Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of Contemporary Treatment of Penile Cancer at the Netherlands Cancer Institute

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Management of Penile Cancer

  • 551 Accesses

Abstract

The low incidence of penile cancer poses a challenge for the clinicians as many aspects in the management are based on a limited amount of scientific evidence. Until a few decades ago, most evidence was derived from retrospective, single-institutional analyses with limited number of patients. During the last decades, however, there has been a shift towards centralization of penile cancer care in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom with collaboration among large centers. This has resulted in improved knowledge and changes in the diagnosis and treatment of penile cancer.

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

Access this chapter

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

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Lont AP, Gallee MPW, Meinhardt W, van Tinteren H, Horenblas S. Penis conserving treatment for T1 and T2 penile carcinoma: clinical implications of a local recurrence. J Urol. 2006;176(2):575–80; discussion 580.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Davis J, Schellhammer P, Schlossberg SM. Conservative surgical therapy for penile and urethral carcinoma. Urology. 1999;53(203):386–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Deem S, Keane T, Bhavsar R, El-Zawahary A, Savage S. Contemporary diagnosis and management of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the penis. BJU Int. 2011;108(9):1378–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pizzocaro G, Algaba F, Horenblas S, Solsona E, Van der Poel H, Watkin N. EAU penile cancer guidelines 2009. Eur Urol. 2010;57(6):1002–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Leijte JAP, Kroon BK, Valdés Olmos RA, Nieweg OE, Horenblas S. Reliability and safety of current dynamic sentinel node biopsy for penile carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2007;52(1):170–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tanis PJ, Lont AP, Meinhardt W, Olmos RA, Nieweg OE, Horenblas S. Dynamic sentinel node biopsy for penile cancer: reliability of a staging technique. J Urol. 2002;168(1):76–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lont AP, Horenblas S, Tanis PJ, Gallee MP, van Tinteren H, Nieweg OE. Management of clinically node negative penile carcinoma: improved survival after the introduction of dynamic sentinel node biopsy. J Urol. 2003;170(3):783–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Pizzocaro G, Nicolai N, Milani A. Taxanes in combination with cisplatin and fluorouracil for advanced penile cancer: preliminary results. Eur Urol. 2009;55:546–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Veeratterapillay R, Sahadevan K, Aluru P, Asterling S, Rao GS, Greene D. Organ-preserving surgery for penile cancer: description of techniques and surgical outcomes. BJU Int. 2012;2:1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Berveiller P, Mir O, Veyrie N, Barranger E. The sentinel-node concept: a dramatic improvement in breast-cancer surgery. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(9):906. Elsevier Ltd.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Morton DL, Bostick PJ. Will the true sentinel node please stand? Ann Surg Oncol. 1999;6(1):12–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Horenblas S. Lymphadenectomy in penile cancer. Urol Clin North Am. 2011;38(4):459–69, vi–vii. Elsevier Inc.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Horenblas S, Van Tinteren H, Delemarre JF, Moonen LM, Lustig V, van Waardenburg EW. Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. III. Treatment of regional lymph nodes. J Urol. 1993;149(3):492–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Leijte JAP, Kerst JM, Bais E, Antonini N, Horenblas S. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced penile carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2007;52(2):488–94.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lont AP, Kroon BK, Gallee MPW, van Tinteren H, Moonen LMF, Horenblas S. 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. 2007;177(3):947–52; discussion 952.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhu Y, Zhang S-L, Ye D-W, Yao X-D, Dai B, Zhang H-L, et al. Prospectively packaged ilioinguinal lymphadenectomy for penile cancer: the disseminative pattern of lymph node metastasis. J Urol. 2009;181(5):2103–8. American Urological Association.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 

  19. Sánchez-Ortiz RF, Pettaway CA. The role of lymphadenectomy in penile cancer. Urol Oncol. 2004;22(3):236–44; discussion 244–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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 

  21. Ornellas AA, Kinchin EW, Nóbrega BLB, Wisnescky A, Koifman N, Quirino R. Surgical treatment of invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: Brazilian National Cancer Institute long-term experience. J Surg Oncol. 2008;97(6):487–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Horenblas S, Van Tinteren H. Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. IV. Prognostic factors of survival: analysis of tumor, nodes and metastasis classification system. J Urol. 1994;151:1239–43.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Broders A. Squamous cell-epithelioma of the skin. Ann Surg. 1921;43(2):141–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Leijte JAP, Kirrander P, Antonini N, Windahl T, Horenblas S. Recurrence patterns of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: recommendations for follow-up based on a two-centre analysis of 700 patients. Eur Urol. 2008;54(1):161–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Horenblas S, van Tinteren H, Delemarre JF, Boon TA, Moonen LM, Lustig V. Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. II. Treatment of the primary tumor. J Urol. 1992;147(6):1533–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Horenblas S, Van Tinteren H, Delemarre JF, Moonen LM, Lustig V, Kröger R. 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. 1991;146(5):1279–83.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kroon BK, Horenblas S, Estourgie SH, Lont AP, Valdés Olmos RA, Nieweg OE. How to avoid false-negative dynamic sentinel node procedures in penile carcinoma. J Urol. 2004;171(6):2191–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Pietrzak P, Corbishley C, Watkin N. Organ-sparing surgery for invasive penile cancer: early follow-up data. BJU Int. 2004;94(9):1253–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sarin R, Norman A, Steel G, Horwich A. Treatment results and prognostic factors in 101 men treated for squamous carcinoma of the penis. Int J Radiat Oncol. 1997;38(4):713–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. McDougal WS. Preemptive lymphadenectomy markedly improves survival in patients with cancer of the penis who harbor occult metastases. J Urol. 2005;173(3):681.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhu Y, Zhang SL, Ye DW, Yao XD, Jiang ZX, Zhou XY. 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(1–2):37–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Graafland NM, Leijte JA, Valdés Olmos RA, Hoefnagel CA, Teertstra HJ, Horenblas S. Scanning with 18F-FDG-PET/CT for detection of pelvic nodal involvement in inguinal node-positive penile carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2009;56(2):339–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sadeghi R, Gholami H, Zakavi SR, Kakhki VRD, Horenblas S. Accuracy of 18F-FDG PET / CT for diagnosing inguinal lymph node involvement in penile squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Nucl Med. 2012;37:436–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Al-Najar A, Alkatout I, Al-Sanabani S, Korda JB, Hegele A, Bolenz C, et al. External validation of the proposed T and N categories of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Int J Urol. 2011;11:312–6.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Zhu Y, Ye D-W, Yao X-D, Zhang S-L, Dai B, Zhang H-L. New N staging system of penile cancer provides a better reflection of prognosis. J Urol. 2011;186(2):518–23. American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Leijte JA, Gallee M, Antonini N, Horenblas S. Evaluation of current TNM classification of penile carcinoma. J Urol. 2008;180(3):933–8; discussion 938.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rees R, Freeman A, Borley N. PT2 penile squamous cell carcinomas: cavernosus vs. spongiosus invasion. Eur Urol Suppl. 2008;7(3):111 (abstract #63).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C, editors, International Union Against Cancer (UICC). TNM classification of malignant tumors. 7th ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This paper is based on two accepted papers: (1) Contemporary management of regional nodes in penile cancer: changes in survival? Rosa S. Djajadiningrat, Niels M. Graafland, Erik van Werkhoven, Wim Meinhardt, Axel Bex, Henk G. van der Poel, Hester H. van Boven, Renato A. Valdés Olmos, and Simon Horenblas, J Urol. 2014 Jan;191(1):68–73; and (2) Penile cancer: Penile sparing surgery does not affect survival? Rosa S. Djajadiningrat, Erik van Werkhoven, Wim Meinhardt, Axel Bex, Henk van der Poel, Bas van Rhijn, and Simon Horenblas, J Urol. 2013 Dec 24. pii: S0022-5347(13)06140–5. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.12.038 [Epub ahead of print].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam, 1066CX, The Netherlands

    Rosa S. Djajadiningrat MD & Simon Horenblas MD, PhD, FEBU

  2. Biometrics, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Erik van Werkhoven MSc

Authors
  1. Rosa S. Djajadiningrat MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erik van Werkhoven MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simon Horenblas MD, PhD, FEBU
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosa S. Djajadiningrat MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

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

    Daniel J. Culkin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Djajadiningrat, R.S., van Werkhoven, E., Horenblas, S. (2014). Analysis of Contemporary Treatment of Penile Cancer at the Netherlands Cancer Institute. In: Culkin, D. (eds) Management of Penile Cancer. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0461-7_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0461-7_9

  • 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