Skip to main content
Log in

Pathologie und histopathologische Begutachtung des Peniskarzinoms

Pathology and histopathological evaluation of penile cancer

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

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Das Peniskarzinom ist in Deutschland und in den westlichen Industrienationen ein seltener Tumor. Das Wissen über die Pathogenese und die Pathologie dieses Malignoms hat in den letzten Jahren erheblich zugenommen.

Fragestellung

Das klinische Management ist komplexer geworden und organerhaltende Therapiestrategien werden heute bevorzugt. Damit steigt auch die Anforderung an die pathohistologische Begutachtung von Biopsien und Operationspräparaten des Penis.

Material und Methoden

Diese Übersichtsarbeit erläutert auf der Grundlage der Leitlinien und der relevanten Literatur die wichtigsten Aspekte, die bei der Klassifikation und bei der pathohistologischen Befunderstellung des Peniskarzinoms berücksichtigt werden müssen.

Ergebnisse

Die korrekte histologische Subtypisierung des Peniskarzinoms ist wichtig für die Prognose und die Therapieentscheidung. Es gibt auch Besonderheiten in der aktuellen TNM-Klassifikation („tumour, node, metastasis“) dieses Tumors im Vergleich zu anderen Entitäten.

Schlussfolgerungen

Die Bearbeitung der Gewebepräparate und die histopathologische Typisierung erfordern vom Pathologen Kenntnisse der aktuellen Entwicklungen zur Pathogenese, Klassifikation und Therapie des Peniskarzinoms.

Abstract

Background

Penile cancer is rare in Germany and in western European countries. Our understanding of the pathogenesis and pathology of this malignancy has increased considerably in recent years.

Objectives

Clinical management has become more complex, with organ-preserving strategies being increasingly favored. Associated with these developments, the demands on the pathology reports of biopsies and surgical specimens from the penis have also increased.

Materials and methods

According to guidelines and the relevant literature, this review outlines the most important aspects that must be considered in the classification and pathological reporting of penile cancer.

Results

Correct histological subtyping of penile cancer is important for prognostic and therapeutic considerations. There are also some peculiarities with the current TNM classification system of this tumor compared to other entities.

Conclusion

Handling of specimens and histopathological typing must be performed by experienced pathologists according to recent developments in the pathogenesis, classification, and therapeutic strategies of penile cancer.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6

Literatur

  1. Alemany L, Cubilla A, Halec G et al (2016) Role of human papillomavirus in penile carcinomas worldwide. Eur Urol 69:953–961

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Algaba F, Arce Y, Lopez-Beltran A et al (2005) Intraoperative frozen section diagnosis in urological oncology. Eur Urol 47:129–136

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Alvarado-Cabrero I, Sanchez DF, Piedras D et al (2017) The variable morphologic spectrum of penile basaloid carcinomas: differential diagnosis, prognostic factors and outcome report in 27 cases classified as classic and mixed variants. Appl Cancer Res. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41241-017-0010-3

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barreto JE, Velazquez EF, Ayala E et al (2007) Carcinoma cuniculatum: a distinctive variant of penile squamous cell carcinoma: report of 7 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 31:71–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chaux A, Caballero C, Soares F et al (2009) The prognostic index: a useful pathologic guide for prediction of nodal metastases and survival in penile squamous cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 33:1049–1057

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chaux A, Soares F, Rodriguez I et al (2010) Papillary squamous cell carcinoma, not otherwise specified (NOS) of the penis: clinicopathologic features, differential diagnosis, and outcome of 35 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 34:223–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cubilla AL (2009) The role of pathologic prognostic factors in squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. World J Urol 27:169–177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cubilla AL, Amin MB, Ayala A et al (2016) Tumours of the penis. In: Moch H, Humphrey PA, Ulbright TM et al (Hrsg) WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Lyon, S 259–286

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cubilla AL, Lloveras B, Alejo M et al (2011) Value of p16(INK4a) in the pathology of invasive penile squamous cell carcinomas: a report of 202 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 35:253–261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cubilla AL, Velazques EF, Reuter VE et al (2000) Warty (condylomatous) squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: a report of 11 cases and proposed classification of ‘verruciform’ penile tumors. Am J Surg Pathol 24:505–512

