproducibility of lymphoscintigraphy for lymphatic mapping in patients with penile carcinoma. J Urol 174: 2214–2217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kroon BK, Horenblas S, Deurloo EE, et al. (2005) Ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology before sentinel node biopsy in patients with penile carcinoma. BJU Int 95: 517–521

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lam W, Alnajjar HM, La-Touche S, et al. (2013) Dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: a prospective study of the long-term outcome of 500 inguinal basins assessed at a single institution. Eur Urol 63: 657–663

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Leijte JA, Valdes Olmos RA, Nieweg OE, et al. (2008) Anatomical mapping of lymphatic drainage in penile carcinoma with SPECT-CT: implications for the extent of inguinal lymph node dissection. Eur Urol 54: 885–890

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Longpre MJ, Lange PH, Kwon JS, et al. (2013) Penile carcinoma: lessons learned from vulvar carcinoma. J Urol 189: 17–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lont AP, Besnard AP, Gallee MP, et al. (2003) A comparison of physical examination and imaging in determining the extent of primary penile carcinoma. BJU Int 91: 493–495

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lont AP, Kroon BK, Gallee MP, et al. (2007) Pelvic lymph node dissection for penile carcinoma: extent of inguinal lymph node involvement as an indicator for pelvic lymph node involvement and survival. J Urol 177: 947–952

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lynch D, Pettaway CA (2002) Tumors of the penis. Campbell’s Urology, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 2945–82

    Google Scholar 

  22. Marconnet L, Rigaud J, Bouchot O (2010) Long-term follow-up of penile carcinoma with high risk for lymph node invasion treated with inguinal lymphadenectomy. J Urol 183: 2227–2232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Perdona S, Autorino R, De Sio M et al. (2005) Dynamic sentinel node biopsy in clinically node-negative penile cancer versus radical inguinal lymphadenectomy: a comparative study. Urology 66: 1282–1286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pizzocaro G, Algaba F, Horenblas S, et al. (2010) EAU Penile Cancer Guidelines 2009. Eur Urol 57: 1002–1012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Protzel C, Alcaraz A, Horenblas S, et al. (2009) Lymphadenectomy in the surgical management of penile cancer. Eur Urol 55: 1075–1088

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Scappini P, Piscioli F, Pusiol T, et al. (1986) Penile cancer. Aspiration biopsy cytology for staging. Cancer 58: 1526–1533

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Scher B, Seitz M, Reiser M, et al. (2005) 18F-FDG PET/CT for staging of penile cancer. J Nucl Med 46: 1460–1465

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Singh AK, Gonzalez-Torrez P, Kaewlai R, et al. (2007) Imaging of penile neoplasm. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 28: 287–296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Souillac I, Rigaud J, Ansquer C, et al. (2012) Prospective evaluation of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomographycomputerized tomography to assess inguinal lymph node status in invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. J Urol 187: 493–497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tabatabaei S, Harisinghani M, McDougal WS. (2005) Regional lymph node staging using lymphotropic nanoparticle enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with ferumoxtran-10 in patients with penile cancer. J Urol 174: 923–927

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinique urologique, CHU de Nantes, place Ricordeau, BP 1005, F-44093, Nantes cedex, France

    O. Bouchot, J. Branchereau, T. Loubersac & J. Rigaud

Authors
  1. O. Bouchot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Branchereau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. T. Loubersac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Rigaud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to O. Bouchot.

About this article

Cite this article

Bouchot, O., Branchereau, J., Loubersac, T. et al. Le carcinome épidermoïde du pénis: évaluation clinique et thérapeutique des aires ganglionnaires. Oncologie 16, 181–186 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10269-014-2388-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10269-014-2388-9

Mots clés

Keywords

Search

Navigation