Abstract
Penile cancer is usually an obvious visual diagnosis but may be hidden under a phimosis and always requires histological confirmation. Superficial forms may appear as innocuous changes in color and texture of the glandular skin. A high degree of diagnostic suspicion and early biopsy are required in such cases. Palpation of the primary tumor will give relevant information on the local extent, and additional penile imaging is usually not needed. Since metastatic lymphatic spread occurs early in penile cancer and can quickly lead to disseminated disease, examination of the regional inguinal lymph nodes is essential. Groin palpation remains the most useful examination to detect suspicious lymph nodes. Imaging can confirm palpably enlarged lymph nodes and may only be additionally useful in obese patients or for pelvic node staging. But no imaging modality can reliably exclude micrometastatic disease in clinically normal inguinal lymph nodes which occurs in up to 25% of cases. This can only reliably be done by invasive lymph node staging of inguinal nodes removed by sentinel lymph node biopsy or limited modified lymphadenectomy. In case of enlarged and suspicious inguinal lymph nodes, imaging to detect pelvic nodes and distant metastasis by CT, MRI, or PET/CT scanning can be required in addition to pathological staging by radical inguinal lymphadenectomy followed by ipsilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy if more than one inguinal node is affected. Thus, diagnosis and staging in penile cancer remains mostly clinical and surgical.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Brierley JD, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C. TNM classification of malignant tumours. Union for International Cancer Control. Oxford: Wiley; 2017.
Chipollini J, Yan S, Ottenhof SR, Zhu Y, Draeger D, Baumgarten AS, Tang DH, Protzel C, Ye DW, Hakenberg OW, Horenblas S, Watkin NA, Spiess PE. Surgical management of penile carcinoma in situ: results from an international collaborative study and review of the literature. BJU Int. 2018;121(3):393–8.
Daseler EH, Anson BJ, Reimann AF. Radical excision of inguinal and iliac lymph glands: a study based upon 450 anatomical dissections and upon supportive clinical observations. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1948;87(6): 679–94.
Djajadiningrat RS, Teertstra HJ, van Werkhoven E, van Boven HH, Horenblas S. Ultrasound examination and fine needle aspiration cytology-useful for followup of the regional nodes in penile cancer? J Urol. 2014;191(3):652–5.
Dräger DL, Heuschkel M, Protzel C, Erbersdobler A, Krause BJ, Hakenberg OW, Schwarzenböck SM. 18FFDG PET/CT for assessing inguinal lymph nodes in patients with penile cancer – correlation with histopathology after inguinal lymphadenectomy. Nuklearmedizin. 2018;57(1):26–30.
Graafland NM, Lam W, Leijte JA, Yap T, Gallee MP, Corbishley C, van Werkhoven E, Watkin N, Horenblas S. 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. 2010;58(5):742–7.
Hakenberg OW, Comperat E, Minhas S, et al. Guideline on penile cancer: 2014 update. Eur Urol. 2015;67:142–50.
Kakies C, Lopez-Beltran A, Comperat E. Reproducibility of histopathologic tumor grading in penile cancer-results of a European project. Virchows Arch. 2014;464:453–61.
Kayes O, Minhas S, Allen C, et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in the local staging of penile cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;51:1313–8.
Krishna RP, Sistla SC, Smile R, et al. Sonography: an underutilized diagnostic tool in the assessment of metastatic groin nodes. J Clin Ultrasound. 2008;36(4): 212–7.
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. 2008a;54(1):161–8.
Leijte JA, Valdés Olmos RA, Nieweg OE, et al. Anatomical mapping of lymphatic drainage in penile carcinoma with SPECT-CT: implications for the extent of inguinal lymph node dissection. Eur Urol. 2008b;54(4):885–90.
Leijte JA, Graafland NM, Valdés Olmos RA, van Boven HH, Hoefnagel CA, Horenblas S. Prospective evaluation of hybrid 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in staging clinically node-negative patients with penile carcinoma. BJU Int. 2009;104(5):640–4.
Lont AP, Besnard AP, Gallee MP, et al. A comparison of physical examination and imaging in determining the extent of primary penile carcinoma. BJU Int. 2003;91(6):493–5.
Lützen U, Zuhayra M, Marx M, Zhao Y, Colberg C, Knüpfer S, Baumann R, Kähler KC, Jünemann KP, Naumann CM. Value and efficiency of sentinel lymph node diagnostics in patients with penile carcinoma with palpable inguinal lymph nodes as a new multimodal, minimally invasive approach. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(13):2313–23.
Minhas S, Kayes O, Hegarty P, et al. What surgical resection margins are required to achieve oncological control in men with primary penile cancer? BJU Int. 2005;96(7):1040–3.
Neto AS, Tobias-Machado M, Ficarra V, et al. Dynamic sentinel node biopsy for inguinal lymph node staging in patients with penile cancer: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of the literature. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(7):2026–34.
Petralia G, Villa G, Scardino E, et al. Local staging of penile cancer using magnetic resonance imaging with pharmacologically induced penile erection. Radiol Med. 2008;113(4):517–28.
Riveros M, Garcia R, Cabanas R. Lymphadenography of the dorsal lymphatics of the penis. Technique and results. Cancer. 1967;20(11):2026–31.
Solsona E, Iborra I, Rubio J, et al. 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.
Souillac I, Rigaud J, Ansquer C, Marconnet L, Bouchot O. Prospective evaluation of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computerized tomography to assess inguinal lymph node status in invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. J Urol. 2012;187(2):493–7.
Velazquez EF, Barreto JE, Rodriguez I, et al. Limitations in the interpretation of biopsies in patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Surg Pathol. 2004a;12(2):139–46.
Velazquez EF, Soskin A, Bock A, et al. Positive resection margins in partial penectomies: sites of involvement and proposal of local routes of spread of penile squamous cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004b;28(3): 384–9.
Yao K, Tu H, Li YH, et al. Modified technique of radical inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile carcinoma: morbidity and outcome. J Urol. 2010;184(2):546–52.
Zhu Y, Ye DW, Yao XD, et al. The value of squamous cell carcinoma antigen in the prognostic evaluation, treatment monitoring and followup of patients with penile cancer. J Urol. 2008;180(5):2019–23.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Dräger, D., Hakenberg, O.W. (2019). Diagnosis and Staging in Penile Cancer. In: Merseburger, A., Burger, M. (eds) Urologic Oncology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42603-7_34-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42603-7_34-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-42603-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-42603-7
eBook Packages: Springer Reference MedicineReference Module Medicine