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cubilla AL, Velazquez EF, Young RH (2004) Pseudohyperplastic squamous cell carcinoma of the penis associated with lichen sclerosus. An extremely well-differentiated, nonverruciform neoplasm that preferentially affects the foreskin and is frequently misdiagnosed: a report of 10 cases of a distinctive clinicopathologic entity. Am J Surg Pathol 28:895–900

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Downes MR (2015) Review of in situ and invasive penile squamous cell carcinoma and associated non-neoplastic dermatological conditions. J Clin Pathol 68:333–340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes (2015) Seltene bösartige Tumoren. In: Robert Koch Institut, Gesellschaft der epidemiologischen Krebsregister in Deutschland e. V. (Hrsg) Krebs in Deutschland 2011/2012. Robert Koch Institut, Berlin, S 134

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gunia S, Erbersdobler A, Hakenberg OW et al (2012) P16(INK4a) is a marker of good prognosis for primary invasive penile squamous cell carcinoma: a multi-institutional study. J Urol 187:899–907

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gunia S, Kakies C, Erbersdobler A et al (2012) Expression of p53, p21 and cyclin D1 in penile cancer: p53 predicts poor prognosis. J Clin Pathol 65:232–236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Graafland NM, van Boven HH, van Werkhoven E et al (2010) Prognostic significance of extranodal extension in patients with pathological node positive penile carcinoma. J Urol 184:1347–1353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hakenberg OW, Comperat EM, Minhas S et al (2015) EAU guidelines on penile cancer: 2014 update. Eur Urol 67:142–150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kakies C, Lopez-Beltran A, Comperat E et al (2014) Reproducibility of histopathologic tumor grading in penile cancer–results of a European project. Virchows Arch 464:453–461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kashofer K, Winter E, Halbwedl I et al (2017) HPV-negative penile squamous cell carcinoma: disruptive mutations in the TP53 gene are common. Mod Pathol 30:1013–1030

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Leijte JA, Kroon BK, Valdes Olmos RA et al (2007) Reliability and safety of current dynamic sentinel node biopsy for penile carcinoma. Eur Urol 52:170–177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mentrikoski MJ, Frierson HF, Stelow EB et al (2014) Lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma of the penis: association with human papilloma virus infection. Histopathology 64:312–315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Minhas S, Kayes O, Hegarty P et al (2005) What surgical resection margins are required to achieve oncological control in men with primary penile cancer? BJU Int 96:1040–1043

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sanchez DF, Rodriguez IM, Piris A (2016) Clear cell carcinoma of the penis: an HPV-related variant of squamous cell carcinoma: a report of 3 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 40:917–922

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Stankiewicz E, Kudahetti SC, Prowse DM et al (2009) HPV infection and immunochemical detection of cell-cycle markers in verrucous carcinoma of the penis. Mod Pathol 22:1160–1168

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stankiewicz E, Prowse DM, Ktori E et al (2011) The retinoblastoma protein/p16 INK4A pathway but not p53 is disrupted by human papillomavirus in penile squamous cell carcinoma. Histopathology 58:433–439

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. UICC Union for International Cancer Control (2017) Penis. In: Wittekind Ch (Hrsg) TNM classification of malignant tumours. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, S 242–244

    Google Scholar 

  27. Velazquez EF, Ayala G, Liu H et al (2008) Histologic grade and perineural invasion are more important than tumor thickness as predictor of nodal metastasis in penile squamous cell carcinoma invading 5 to 10 mm. Am J Surg Pathol 32:974–979

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Velazquez EF, Cubilla AL (2003) Lichen sclerosus in 68 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: frequent atypias and correlation with special carcinoma variants suggests a precancerous role. Am J Surg Pathol 27:1448–1453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Velazquez EF, Soskin A, Bock A et al (2004) 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 28:384–389

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Villavicencio H, Rubio-Briones J, Regalado R et al (1997) Grade, local stage and growth pattern as prognostic factors in carcinoma of the penis. Eur Urol 32:442–447

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Erbersdobler.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

A. Erbersdobler gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine vom Autor 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

Erbersdobler, A. Pathologie und histopathologische Begutachtung des Peniskarzinoms. Urologe 57, 391–397 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-018-0592-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-018-0592-8

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation