Venous thrombosis, multiple carcinomatous foci and differences in metastatic pathways of penile carcinoma

Yi,Xianlin; Lu,Haoyuan; Li,Wenhui; Tang,Yong

doi:10.3892/ol.2023.13674

Venous thrombosis, multiple carcinomatous foci and differences in metastatic pathways of penile carcinoma

Authors:
- Xianlin Yi
- Haoyuan Lu
- Wenhui Li
- Yong Tang
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Urology, Wuming Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi 530199, P.R. China, Department of Urology, Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital, Nanning, Guangxi 530021, P.R. China, Division of General Practice, Community Healthcare Center of Zhongshan Torch Development Zone, Zhongshan, Guangdong 528437, P.R. China
Published online on: January 17, 2023 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2023.13674
Article Number: 88
Copyright: © Yi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to explore the life‑threatening complications and metastatic pathways of penile squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), as numerous patients with penile cancer are relatively young, are of good general health and have no visceral metastasis, yet have poor survival rates. A total of 94 patients with SCC of the penis who were surgically treated were included in the current study. The coagulation parameters, including prothrombin time (PT), fibrinogen and D‑dimer, were analyzed. The patients' age ranged from 25 to 95 years (mean ± standard deviation, 53.3±1.4 years). A total of 77 patients (81.9%) underwent partial penectomy and 17 (18.1%) underwent radical penectomy. The PT was significantly different between patients whose tumour invaded the corpora cavenosum and those whose tumour had not invaded, and between patients with and without pelvic lymph node metastasis. A negative correlation was obtained between PT and pelvic lymph node metastasis. In addition, six typical SCC cases and one metastatic penile carcinoma case manifested with multiple carcinomatous foci, embolisms and evidence of a metastatic pathway occurring simultaneously with tumour progression were presented. The present study indicated that venous thrombosis is one of the life‑threatening complications of advanced penile cancer. Furthermore, multiple carcinomatous foci were detected in histological images. Of note, direct clinical evidence for different metastatic pathways of primary and secondary penile carcinoma was provided.

View Figures

View References

1	Misra S, Chaturvedi A and Misra NC: Penile carcinoma: A challenge for the developing world. Lancet Oncol. 5:240–247. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Montella M, Sabetta R, Ronchi A, De Sio M, Arcaniolo D, De Vita F, Tirino G, Caputo A, D'Antonio A, Fiorentino F, et al: Immunotherapy in penile squamous cell carcinoma: Present or future? Multi-target analysis of programmed cell death ligand 1 expression and microsatellite instability. Front Med (Lausanne). 9:8742132022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Sirithanaphol W, Sookprasert A, Rompsaithong U, Kiatsopit P, Wirasorn K and Chindaprasirt J: Prognostic factors for penile cancer and survival in response to multimodality therapy. Res Rep Urol. 12:29–34. 2020.PubMed/NCBI
4	Rippentrop JM, Joslyn SA and Konety BR: Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: Evaluation of data from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program. Cancer. 101:1357–1363. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Paiva GR, de Oliveira Araújo IB, Athanazio DA and de Freitas LAR: Penile cancer: Impact of age at diagnosis on morphology and prognosis. Int Urol Nephrol. 47:295–299. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Liu W, Luo Y, Wang G, Li N, Wang Z, Lei J and Wang X: Conditional survival after surgery for patients with penile cancer. Andrology. 8:1744–1752. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Emmanuel A and Watkin N: Update on organ preserving surgical strategies for penile cancer. Urol Oncol. 40:179–183. 2022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	McDougal WS: Phallic preserving surgery in patients with invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. J Urol. 174:2218–2220. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Nam JK, Lee DH, Park SW, Kam SC, Lee KS, Kim TH, Kim TS, Oh CK, Park HJ and Kim TN: Clinicopathologic characteristics and treatment outcomes of penile cancer. World J Mens Health. 35:28–33. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Agrawal A, Pai D, Ananthakrishnan N, Smile SR and Ratnakar C: The histological extent of the local spread of carcinoma of the penis and its therapeutic implications. BJU Int. 85:299–301. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Hoffman MA, Renshaw AA and Loughlin KR: Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis and microscopic pathologic margins: How much margin is needed for local cure? Cancer. 85:1565–1568. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Minhas S, Kayes O, Hegarty P, Kumar P, Freeman A and Ralph D: What surgical resection margins are required to achieve oncological control in men with primary penile cancer? BJU Int. 96:1040–1043. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Sri D, Sujenthiran A, Lam W, Minter J, Tinwell BE, Corbishley CM, Yap T, Sharma DM, Ayres BE and Watkin NW: A study into the association between local recurrence rates and surgical resection margins in organ-sparing surgery for penile squamous cell cancer. BJU Int. 122:576–582. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Lindner AK, Schachtner G, Steiner E, Kroiss A, Uprimny C, Steinkohl F, Horninger W, Heidegger I, Madersbacher S and Pichler R: Organ-sparing surgery of penile cancer: Higher rate of local recurrence yet no impact on overall survival. World J Urol. 38:417–424. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Miyamoto H: Clinical benefits of frozen section assessment during urological surgery: Does it contribute to improving surgical margin status and patient outcomes as previously thought? Int J Urol. 24:25–31. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Pettaway CA, Srigley JR, Brookland RK, Choyke PL and Amin MB: Penis. Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, et al: AJCC cancer staging manual. 8th edition. New York: Springer; pp. pp7012017
17	Lee AYY: Anticoagulant therapy for venous thromboembolism in cancer. N Engl J Med. 382:1650–1652. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Wang FM and Xing NZ: Systemic coagulation markers especially fibrinogen are closely associated with the aggressiveness of prostate cancer in patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Dis Markers. 2021:88999942021.PubMed/NCBI
19	Bates SM, Greer IA, Middeldorp S, Veenstra DL, Prabulos AM and Vandvik PO: VTE, thrombophilia, antithrombotic therapy, and pregnancy: Antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American college of chest physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 141 (2 Suppl):e691S–e736S. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Winters J and Garcia D: Cancer-associated thrombosis. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 24695–707. (viii)2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	O'Leary JG, Greenberg CS, Patton HM and Caldwell SH: AGA Clinical practice update: Coagulation in cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 157:34–43.e1. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Chahoud J, Kohli M and Spiess PE: Management of advanced penile cancer. Mayo Clin Proc. 96:720–732. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI