Cargando…

Evaluation of Prognostic Parameters to Identify Aggressive Penile Carcinomas

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mink, Jan Niklas, Khalmurzaev, Oybek, Pryalukhin, Alexey, Geppert, Carol Immanuel, Lohse, Stefan, Bende, Kristof, Lobo, João, Henrique, Rui, Loertzer, Hagen, Steffens, Joachim, Jerónimo, Carmen, Wunderlich, Heiko, Heinzelbecker, Julia, Bohle, Rainer M., Stöckle, Michael, Matveev, Vsevolod, Hartmann, Arndt, Junker, Kerstin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10571727/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37835442
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers15194748
_version_ 1785120069102075904
author Mink, Jan Niklas
Khalmurzaev, Oybek
Pryalukhin, Alexey
Geppert, Carol Immanuel
Lohse, Stefan
Bende, Kristof
Lobo, João
Henrique, Rui
Loertzer, Hagen
Steffens, Joachim
Jerónimo, Carmen
Wunderlich, Heiko
Heinzelbecker, Julia
Bohle, Rainer M.
Stöckle, Michael
Matveev, Vsevolod
Hartmann, Arndt
Junker, Kerstin
author_facet Mink, Jan Niklas
Khalmurzaev, Oybek
Pryalukhin, Alexey
Geppert, Carol Immanuel
Lohse, Stefan
Bende, Kristof
Lobo, João
Henrique, Rui
Loertzer, Hagen
Steffens, Joachim
Jerónimo, Carmen
Wunderlich, Heiko
Heinzelbecker, Julia
Bohle, Rainer M.
Stöckle, Michael
Matveev, Vsevolod
Hartmann, Arndt
Junker, Kerstin
author_sort Mink, Jan Niklas
collection PubMed
description 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. ABSTRACT: 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10571727
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105717272023-10-14 Evaluation of Prognostic Parameters to Identify Aggressive Penile Carcinomas Mink, Jan Niklas Khalmurzaev, Oybek Pryalukhin, Alexey Geppert, Carol Immanuel Lohse, Stefan Bende, Kristof Lobo, João Henrique, Rui Loertzer, Hagen Steffens, Joachim Jerónimo, Carmen Wunderlich, Heiko Heinzelbecker, Julia Bohle, Rainer M. Stöckle, Michael Matveev, Vsevolod Hartmann, Arndt Junker, Kerstin Cancers (Basel) Article 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. ABSTRACT: 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. MDPI 2023-09-27 /pmc/articles/PMC10571727/ /pubmed/37835442 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers15194748 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Mink, Jan Niklas
Khalmurzaev, Oybek
Pryalukhin, Alexey
Geppert, Carol Immanuel
Lohse, Stefan
Bende, Kristof
Lobo, João
Henrique, Rui
Loertzer, Hagen
Steffens, Joachim
Jerónimo, Carmen
Wunderlich, Heiko
Heinzelbecker, Julia
Bohle, Rainer M.
Stöckle, Michael
Matveev, Vsevolod
Hartmann, Arndt
Junker, Kerstin
Evaluation of Prognostic Parameters to Identify Aggressive Penile Carcinomas
title Evaluation of Prognostic Parameters to Identify Aggressive Penile Carcinomas
title_full Evaluation of Prognostic Parameters to Identify Aggressive Penile Carcinomas
title_fullStr Evaluation of Prognostic Parameters to Identify Aggressive Penile Carcinomas
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Prognostic Parameters to Identify Aggressive Penile Carcinomas
title_short Evaluation of Prognostic Parameters to Identify Aggressive Penile Carcinomas
title_sort evaluation of prognostic parameters to identify aggressive penile carcinomas
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10571727/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37835442
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers15194748
work_keys_str_mv AT minkjanniklas evaluationofprognosticparameterstoidentifyaggressivepenilecarcinomas
AT khalmurzaevoybek evaluationofprognosticparameterstoidentifyaggressivepenilecarcinomas
AT pryalukhinalexey evaluationofprognosticparameterstoidentifyaggressivepenilecarcinomas
AT geppertcarolimmanuel evaluationofprognosticparameterstoidentifyaggressivepenilecarcinomas
AT lohsestefan evaluationofprognosticparameterstoidentifyaggressivepenilecarcinomas
AT bendekristof evaluationofprognosticparameterstoidentifyaggressivepenilecarcinomas
AT lobojoao evaluationofprognosticparameterstoidentifyaggressivepenilecarcinomas
AT henriquerui evaluationofprognosticparameterstoidentifyaggressivepenilecarcinomas
AT loertzerhagen evaluationofprognosticparameterstoidentifyaggressivepenilecarcinomas
AT steffensjoachim evaluationofprognosticparameterstoidentifyaggressivepenilecarcinomas
AT jeronimocarmen evaluationofprognosticparameterstoidentifyaggressivepenilecarcinomas
AT wunderlichheiko evaluationofprognosticparameterstoidentifyaggressivepenilecarcinomas
AT heinzelbeckerjulia evaluationofprognosticparameterstoidentifyaggressivepenilecarcinomas
AT bohlerainerm evaluationofprognosticparameterstoidentifyaggressivepenilecarcinomas
AT stocklemichael evaluationofprognosticparameterstoidentifyaggressivepenilecarcinomas
AT matveevvsevolod evaluationofprognosticparameterstoidentifyaggressivepenilecarcinomas
AT hartmannarndt evaluationofprognosticparameterstoidentifyaggressivepenilecarcinomas
AT junkerkerstin evaluationofprognosticparameterstoidentifyaggressivepenilecarcinomas