Does the width of the surgical margin of safety or premalignant dermatoses at the negative surgical margin affect outcome in surgically treated penile cancer?

Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 67, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 268-271

  Gunia, Sven ^a   Koch, Stefan ^b   Jain, Anjun ^b   May, Matthias ^c  

^a Johanniter Hospital Stendal   (Germany)

^b CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

^c St Elisabeth Clinic Straubing   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CARCINOMA; HISTOPATHOLOGY; PENIS;

AGED; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CARCINOMA, SQUAMOUS CELL; DNA, VIRAL; GERMANY; HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS DNA TESTS; HUMANS; HYPERPLASIA; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION; LICHEN SCLEROSUS ET ATROPHICUS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NEOPLASM, RESIDUAL; PAPILLOMAVIRIDAE; PENILE NEOPLASMS; PRECANCEROUS CONDITIONS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS; SKIN DISEASES; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL; UROLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES, MALE;

EID: 84894273687     PISSN: 00219746     EISSN: 14724146     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2013-201911     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Chaux A, Cubilla AL. Advances in the pathology of penile carcinomas. Hum Pathol 2012;43:771-89.
2. Velazquez EF, Chaux A, Cubilla AL. Histologic classification of penile intraepithelial neoplasia. Semin Diagn Pathol 2012;29:96-102.
3. Chaux A, Pfannl R, Rodriguez IM, et al. Distinctive immunohistochemical profile of penile intraepithelial lesions: a study of 74 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 2011;35:553-62.
4. Oertell J, Caballero C, Iglesias M, et al. Differentiated precursor lesions and low-grade variants of squamous cell carcinomas are frequent findings in foreskins of patients from a region of high penile cancer incidence. Histopathology 2011;58:925-33.
5. Batsakis JG. Surgical excision margins: a pathologists perspective. Adv Anat Pathol 1999;6:140-8.
6. Gunia S, Kakies C, Erbersdobler A, et al. Expression of p53, p21 and cyclinD1 in penile cancer: p53 predicts poor prognosis. J Clin Pathol 2012;65:232-6.
7. Minhas S, Kayes O, Hegarty P, et al. What surgical resection margins are required to achieve oncological control in men with primary penile cancer? BJU Int 2005;96:1040-3. (Pubitemid 41531411)
8. Chaux A, Velazquez EF, Amin A, et al. Distribution and characterization of subtypes of penile intraepithelial neoplasia and their association with invasive carcinomas: a pathological study of 139 lesions in 121 patients. Human Pathol 2012;43:1020-27.
9. Pizzocaro G, Algaba F, Horenblas S, et al. EAU penile cancer guidelines 2009. Eur Urol 2010;57:1002-12.
10. Harrell FE Jr, Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 1996;15:361-87. (Pubitemid 26072233)
11. Velazquez EF, Soskin A, Bock A, et al. 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 2004;28:384-9. (Pubitemid 38269573)
12. Solsona E, Bahl A, Brandes SB, et al. New developments in the treatment of localized penile cancer. Urology 2010;76:36-42.
13. Opjordsmoen S, Fossa SD. Quality of life in patients treated for penile cancer. A follow-up study. Br J Urol 1994;74:652-7. (Pubitemid 24348636)
14. Maddineni SB, Lau MM, Sangar VK. Identifying the needs of penile cancer sufferers: a systematic review of the quality of life, psychosexual and psychosocial literature in penile cancer. BMC Urol 2009;9:8.
15. Philippou P, Shabbir M, Malone P, et al. Conservative surgery for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: resection margins and long-term oncological control. J Urol 2012;188:803-8.