Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lymphknotenpositives Peniskarzinom

Management und systemische Therapie

Lymph-node-positive penile cancer

Management and systemic therapy

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Urologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Für das karzinomspezifische Überleben von Männern mit Peniskarzinom sind Lymphknotenmetastasierung (LKM) und deren Ausmaß der wichtigste prognostische Faktor. Patienten mit begrenzten inguinalen LKM erreichen zwar im günstigsten Fall 5‑Jahres-Überlebensraten von bis zu 80 %, aber solche mit pelvinen LKM und/oder Fernmetastasen erreichen nur 5‑Jahres-Überlebensraten von 0–33 %. In jedem Fall ist bei Patienten mit regionären LKM therapeutisch ein multimodales Vorgehen mit operativer Therapie und adjuvanter Chemotherapie indiziert.

Abstract

Cancer-specific survival in men with penile cancer depends foremost on regional lymphatic metastasis and its extent. Patients with limited inguinal lymph node metastases have a 5-year survival of up to 80%. However, those with pelvic lymph node metastases and/or systemic disease have a 5-year survival prognosis of only 0–33%. In any case, in patients with regional lymph node metastases multimodal treatment with complete lymphadenectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy is indicated.

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

Abb. 1

Literatur

  1. Hakenberg OW, Compérat EM, Minhas S et al (2014) EAU guidelines on penile cancer: 2014 update. Eur Urol 67(1):142–150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brierley JD et al (2016) TNM classification of malignant tumours, 8. Aufl. International Union Against Cancer, Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, S 188–189

    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. Protzel C et al (2009) Lymphadenectomy in the surgical management of penile cancer. Eur Urol 55:1075–1088

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Leijte JA et al (2008) Recurrence patterns of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: recommendations for follow-up based on a two-centre analysis of 700 patients. Eur Urol 54:161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ornellas AA et al (2008) Surgical treatment of invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: Brazilian National Cancer Institute long-term experience. J Surg Oncol 97:487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Koifman L et al (2013) Radical open inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile carcinoma: surgical technique, early complications and late outcomes. J Urol 190:2086

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yao K et al (2010) Modified technique of radical inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile carcinoma: morbidity and outcome. J Urol 184:546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Matin SF et al (2013) Phase 1 prospective evaluation of the oncological adequacy of robotic assisted videoendoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy in patients with penile carcinoma. BJU Int 111:1068–1074

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Tobias-Machado M et al (2007) Video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy: a new minimally invasive procedure for radical management of inguinal nodes in patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma. J Urol 177:953

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Srinivas V, Morse MJ, Herr HW (1987) Penile cancer: relation of extent of nodal metastasis to survival. J Urol 137:880–882

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pandey D, Mahajan V, Kannan RR (2006) Prognostic factors in node-positive carcinoma of the penis. J Surg Oncol 93:133–138

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cabanas RM (1977) An approach for the treatment of penile carcinoma. Cancer 39:456

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pizzocaro G et al (1988) Adjuvant and neoadjuvant vincristine, bleomycin, and methotrexate for inguinal metastases from squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Acta Oncol 27:823

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Leijte JA et al (2007) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced penile carcinoma. Eur Urol 52:488

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bermejo C et al (2007) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by aggressive surgical consolidation for metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma. J Urol 177:1335

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pizzocaro G et al (1997) Up-to-date management of carcinoma of the penis. Eur Urol 32:5

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Giannatempo P et al (2014) Survival analyses of adjuvant or neoadjuvant combination of a taxane plus cisplatin and 5‑fluorouracil (T-PF) in patients with bulky nodal metastases from squamous cell carcinoma of the penis (PSCC): results of a single high-volume center. J Clin Oncol 32:5

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hakenberg OW et al (2006) Cisplatin, methotrexate and bleomycin for treating advanced penile carcinoma. BJU Int 98:1225

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Haas GP et al (1999) Cisplatin, methotrexate and bleomycin for the treatment of carcinoma of the penis: a Southwest Oncology Group study. J Urol 161:1823

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hussein AM et al (1990) Chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5‑fluorouracil for penile and urethral squamous cell carcinomas. Cancer 65:433

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Shammas FV et al (1992) Cisplatin and 5‑fluorouracil in advanced cancer of the penis. J Urol 147:630

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pagliaro LC et al (2010) Neoadjuvant paclitaxel, ifosfamide, and cisplatin chemotherapy for metastatic penile cancer: a phase II study. J Clin Oncol 28:3851

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Udager AM et al (2016) Frequent PD-L1 expression in primary and metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma: potential opportunities for immunotherapeutic approaches. Ann Oncol 27:1706–1712

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Cocks M et al (2017) Immune-checkpoint status in penile squamous cell carcinoma: a North American cohort. Hum Pathol 59:55–61

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ottenhof SR et al (2017) Expression of programmed death ligand 1 in penile cancer is of prognostic value and associated with HPV status. J Urol 197:690–697

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Graafland NM et al (2011) Inguinal recurrence following therapeutic lymphadenectomy for node positive penile carcinoma: outcome and implications for management. J Urol 185:888

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kulkarni JN et al (1994) Prophylactic bilateral groin node dissection versus prophylactic radiotherapy and surveillance in patients with N0 and N1-2A carcinoma of the penis. Eur Urol 26:123

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Franks KN et al (2011) Radiotherapy for node positive penile cancer: experience of the Leeds teaching hospitals. J Urol 186:524

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Burt LM et al (2014) Stage presentation, care patterns, and treatment outcomes for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 88:94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lucky MA et al (2009) Referrals into a dedicated British penile cancer centre and sources of possible delay. Sex Transm Infect 85:527

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Baumgarten AS et al (2014) Salvage surgical resection for isolated locally recurrent inguinal lymph node metastasis of penile cancer: international study collaboration. J Urol 192:760–764

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Schillingallee 35, 18057, Rostock, Deutschland

    A. Aziz, S. Milerski, K. Kernig & O. W. Hakenberg

  2. Klinik für Urologie, Helios-Klinikum Schwerin, Schwerin, Deutschland

    C. Protzel

Authors
  1. A. Aziz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Milerski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. Kernig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. Protzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. O. W. Hakenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Aziz.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

A. Aziz, S. Milerski, K. Kernig, C. Protzel undO. W. Hakenberg geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aziz, A., Milerski, S., Kernig, K. et al. Lymphknotenpositives Peniskarzinom. Urologe 57, 440–443 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-018-0601-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-018-0601-y

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation