Local management of preinvasive and clinical T1-3 penile cancer: utilization of diverse treatment modalities

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Penile Cancer: A Pictorial Review

The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in assessing penile cancer is not well defined. However, this modality may be successfully applied for preoperative staging and patient selection; postoperative local and regional surveillance; and assessments of treatment response after oncological therapies. Previous studies have been mostly limited to a few small series evaluating the accuracy of MRI for the preoperative staging of penile cancer. This review discusses the principles of non-erectile mpMRI, including functional techniques and their applications in evaluating the male genital region, along with clinical protocols and technical considerations. The latest clinical classifications and guidelines are reviewed, focusing on imaging recommendations and discussing potential gaps and disadvantages. The development of functional MRI techniques and the extraction of quantitative parameters from these sequences enables the noninvasive assessment of phenotypic and genotypic tumor characteristics. The applications of advanced techniques in penile MRI are yet to be defined. There is a need for prospective trials and feasible multicenter trials due to the rarity of the disease, highlighting the importance of minimum technical requirements for MRI protocols, particularly image resolution, and finally determining the role of mpMRI in the assessment of penile cancer.

Updates in the use of radiotherapy in the management of primary and locally-advanced penile cancer

Objective

Penile cancer is a rare malignancy in most developed countries, but may represent a significant oncologic challenge in certain African, Asian, and South American regions. Various treatment approaches have been described in penile cancer, including radiotherapy. This review aimed to provide a synopsis of radiotherapy use in penile cancer management and the associated toxicities. In addition, we aimed to discuss palliative radiation for metastases to the penis and provide a brief overview of how tumor biology may assist with treatment decision-making.

Methods

Peer-reviewed manuscripts related to the treatment of penile cancer with radiotherapy were evaluated by a PubMed search (1960–2021) in order to assess its role in the definitive and adjuvant settings. Selected manuscripts were also evaluated for descriptions of radiation-related toxicity.

Results

Though surgical resection of the primary is an excellent option for tumor control, select patients may be treated with organ-sparing radiotherapy by either external beam radiation or brachytherapy. Data from randomized controlled trials comparing radiotherapy and surgery are lacking, and thus management is frequently determined by institutional practice patterns and available expertise. Similarly, this lack of clinical trial data leads to divergence in opinion regarding lymph node management. This is further complicated in that many cited studies evaluating lymph node radiotherapy used non-modern radiotherapy delivery techniques. Groin toxicity from either surgery or radiotherapy remains a challenging problem and further risk assessment is needed to guide intensification with multi-modal therapy. Intrinsic differences in tumor biology, based on human papillomavirus infection, may help aid future prognostic and predictive models in patient risk stratification or treatment approach.

Conclusion

Penile cancer is a rare disease with limited clinical trial data driving the majority of treatment decisions. As a result, the goal of management is to effectively treat the disease while balancing the importance of quality of life through integrated multidisciplinary discussions. More international collaborations and interrogations of penile cancer biology are needed to better understand this disease and improve patient outcomes.

Clinical Lymph Node Involvement as a Predictor for Cancer-Specific Survival in Patients with Penile Squamous Cell Cancer

We aimed to identify prognostic predictive factors of patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma (PSCC). This retrospective study reviewed the clinical and pathological data of patients with PSCC at 10 institutions in Japan between January 2008 and December 2019. The primary endpoint was cancer-specific survival (CSS). We also identified useful predictive factors for CSS in patients with PSCC. In total, 64 patients with PSCC were enrolled. At the end of the follow-up period, 15 patients (23.4%) died owing to PSCC and six (9.4%) died owing to other causes. The 2- and 3-year CSS rates were 78.9% and 76.6%, respectively. Using the Kaplan−Meier method, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0, serum albumin levels ≥4.2 g/dL, hemoglobin levels ≥13.2 g/dL, C-reactive protein levels <0.21 mg/dL, clinical T stage ≤2, clinically negative lymph node (LN) status, and tumor size <30 mm were associated with a significantly better CSS. In the multivariate analysis, the clinically positive LN status was a significant predictive factor for CSS in patients with PSCC. Further prospective large-scale and long-term studies are required to validate our findings.

What Is New in the Pathologic Staging of Penile Carcinoma in the 8th Edition of AJCC TNM Model: Rationale for Changes With Practical Stage-by-stage Category Diagnostic Considerations

For >50 years the tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) classification model of malignant tumors has been the main resource for clinicians, pathologists, radiologists and public health professionals ensuring a homogeneous classification and patients' management based on common staging and prognosis factors. Penile cancer was first included for staging in the third edition of the TNM classification with several changes in the last version, the 8th edition of the AJCC TNM Manual, in 2017. Some changes in the pT category were done due to recent knowledge regarding the prognostic importance of anatomical level of invasion, vascular and perineural invasion and tumor grading. These changes must be interpreted in the light of a required understanding of the complex anatomy of penile compartments especially their histological boundaries, the morphological differences of each level needed for the correct classification, the heterogeneity of penile squamous cell carcinomas and an adequate criticism of the current model used by the TNM system. We present here a series of stage-by-stage category diagnostic considerations based on the clinical experience acummulated over the years of applying the different TNM staging classifications in our large clinical practice. Some discrepancies will need well-designed prospective studies for im4proving the actual classification.