Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

Clinicopathologic and outcome features of superficial high-grade and deep low-grade squamous cell carcinomas of the penis

SpringerPlus20154:248

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-015-1035-2

  • Received: 23 March 2015
  • Accepted: 12 May 2015
  • Published:

Abstract

Purpose

To report the clinicopathologic and outcome features of superficial high-grade and deep low-grade penile squamous cell carcinomas.

Methods

From a retrospectively-collected series of patients with penile cancer we identified 41 cases corresponding to 12 superficial high-grade tumors and 29 deep low-grade tumors. As outcomes we evaluated inguinal lymph node status, presence of tumor relapse, final nodal status, and cancer-specific death. Follow-up ranged from 0.8 to 386.7 months (mean 152.5 months, median 157.3 months).

Results

Clinicopathologic features were similar between superficial high-grade and deep low-grade tumors, except for a tendency (Fisher’s exact \(P=0.057\)) of the former to include tumors with a verruciform pattern of growth. A significantly higher proportion of inguinal lymph node metastasis was found in superficial high-grade tumors compared to deep low-grade tumors [4/5 (80%) vs. 1/5 (20%) respectively, Fisher’s exact \(P=0.02\)]. No significant differences were found regarding tumor relapse (Fisher’s exact \(P=0.52\)), final nodal status (Mantel-Cox’s \(P=0.42\)), or cancer-related death (Mantel-Cox’s \(P=0.52\)).

Conclusions

Patients with superficial high-grade tumors had a significantly higher proportion of inguinal lymph node metastasis compared to patients with deep low-grade tumors. On this regard, prophylactic inguinal lymphadenectomy might be indicated in cases of superficial tumors with high-grade histology while in deeply invasive low-grade penile carcinomas a more conservative approach may be considered.

Keywords

  • Penile cancer
  • Squamous cell carcinoma
  • Histological grade
  • Prognostic factors
  • Outcome
  • Anatomical level

Background

Pathologic features of the primary tumor affecting outcome of patients with penile cancer are multiple and include histological grade (Chaux et al. 2009, 2009; Velazquez et al. 2008), percentage of anaplastic cells (Slaton et al. 2001), anatomical level of infiltration (Chaux et al. 2009), depth of invasion (Dai et al. 2006; Emerson et al. 2001), tumor stage (Slaton et al. 2001; Dai et al. 2006; Guimarães et al. 2006), presence of vascular (Slaton et al. 2001; Emerson et al. 2001; Guimarães et al. 2006; Ficarra et al. 2005) and perineural (Chaux et al. 2009; Velazquez et al. 2008) invasion, histological subtype (Dai et al. 2006; Guimarães et al. 2009) and tumor front of invasion (Guimarães et al. 2006). Risk groups systems combine histological grade with tumor extension to estimate the likelihood of inguinal nodal involvement (Solsona et al. 2001, 2004; Hungerhuber et al. 2006; Ornellas et al. 2008). The combination of histological grade, anatomical level of invasion and presence of perineural invasion was found to be strongly related to nodal involvement and cancer-specific survival (Chaux et al. 2009). As usually seen with tumors elsewhere, in penile cancer depth of tumor invasion and histological grade are frequently and significantly associated (Guimarães et al. 2009). However, we have occasionally found superficial tumors depicting a high histological grade and deeply infiltrating malignant neoplasms showing a low-grade histology. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinicopathologic and outcome features of patients with such “paradoxical” tumors.
Table 1

Clinicopathologic and outcome features of superficial high-grade and deep low-grade tumors

 

Superficial high-grade

Deep low-grade

P value

No. cases (%)

12 (29%)

29 (71%)

 

Clinical features

 Patients’s age in years, median (IQR)

52.5 (12.5)

56 (19)

0.11

 Tumor size in cm, median (IQR)

4.5 (4.125)

5 (2.125)

0.95

 Anatomical location (%)

  

0.89

  Glans alone

7/26 (27%)

19/26 (73%)

 

  Glans + coronal sulcus

2/6 (33%)

4/6 (67%)

 

  Glans + coronal sulcus + forsekin

3/9 (33%)

6/9 (67%)

 

Pathologic features

 Histologic subtype (%)

  

0.057

  Usual SCC

11/24 (46%)

13/24 (54%)

 

  Verrucous carcinoma

0/7 (0%)

7/7 (100%)

 

  Papillary carcinoma

0/3 (0%)

3/3 (100%)

 

  Warty carcinoma

1/3 (33%)

2/3 (67%)

 

  Mixed carcinoma

0/4 (0%)

4/4 (100%)

 

 Urethral invasion (%)

  

0.7

  Positive

3/15 (20%)

12/15 (80%)

 

  Negative

6/19 (32%)

13/19 (68%)

 

 Perineural invasion (%)

  

1

  Positive

2/6 (33%)

4/6 (67%)

 

  Negative

10/34 (29%)

24/34 (71%)

 

 Vascular invasion (%)

  

0.57

  Positive

2/4 (50%)

2/4 (50%)

 

  Negative

10/36 (28%)

26/36 (72%)

 

Outcome features

 Inguinal lymph node metastasis (%)

  

0.02

  Positive

4/5 (80%)

1/5 (20%)

 

  Negative

8/36 (22%)

28/36 (78%)

 

 Tumor relapse (%)

  

0.52

  Local, regional or systemic relapse

1/2 (50%)

1/2 (50%)

 

  No tumor relapse

11/38 (29%)

27/38 (71%)

 

 Final nodal status (%)

  

0.2

  Positive

4/8 (50%)

4/8 (50%)

 

  Negative

8/33 (24%)

25/33 (76%)

 

 Death by disseminated cancer (%)

  

1

  Positive

0/1 (0%)

1/1 (100%)

 

  Negative

12/40 (30%)

28/40 (70%)

 

P values were estimated using the Fisher’s exact test for categorical data and the Kruskal–Wallis rank sum test for grouped numerical data.

IQR interquartile range, SCC squamous cell carcinoma.

Methods

Cohort of patients

Patients were selected from a previously published series of 333 patients with invasive penile squamous cell carcinoma (Guimarães et al. 2009). This dataset is publicly available at http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1290997.

Classification of cases

The dataset was searched for tumors fulfilling the following criteria:

Superficial high-grade tumors: grade 3 tumors invading lamina propria or superficial corpus spongiosum (tumor thickness \(\le\)5 mm).

Deep low-grade tumors: grade 1 tumors invading deep corpus spongiosum (tumor thickness \(\ge\)10 mm) or corpus cavernosum, including tunica albuginea.

The cutoff points of 5 and 10 mm were selected based on previous studies (Velazquez et al. 2008). Tumors not fulfilling these criteria were excluded from the dataset. From the full dataset of 333 patients, 29 patients (8.7%) were lost at follow-up, and thus excluded. The final count of selected cases for data analysis was 41, which included 12 (29%) superficial high-grade tumors and 29 (71%) deep low-grade tumors.

Follow-up

Patients were followed-up from 0.8 to 386.7 months (mean 152.5 months, median 157.3 months). Two endpoints were evaluated during follow-up:
  1. 1.

    Tumor relapse: tumor relapse included the development of local relapse (i.e., tumor on stump), regional relapse (i.e., metastases in regional lymph nodes), or systemic relapse (i.e., metastases in systemic lymph nodes, visceral metastases) during follow-up.

     
  2. 2.

    Outcome: the possible categories of outcome included alive without disease, alive with disease, died of other causes, and died of cancer.

     

Final lymph nodes status

The final status of inguinal lymph nodes was established as follows:
  1. 1.

    Positive status: the final nodal status was considered positive if pathologically-proven nodal metastases were observed (in those cases with inguinal lymphadenectomy), if regional relapse appeared during follow-up, or if the outcome was unfavorable (i.e., alive with disease or death by cancer).

     
  2. 2.

    Negative status: the final nodal status was considered negative if nodal metastases were not observed (in those cases with inguinal lymphadenectomy), if no tumor relapse (beyond local relapse) appeared during follow-up, or if the outcome was favorable (i.e., alive without disease or death by other causes).

     

Statistical analyses

Bivariate analyses were carried out using the Fisher’s exact test for contingency tables and the Kruskal–Wallis rank sum test for grouped numerical variables. Survival curves were generated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared with the log-rank (Mantel-Cox) test. Unconditional logistic regression models were built to estimate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. In all cases a 2-tailed \(P<0.05\) was required for statistical significance. Data were analyzed and plots were generated using R version 3.2.0 “Full of Ingredients” (R Core Team 2015). The dataset and R scripts used for data analysis, as well as additional results (including the full analysis of the dataset), are freely available at https://github.com/alcideschaux/Penis-Paradoxical.
Table 2

Odds ratios and hazard ratios for superficial high-grade vs. deep low-grade tumors by outcomes

Outcome

Logistic regression

Cox’s regression

OR

95% CI

P value

HR

95% CI

P value

Nodal metastasis

14

1.8, 295.7

0.026

6.13

0.68, 55.02

0.065

Tumor relapse

2.5

0.09, 65.89

0.54

2.04

0.13, 32.62

0.54

Final nodal status

3.1

0.61, 16.27

0.16

1.77

0.44, 7.14

0.43

Death by cancer

3.3e−08

NA, Inf

1

3.2e−09

0.00, Inf

0.41

Odds ratios were estimated using unconditional binary logistic regression. Hazard ratios were estimated using Cox’s proportional hazards regression. Results for death by cancer are not evaluable due to the small number of events and should be discarded.

CI confidence interval, HR hazard ratios, Inf infinite, NA not available, OR odds ratios.

Results

Table 1 compares the clinicopathologic and outcome features of patients with superficial high-grade and deep low-grade tumors. None of the clinicopathologic features were significantly associated with the type of tumor, although deep low-grade tumors tended to exhibit a verruciform pattern of growth. Of the outcome features, only the presence of inguinal lymph node metastasis was significantly different between superficial high-grade and deep low-grade tumors, with a higher proportion of metastasis in the latter [4/5 (80%) cases] compared to the former [1/5 (20%) cases].

Table 2 shows the results of the logistic and Cox’s regression analysis for predicting outcomes based on the type of tumor. Patients with superficial high-grade tumors had an significantly increased odds ratios for inguinal lymph node metastasis compared to patients with deep low-grade tumors. Hazard ratios were also increased in patients with superficial high-grade tumors compared to patients with deep low-grade tumors, although the P value was slightly above the standard threshold. Risks were not significantly different for tumor relapse or final nodal status. Risk for cancer-related death was not evaluable due to the small number of events.

Figure 1 shows the survival curves for final nodal status and cancer-related death by type of tumor. As seen, no significant differences were observed between patients with superficial high-grade and deep low-grade tumors in regards to the aforementioned outcomes. Individuals at risk for all survival curves are included as supplementary material in the online repository at https://github.com/alcideschaux/Penis-Paradoxical.

Discussion

In this study we analyzed the clinicopathologic and outcome features of patients with superficial high-grade and deep low-grade squamous cell carcinomas of the penis. We found no significant differences in the clinicopathologic features, except for some tendency of low-grade tumors to exhibit a verruciform pattern of growth. Regarding outcome, superficial high-grade tumors showed a higher proportion of inguinal lymph node metastasis compare to deep low-grade tumors, suggesting that histological grade is more influential on prognosis than depth of invasion in this particular setting. Nevertheless, the type of tumor had limited usefulness in predicting nodal disease (i.e., final nodal status) or cancer-related death, indicating that other factors should be taken into account for predicting long-term outcome. Our results suggest that patients with superficial high-grade tumors may benefit from a more aggressive approach (v.g., prophylactic inguinal lymphadenectomy), in spite of their lower pT stage. Conversely, patients with deep low-grade tumors could be suitable candidates for an active surveillance program instead of a more aggressive approach, despite their higher pT stage.
Figure 1
Figure 1

Kaplan–Meier survival curves for final nodal status and cancer-related death by type of tumor. No significant differences were found in the survival curves. Follow-up in months is depicted in the x-axes, while the y-axes depict survival functions. P values were estimated using the log-rank (Mantel-Cox) test.

Our results are in agreement with a previous study evaluating penile tumors invading 5–10 mm, in which histological grade had more influence on prognosis than depth of tumor invasion (Velazquez et al. 2008). Given its importance and clinical implications histological grading should be carried out using uniform and comparable criteria, moreover considering that a significant inter-observer variability has been reported for histological grading in penile carcinomas (Naumann et al. 2009). For patients included in this study, histological grading was carried out using strict (and previously validated) morphologic criteria (Chaux et al. 2009). This approach may reduce inter-observer variability, although further studies are required to evaluate the external validity and reproducibility of such criteria.

In addition, to consider only the T stage of the penile tumor to define the type and extension of primary treatment could be misleading. Some tumor variants, such as basaloid, sarcomatoid and high-grade usual carcinomas are intrinsically aggressive, regardless of the anatomical level of infiltration (Chaux et al. 2009; Velazquez et al. 2005; Guimarães et al. 2009). Other tumor variants, such as carcinoma cuniculatum, could invade deep erectile tissues and nevertheless be associated with good prognosis (Barreto et al. 2007). Moreover, the current TNM system for penile cancer considers invasion of corpus spongiosum or corpus cavernosum as a single pT2 category (Hakenberg et al. 2015). Previous studies have found that the metastatic rate of tumors invading corpus cavernosum is higher than those tumors limited to corpus spongiosum (Chaux et al. 2009). Furthermore, splitting the pT2 stage in two categories depending on invasion of corpus spongiosum vs. corpus cavernosum has proven useful in increasing the accuracy of the TNM system for predicting outcome (Leijte et al. 2008). It does not seem advisable to rely solely on the pT stage to plan optimal therapeutic management. An anatomical level-based approach, combined or not with measurement of tumor thickness, has been evaluated and found useful (Chaux et al. 2009; Velazquez et al. 2008). Information on histological grade should be included in pathologic reports and anatomical level of infiltration weighted with this grading in order to plan optimal management of patients with penile cancer.

We are aware that the classification we used (i.e., superficial high-grade vs. deep low-grade tumors) might seen incorrect taking into account risk groups systems such as the one proposed by the European Association of Urology (EAU). In the EAU system, both superficial high-grade and deep-low grade tumors would be classified as intermediate risk tumors (Solsona et al. 2004). Thus, both types of tumor would be managed with either dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy or inguinal modified lymphadenectomy. However, in a recent study we have found that the EAU system shows a very low accuracy for predicting inguinal lymph node metastasis (Chaux 2015), and thus it might not be a reliable tool for therapeutic planning. These findings are consistent with other previous studies (Novara et al. 2008).

As mentioned before, tumors with a verruciform pattern of growth predominated in the deep low-grade category. Tumors with verrucous features includes verrucous carcinoma, papillary, and warty carcinomas (Chaux et al. 2010; Chaux and Cubilla 2012). Verrucous carcinomas were characterized by prominent acanthosis, inconspicuous fibrovascular cores, hyperkeratosis and a broad pushing base. It is noteworthy that, although verrucous carcinomas are considered as non-invasive tumors in the latest TNM classification system (Hakenberg et al. 2015), they can affect deep erectile tissues, as shown in this study. Low-grade warty and papillary carcinomas were very similar in their pattern of growth but papillae were more irregular and architecturally complex in papillary carcinomas and koilocytosis were easily found in warty carcinomas.

The superficial high-grade category included high-grade usual and warty carcinomas. High-grade usual SCC was characterized by nuclear pleomorphism, irregular nuclear membrane, coarse chromatin, prominent nucleoli and high mitotic rate. The other subtype found in the superficial high-grade category was high-grade warty carcinoma, a tumor depicting all the typical aforementioned features of a warty carcinoma (papillae with prominent fibrovascular cores, conspicuous koilocytosis, and jagged tumor base) but showing areas of anaplastic cells, usually at the tumor front of invasion.

At least two limitations must be acknowledged. First, our study is based on a retrospectively-collected series of cases. As such, clinical features were gathered form clinical reports and pathologic features were evaluated only on available microscopic slides. This might have had an impact in the quality of the data that is hard to estimate. Second, our population sample is relatively small, thus our study might be underpowered to detect the real impact of these tumor types on prognosis. This second limitation is bound to the relatively infrequent combination of low-grade and deep infiltration on one hand, and of high-grade and superficial infiltration on the other hand. Clearly, similar studies (preferably with prospectively-collected data) and on larger datasets of patients with penile cancer are required to determine if the differences and similarities we found are constant features of these type of tumors. Notwithstanding these limitations, our study suggests that patients with superficial high-grade and deep low-grade tumors might benefit from a different therapeutic management than the approach used in more usual clinical settings.

Conclusions

In conclusion, whereas in the majority of penile carcinomas higher grade and deeper tumor invasion are significantly associated, there are cases in which a high-grade tumor may invade only superficially and low-grade tumors can affect deep erectile tissues. Tumors with such features were identified in about 8% of all cases in a large dataset of patients with penile squamous cell carcinomas. We found that superficial high-grade tumors had a significantly higher proportion of inguinal lymph node metastasis compared to deep low-grade tumors. On this regard, prophylactic inguinal lymphadenectomy might be indicated in cases of superficial tumors with high-grade histology while in deeply invasive low-grade penile carcinomas a more conservative approach could be considered.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Dr. Alcides Chaux was partially supported by an award granted by the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) dependent of the Presidency of the Republic of Paraguay, as a Level 2 Active Researcher of the National Incentive Program for Researchers (PRONII).

Compliance with ethical guidelines

Competing interests The author declares no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards The manuscript does not contain clinical studies or patient data. Data were obtained from a publicly available dataset that included no details that might disclose the identity of the subjects.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Scientific Research, Norte University, Gral. Santos e/25 de Mayo, Asunción, Paraguay
(2)
Centro para el Desarrollo de la Investigación Científica, Asunción, Paraguay

References

  1. Barreto JE, Velazquez EF, Ayala E, Torres J, Cubilla AL (2007) Carcinoma cuniculatum: a distinctive variant of penile squamous cell carcinoma: report of 7 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 31(1):71–75View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Chaux A (2015) Risk groups systems for penile cancer management: a study of 203 patients with invasive squamous cell carcinoma. Urology (In press)Google Scholar
  3. Chaux A, Cubilla AL (2012) Advances in the pathology of penile carcinomas. Hum Pathol 43(6):771–789View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Chaux A, Caballero C, Soares F, Guimarães GC, Cunha IW, Reuter V 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(7):1049–1057View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Chaux A, Reuter V, Lezcano C, Velazquez EF, Torres J, Cubilla AL (2009) Comparison of morphologic features and outcome of resected recurrent and nonrecurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: a study of 81 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 33(9):1299–1306View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaux A, Torres J, Pfannl R, Barreto J, Rodriguez I, Velazquez EF et al (2009) Histologic grade in penile squamous cell carcinoma: visual estimation versus digital measurement of proportions of grades, adverse prognosis with any proportion of grade 3 and correlation of a Gleason-like system with nodal metastasis. Am J Surg Pathol 33(7):1042–1048View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Chaux A, Velazquez EF, Algaba F, Ayala G, Cubilla AL (2010) Developments in the pathology of penile squamous cell carcinomas. Urology 76(2 Suppl 1):S7–S14View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Dai B, Ye DW, Kong YY, Yao XD, Zhang HL, Shen YJ (2006) Predicting regional lymph node metastasis in Chinese patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma: the role of histopathological classification, tumor stage and depth of invasion. J Urol 176(4):1431–1435View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Emerson RE, Ulbright TM, Eble JN, Geary WA, Eckert GJ, Cheng L (2001) Predicting cancer progression in patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma: the importance of depth of invasion and vascular invasion. Mod Pathol 14(10):963–968View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Ficarra V, Zattoni F, Cunico SC, Galetti TP, Luciani L, Fandella A et al (2005) Lymphatic and vascular embolizations are independent predictive variables of inguinal lymph node involvement in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: Gruppo Uro-Oncologico del Nord Est (Northeast Uro-Oncological Group) Penile Cancer data bas. Cancer 103(12):2507–2516View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Guimarães GC, Cunha IW, Soares FA, Lopes A, Torres J, Chaux A et al (2009) Penile squamous cell carcinoma clinicopathological features, nodal metastasis and outcome in 333 cases. J Urol 182(2):528–534View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Guimarães GC, Lopes A, Campos RSM, de Cássio Zequi S, de Oliveira Leal ML, Carvalho AL et al (2006) Front pattern of invasion in squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: new prognostic factor for predicting risk of lymph node metastases. Urology 68(1):148–153View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Hakenberg OW, Comperat EM, Minhas S, Necchi A, Protzel C, Watkin N (2015) EAU guidelines on penile cancer: 2014 update. Eur Urol 67(1):142–150View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Hungerhuber E, Schlenker B, Karl A, Frimberger D, Rothenberger KH, Stief CG et al (2006) Risk stratification in penile carcinoma: 25-year experience with surgical inguinal lymph node staging. Urology 68(3):621–625View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Leijte JAP, Gallee M, Antonini N, Horenblas S (2008) Evaluation of current TNM classification of penile carcinoma. J Urol 180(3):933–938View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Naumann CM, Alkatout I, Hamann MF, Al-Najar A, Hegele A, Korda JB et al (2009) Interobserver variation in grading and staging of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis in relation to the clinical outcome. BJU Int 103(12):1660–1665View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Novara G, Artibani W, Cunico SC, De Giorgi G, Gardiman M, Martignoni G et al (2008) How accurately do Solsona and European Association of Urology risk groups predict for risk of lymph node metastases in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis? Urology 71(2):328–333View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Ornellas AA, Nóbrega BLB, Chin EWK, Wisnescky A, da Silva PCB, de Santos Schwindt AB (2008) Prognostic factors in invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: analysis of 196 patients treated at the Brazilian National Cancer Institute. J Urol 180(4):1354–1359View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
  20. Slaton JW, Morgenstern N, Levy DA, Santos MW, Tamboli P, Ro JY et al (2001) Tumor stage, vascular invasion and the percentage of poorly differentiated cancer: independent prognosticators for inguinal lymph node metastasis in penile squamous cancer. J Urol 165(4):1138–1142View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Solsona E, Algaba F, Horenblas S, Pizzocaro G, Windahl T (2004) EAU guidelines on penile cancer. Eur Urol 46(1):1–8View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Solsona E, Iborra I, Rubio J, Casanova JL, Ricós JV, Calabuig C (2001) Prospective validation of the association of local tumor stage and grade as a predictive factor for occult lymph node micrometastasis in patients with penile carcinoma and clinically negative inguinal lymph nodes. J Urol 165(5):1506–1509View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Velazquez EF, Ayala G, Liu H, Chaux A, Zanotti M, Torres J 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(7):974–979View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Velazquez EF, Melamed J, Barreto JE, Aguero F, Cubilla AL (2005) Sarcomatoid carcinoma of the penis: a clinicopathologic study of 15 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 29(9):1152–1158View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

Advertisement