Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Imaging Techniques Used in Penile Cancer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Penile Cancer – A Practical Guide

Part of the book series: Management of Urology ((MU))

  • 117 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter reviews the technical aspects of imaging the penis (predominantly MRI and ultrasound) and the relevant lymph nodes (CT, MRI, PET, ultrasound and sentinel node sampling). We discuss the performance of these techniques and the indications for each in the investigation and follow up 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
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
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. Hakenberg OW, Compérat E, Minhas ES, Necchi A, Pretzel C, Watkin N. European Association of Urology guidelines: penile cancer. The Netherlands: EAU Guidelines Office; 2021. [Available from: https://uroweb.org/guideline/penile-cancer]

    Google Scholar 

  2. Krishna S, Shanbhogue K, Schieda N, Morbeck F, Hadas B, Kulkarni G, et al. Role of MRI in staging of penile cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020;51(6):1612–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pretorius ES, Siegelman ES, Ramchandani P, Banner MP. MR imaging of the penis. Radiographics. 2001;21(suppl_1):S283–S98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kirkham A. MRI of the penis. Br J Radiol. 2012;85. Spec No 1:S86-93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hanchanale V, Yeo L, Subedi N, Smith J, Wah T, Harnden P, et al. The accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in predicting the invasion of the tunica albuginea and the urethra during the primary staging of penile cancer. BJU Int. 2016;117(3):439–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Barua SK, Kaman PK, Baruah SJ, Rajeev TP, Bagchi PK, Sarma D, et al. Role of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWMRI) in assessment of primary penile tumor characteristics and its correlations with inguinal lymph node metastasis: a prospective study. World J Oncol. 2018;9(5–6):145–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Kochhar R, Taylor B, Sangar V. Imaging in primary penile cancer: current status and future directions. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(1):36–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ghosh P, Chandra A, Mukhopadhyay S, Chatterjee A, Lingegowda D, Gehani A, et al. Accuracy of MRI without intracavernosal prostaglandin E1 injection in staging, preoperative evaluation, and operative planning of penile cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021;46(10):4984–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Scardino E, Villa G, Bonomo G, Matei DV, Verweij F, Rocco B, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging combined with artificial erection for local staging of penile cancer. Urology. 2004;63(6):1158–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Linet OI, Ogrinc FG. Efficacy and safety of intracavernosal alprostadil in men with erectile dysfunction. The Alprostadil Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(14):873–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Muruve N, Hosking DH. Intracorporeal phenylephrine in the treatment of priapism. J Urol. 1996;155(1):141–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chan PT, Begin LR, Arnold D, Jacobson SA, Corcos J, Brock GB. Priapism secondary to penile metastasis: a report of two cases and a review of the literature. J Surg Oncol. 1998;68(1):51–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Minhas S, Kayes O, Hegarty P, Kumar P, Freeman A, Ralph D. What surgical resection margins are required to achieve oncological control in men with primary penile cancer? BJU Int. 2005;96(7):1040–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bozzini G, Provenzano M, Romero Otero J, Margreiter M, Garcia Cruz E, Osmolorskij B, et al. Role of Penile Doppler US in the preoperative assessment of penile squamous cell carcinoma patients: results from a large prospective Multicenter European Study. Urology. 2016;90:131–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lont AP, Besnard AP, Gallee MP, van Tinteren H, Horenblas S. A comparison of physical examination and imaging in determining the extent of primary penile carcinoma. BJU Int. 2003;91(6):493–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sirikci A, Bayram M, Demirci M, Bakir K, Sarica K. Penile epithelioid sarcoma: MR imaging findings. Eur Radiol. 1999;9(8):1593–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dehner LP, Smith BH. Soft tissue tumors of the penis. A clinicopathologic study of 46 cases. Cancer. 1970;25(6):1431–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chiang KH, Chang PY, Lee SK, Yen PS, Ling CM, Lin CC, et al. MR findings of penile lymphoma. Br J Radiol. 2006;79(942):526–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gaviani P, Mullins ME, Braga TA, Hedley-Whyte ET, Halpern EF, Schaefer PS, et al. Improved detection of metastatic melanoma by T2*-weighted imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27(3):605–8.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Lau TN, Wakeley CJ, Goddard P. Magnetic resonance imaging of penile metastases: a report on five cases. Australas Radiol. 1999;43(3):378–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Leijte JA, 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 

  22. Restrepo R, Oneto J, Lopez K, Kukreja K. Head and neck lymph nodes in children: the spectrum from normal to abnormal. Pediatr Radiol. 2009;39(8):836–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ahuja AT, Ying M. Sonographic evaluation of cervical lymph nodes. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(5):1691–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Graafland NM, Teertstra HJ, Besnard AP, van Boven HH, Horenblas S. Identification of high risk pathological node positive penile carcinoma: value of preoperative computerized tomography imaging. J Urol. 2011;185(3):881–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Krishna RP, Sistla SC, Smile R, Krishnan R. Sonography: an underutilized diagnostic tool in the assessment of metastatic groin nodes. J Clin Ultrasound. 2008;36(4):212–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Steinkamp HJ, Maurer J, Cornehl M, Knobber D, Hettwer H, Felix R. Recurrent cervical lymphadenopathy: differential diagnosis with color-duplex sonography. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 1994;251(7):404–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hughes B, Leijte J, Shabbir M, Watkin N, Horenblas S. Non-invasive and minimally invasive staging of regional lymph nodes in penile cancer. World J Urol. 2009;27(2):197–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ornellas AA, Seixas AL, Marota A, Wisnescky A, Campos F, de Moraes JR. Surgical treatment of invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: retrospective analysis of 350 cases. J Urol. 1994;151(5):1244–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Leone A, Diorio GJ, Pettaway C, Master V, Spiess PE. Contemporary management of patients with penile cancer and lymph node metastasis. Nat Rev Urol. 2017;14(6):335–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Scher B, Seitz M, Reiser M, Hungerhuber E, Hahn K, Tiling R, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT for staging of penile cancer. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(9):1460–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Veit P, Ruehm S, Kuehl H, Stergar H, Mueller S, Bockisch A, et al. Lymph node staging with dual-modality PET/CT: enhancing the diagnostic accuracy in oncology. Eur J Radiol. 2006;58(3):383–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schlenker B, Scher B, Tiling R, Siegert S, Hungerhuber E, Gratzke C, et al. Detection of inguinal lymph node involvement in penile squamous cell carcinoma by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT: a prospective single-center study. Urol Oncol. 2012;30(1):55–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Graafland NM, Leijte JA, Valdes 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 

  34. Zhang S, Li W, Liang F. Clinical value of fluorine-18 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in penile cancer. Oncotarget. 2016;7(30):48600–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Harisinghani MG, Saksena M, Ross RW, Tabatabaei S, Dahl D, McDougal S, et al. A pilot study of lymphotrophic nanoparticle-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging technique in early stage testicular cancer: a new method for noninvasive lymph node evaluation. Urology. 2005;66(5):1066–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Harisinghani MG, Barentsz J, Hahn PF, Deserno WM, Tabatabaei S, van de Kaa CH, et al. Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(25):2491–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Tabatabaei S, Harisinghani M, McDougal WS. Regional lymph node staging using lymphotropic nanoparticle enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with ferumoxtran-10 in patients with penile cancer. J Urol. 2005;174(3):923–7. discussion 7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Fortuin AS, Bruggemann R, van der Linden J, Panfilov I, Israel B, Scheenen TWJ, et al. Ultra-small superparamagnetic iron oxides for metastatic lymph node detection: back on the block. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol. 2018;10:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Turkbey B, Czarniecki M, Shih JH, Harmon SA, Agarwal PK, Apolo AB, et al. Ferumoxytol-enhanced MR lymphography for detection of metastatic lymph nodes in genitourinary malignancies: a prospective study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020;214(1):105–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Senthil Kumar MP, Ananthakrishnan N, Prema V. Predicting regional lymph node metastasis in carcinoma of the penis: a comparison between fine-needle aspiration cytology, sentinel lymph node biopsy and medial inguinal lymph node biopsy. Br J Urol. 1998;81(3):453–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kroon BK, Horenblas S, Deurloo EE, Nieweg OE, Teertstra HJ. Ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology before sentinel node biopsy in patients with penile carcinoma. BJU Int. 2005;95(4):517–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Cabanas RM. An approach for the treatment of penile carcinoma. Cancer. 1977;39(2):456–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Wespes E, Simon J, Schulman CC. Cabanas approach: is sentinel node biopsy reliable for staging penile carcinoma? Urology. 1986;28(4):278–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Pettaway CA, Pisters LL, Dinney CP, Jularbal F, Swanson DA, von Eschenbach AC, et al. Sentinel lymph node dissection for penile carcinoma: the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center experience. J Urol. 1995;154(6):1999–2003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Rippentrop JM, Joslyn SA, Konety BR. Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: evaluation of data from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program. Cancer. 2004;101(6):1357–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Morone M, Bali MA, Tunariu N, Messiou C, Blackledge M, Grazioli L, et al. Whole-body MRI: current applications in oncology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209(6):W336–W49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ficarra V, Zattoni F, Artibani W, Fandella A, Martignoni G, Novara G, et al. Nomogram predictive of pathological inguinal lymph node involvement in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. J Urol. 2006;175(5):1700–4. discussion 4-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

    Alex Kirkham & Adam Retter

Authors
  1. Alex Kirkham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adam Retter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. King’s College London, London, UK

    Oliver Brunckhorst

  2. King’s College London, London, UK

    Kamran Ahmed

  3. University College London Hospital and University College London, London, UK

    Asif Muneer

  4. University College London Hospital and University College London, London, UK

    Hussain M Alnajjar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kirkham, A., Retter, A. (2023). Imaging Techniques Used in Penile Cancer. In: Brunckhorst, O., Ahmed, K., Muneer, A., Alnajjar, H.M. (eds) Penile Cancer – A Practical Guide. Management of Urology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32681-3_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32681-3_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-32680-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-32681-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation