» Articles » PMID: 18690458

Shortcomings of the Current TNM Classification for Penile Carcinoma: Time for a Change?

Overview
Journal World J Urol
Specialty Urology
Date 2008 Aug 12
PMID 18690458
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: Accurate tumor staging is essential in the management of malignancies. It provides a guide in selecting accurate treatment and gives an indication of prognosis based on the extent of disease. The current TNM classification for penile carcinoma has remained unchanged since 1987. In this article, we focus on several deficiencies of the current classification.

Materials And Methods: An analysis of the current literature regarding the current classification was done, focusing on known prognostic factors for survival. Furthermore, we discuss in detail the results from a recent analysis of more than 500 patients treated at our institute to evaluate the practical and prognostic value of the TNM-classification.

Results: We found that, using the current classification system, accurate clinical staging is often difficult, because the T and N categories are defined by structures that are not easily identified using physical examination or imaging. Furthermore, the prognostic stratification of the present staging system is not optimal and there is a substantial overlap in disease-specific survival between several categories. We give an overview of modifications that could improve clinical staging and prognostic ability.

Conclusion: The current TNM classification for penile carcinoma has several shortcomings in terms of usability in clinical staging and prognostic value. With modifications clinical staging is facilitated, while the prognostic stratification of the classification is improved.

Citing Articles

The prognostic value of the 8th American Joint Committee on cancer anatomic and prognostic stage groups for penile cancer: A multicenter collaboration study.

Li X, Guo Y, Ornellas A, Geng J, Li Y, Lam W Asian J Urol. 2025; 12(1):100-105.

PMID: 39990080 PMC: 11840309. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajur.2024.10.001.


Outcomes of Prophylactic Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection in Malignancies of Lower Limb.

Nichkaode P, Sharma B, Reddy S, Inturi R, Patil A Ann Afr Med. 2024; 23(4):656-662.

PMID: 39279169 PMC: 11556467. DOI: 10.4103/aam.aam_164_22.


Factors predictive of recurrence, metastasis and death in node-negative penile squamous cell carcinoma: A retrospective multicentre cohort study.

OConnell K, Thomas J, Murad F, Zhou G, Sonpavde G, Mossanen M J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2024; 39(3):576-585.

PMID: 38842227 PMC: 11621226. DOI: 10.1111/jdv.20093.


Low level of interobserver concordance in assessing histological subtype and tumor grade in patients with penile cancer may impair patient care.

Dorofte L, Grelaud D, Fiorentino M, Giunchi F, Ricci C, Franceschini T Virchows Arch. 2021; 480(4):879-886.

PMID: 34889977 PMC: 9023398. DOI: 10.1007/s00428-021-03249-5.


Corpora Cavernos invasion vs. Corpus Spongiosum invasion in Penile Cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Li Z, Li X, Lam W, Cao Y, Geng J, Ornellas A J Cancer. 2021; 12(7):1960-1966.

PMID: 33753994 PMC: 7974529. DOI: 10.7150/jca.56504.


References
1.
McDougal W . Carcinoma of the penis: improved survival by early regional lymphadenectomy based on the histological grade and depth of invasion of the primary lesion. J Urol. 1995; 154(4):1364-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(01)66863-0. View

2.
Jackson S . The treatment of carcinoma of the penis. Br J Surg. 1966; 53(1):33-5. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.1800530108. View

3.
Soria J, Fizazi K, Piron D, Kramar A, Gerbaulet A, Haie-Meder C . Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: multivariate analysis of prognostic factors and natural history in monocentric study with a conservative policy. Ann Oncol. 1998; 8(11):1089-98. DOI: 10.1023/a:1008248319036. View

4.
Baker B, Watson F . Staging carcinoma of the penis. J Surg Oncol. 1975; 7(3):243-8. DOI: 10.1002/jso.2930070310. View

5.
Solsona E, Algaba F, Horenblas S, Pizzocaro G, Windahl T . EAU Guidelines on Penile Cancer. Eur Urol. 2004; 46(1):1-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2004.03.007. View