Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 47 Sayı: 5 Sayfa Aralığı: 358 - 365 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.5152/tud.2021.21199 İndeks Tarihi: 24-05-2022

A systematic review of non-HPV prognostic biomarkers used in penile squamous cell carcinoma

Öz:
The presence of lymph node metastasis is the most important prognostic indicator for patients with penile cancer. However, predicting which clinically node negative patients will harbor lymph node metastases remains unclear. The aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of biomarkers p53, Ki-67, and SCCAg in predicting lymph node metastasis (LNM) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) in penile squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception until 15 October 2020. Eligible studies were identified by three independent reviewers. Outcome measures included the presence of penile LNM and CSS. Extracted data were narratively synthesized with GRADE criteria utilized to evaluate the quality of evidence. In total, 999 articles were screened with 20 selected for inclusion. Studies reporting the use of p53 to predict LNM and CSS were rated as having the highest quality of evidence using the GRADE criteria, and the majority showed a positive association between p53 expression and LNM and CSS. All biomarkers and outcome combinations had at least one study showing a significant effect on predicting the outcome. However, studies were heterogeneous, and many reported nonsignificant effects. Identifying p53 overexpression may help one to identify patients at higher risks of LNM to be considered for early inguinal lymphadenectomy. There is contradictory and unreliable evidence for the prognostic value of Ki-67 and SCCAg in penile SCC for LNM and CSS. Larger studies are required with more rigorous methods and reports to improve the evidence base
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Diğer Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • 1. Arya M, Kalsi J, Kelly J, Muneer A. Malignant and premalignant lesions of the penis. BMJ. 2013;346:F1149. [CrossRef]
  • 2. Bleeker MC, Heideman DA, Snijders PJ, Horenblas S, Dillner J, Meijer CJ. Penile cancer: Epidemiology, pathogenesis and prevention. World J Urol. 2009;27(2):141-150. [CrossRef]
  • 3. Wen S, Ren W, Xue B, et al. Prognostic factors in patients with penile cancer after surgical management. World J Urol. 2018;36(3):435-440. [CrossRef]
  • 4. Moses KA, Winer A, Sfakianos JP, et al. Contemporary management of penile cancer: Greater than 15 year MSKCC experience. Can J Urol. 2014;21(2):7201-7206.
  • 5. Ornellas AA, Kinchin EW, No´brega BL, Wisnescky A, Koifman N, Quirino R. Surgical treatment of invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: Brazilian national cancer institute long-term experience. J Surg Oncol. 2008;97(6):487-495. [CrossRef]
  • 6. Schlenker B, Scher B, Tiling R, et al. Detection of inguinal lymph node involvement in penile squamous cell carcinoma by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT: A prospective single-center study. Urol Oncol. 2012;30(1):55-59. [CrossRef]
  • 7. Protzel C, Alcaraz A, Horenblas S, Pizzocaro G, Zlotta A, Hakenberg OW. Lymphadenectomy in the surgical management of penile cancer. Eur Urol. 2009;55(5):1075-1088. [CrossRef]
  • 8. Rodney S, Feber A, Arya M, Muneer A. Molecular markers in penile cancer. Curr Probl Cancer. 2015;39(3):137-145. [CrossRef]
  • 9. Bevan-Thomas R, Slaton JW, Pettaway CA. Contemporary morbidity from lymphadenectomy for penile squamous cell carcinoma: The M.D. Anderson cancer center experience. J Urol. 2002;167(4):1638-1642. [CrossRef]
  • 10. Emmanuel A, Nettleton J, Watkin N, Berney DM. The molecular pathogenesis of penile carcinoma-current developments and understanding. Virchows Arch. 2019;475(4):397-405. [CrossRef]
  • 11. Martins VA, Pinho JD, Teixeira Ju´nior AAL, et al. P16INK4a expression in patients with penile cancer. PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0205350. [CrossRef]
  • 12. Yu Y-B, Wang Y-H, Yang X-C, et al. The relationship between human papillomavirus and penile cancer over the past decade: A systematic review and Meta-analysis. Asian J Androl. 2019;21(4):375-380. [CrossRef]
  • 13. Martı´nez-Bailo´n C, Mantilla-Morales A, Me´ndez-Matı´as G, et al. Human papillomavirus genotypes and P16INK4A expression in squamous penile carcinoma in Mexican patients. BMC Infect Dis. 2019;19(1):1068. [CrossRef]
  • 14. Zargar-Shoshtari K, Spiess PE, Berglund AE, et al. Clinical significance of p53 and p16ink4a status in a contemporary North American penile carcinoma cohort. Clin Genitourinary Cancer. 2016;14(4):346-351. [CrossRef]
  • 15. Zargar-Shoshtari K, Sharma P, Spiess PE. Insight into novel biomarkers in penile cancer: Redefining the present and future treatment paradigm? Urol Oncol. 2018;36(10):433-439. [CrossRef]
  • 16. Mammas IN, Sourvinos G, Giannoudis A, Spandidos DA. Human papilloma virus (HPV) and host cellular interactions. Pathol Oncol Res. 2008;14(4):345-354. [CrossRef]
  • 17. Scholzen T, Gerdes J. The Ki-67 protein: From the known and the unknown. J Cell Physiol. 2000;182(3):311-322. [CrossRef]
  • 18. Williams M, Swampillai A, Osborne M, et al. Squamous cell carcinoma antigen: A potentially useful prognostic marker in squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal and margin. Cancer. 2013;119(13):2391-2398. [CrossRef]
  • 19. Vuichoud C, Klap J, Loughlin KR. The emerging role and promise of biomarkers in penile cancer. Urol Clin North Am. 2016;43(1):135-143. [CrossRef]
  • 20. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:N71. [CrossRef]
  • 21. Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A, et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: Reporting guideline. BMJ. 2020;368:L6890. [CrossRef]
  • 22. Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: An international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2012;1(1):2. [CrossRef]
  • 23. Wells G, Shea B, O’Connell D, et al. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Non-Randomized Studies in Meta-Analysis. Our Research; 2000.
  • 24. Iorio A, Spencer F, Falavigna M, et al. Use of GRADE for assessment of evidence about prognosis: Rating confidence in estimates of event rates in broad categories of patients. BMJ. 2015;350:H870. [CrossRef]
  • 25. Berdjis N, Meye A, Nippgen J, et al. Expression of Ki-67 in squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. BJU Int. 2005;96(1):146-148. [CrossRef]
  • 26. Bethune G, Campbell J, Rocker A, Bell D, Rendon R, Merrimen J. Clinical and pathologic factors of prognostic significance in penile squamous cell carcinoma in a North American population. Urology. 2012;79(5):1092-1097. [CrossRef]
  • 27. Gil AO, Pompeo ACL, Sarkis AS, Matsuo M, D Motta THBV, Arap S. Evaluation of the influence of protein p53 in penile carcinoma. Int Braz J Urol. 2002;28(1):33-39.
  • 28. Guimaraes GC, de Oliveira Leal ML, Sousa Madeira Campos R, et al. Do proliferating cell nuclear antigen and MIB-1/Ki-67 have prognostic value in penile squamous cell carcinoma? Urology. 2007;70(1):137-142. [CrossRef]
  • 29. Gunia S, Kakies C, Erbersdobler A, Hakenberg OW, Koch S, May M. Expression of p53, p21 and cyclin D1 in penile cancer: p53 predicts poor prognosis. J Clin Pathol. 2012;65(3):232-236. [CrossRef]
  • 30. Hungerhuber E, Schlenker B, Schneede P, Stief CG, Karl A. Squamous cell carcinoma antigen correlates with tumor burden but lacks prognostic potential for occult lymph node metastases in penile cancer. Urology. 2007;70(5):975-979. [CrossRef]
  • 31. Laniado ME, Lowdell C, Mitchell H, Christmas TJ. Squamous cell carcinoma antigen: A role in the early identification of nodal metastases in men with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. BJU Int. 2003;92(3):248-250. [CrossRef]
  • 32. Li D, Han Z, Liu J, et al. Upregulation of nucleus HDGF predicts poor prognostic outcome in patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma bypass VEGF-A and Ki-67. Med Oncol. 2013;30(4):702. [CrossRef]
  • 33. Li ZS, Yao K, Li YH, et al. Clinical significance of preoperative C-reactive protein and squamous cell carcinoma antigen levels in patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma. BJU Int. 2016;118(2):272-278. [CrossRef]
  • 34. Liu JY, Li YH, Zhang ZL, Yao K, et al. The risk factors for the presence of pelvic lymph node metastasis in penile squamous cell carcinoma patients with inguinal lymph node dissection. World J Urol. 2013;31(6):1519-1524. [CrossRef]
  • 35. Lopes A, Bezerra ALR, Antonio C, et al. p53 as a new prognostic factor for lymph node metastasis in penile carcinoma: Analysis of 82 patients treated with amputation and bilateral lymphadenectomy. J Urol. 2002;168(1):81-86. [CrossRef]
  • 36. Martins ACP, Faria SM, Cologna AJ, Suaid HJ, Tucci Jr S. Immunoexpression of p53 protein and proliferating cell nuclear antigen in penile carcinoma. J Urol. 2002;167(1):89-92. [CrossRef]
  • 37. May M, Burger M, Otto W, et al. Ki-67, mini-chromosome maintenance 2 protein (MCM2) and geminin have no independent prognostic relevance for cancer-specific survival in surgically treated squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. BJU Int. 2013;112(4):E383-E390. [CrossRef]
  • 38. Prapiska FF, Warli SM. P53 and survival rate in penile cancer. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019;7(7):1170-1173. [CrossRef]
  • 39. Protzel C, Knoedel J, Zimmermann U, Woenckhaus C, Poetsch M, Giebel J. Expression of proliferation marker Ki67 correlates to occurrence of metastasis and prognosis, histological subtypes and HPV DNA detection in penile carcinomas. Histol Histopathol. 2007;22(10-12):1197-1204. [CrossRef]
  • 40. Stankiewicz E, Ng M, Cuzick J, Mesher D, Watkin N, Lam W, et al. The prognostic value of Ki-67 expression in penile squamous cell carcinoma. J Clin Pathol. 2012;65(6):534-537. [CrossRef]
  • 41. Zhu Y, Ye DW, Yao XD, et al. The value of squamous cell carcinoma antigen in the prognostic evaluation, treatment monitoring and followup of patients with penile cancer. J Urol. 2008;180(5):2019-2023. [CrossRef]
  • 42. Zhu Y, Zhang HL, Yao XD, et al. Development and evaluation of a nomogram to predict inguinal lymph node metastasis in patients with penile cancer and clinically negative lymph nodes. J Urol. 2010;184(2):539-545. [CrossRef]
  • 43. Zhu Y, Zhou XY, Yao XD, Dai B, Ye DW. The prognostic significance of p53, Ki-67, epithelial cadherin and matrix metalloproteinase-9 in penile squamous cell carcinoma treated with surgery. BJU Int. 2007;100(1):204-208. [CrossRef]
  • 44. Berkman ND, Lohr KN, Ansari M, et al. Grading the strength of a body of evidence when assessing health care interventions: An EPC update. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(11):1312- 1324.
APA Bowie J, Singh S, O'Hanlon C, Shiatis V, Brunckhorst O, Muneer A, Ahmed K (2021). A systematic review of non-HPV prognostic biomarkers used in penile squamous cell carcinoma. , 358 - 365. 10.5152/tud.2021.21199
Chicago Bowie Jessica,Singh Sobha,O'Hanlon Ciaran,Shiatis Vishal,Brunckhorst Oliver,Muneer Asif,Ahmed Kamran A systematic review of non-HPV prognostic biomarkers used in penile squamous cell carcinoma. (2021): 358 - 365. 10.5152/tud.2021.21199
MLA Bowie Jessica,Singh Sobha,O'Hanlon Ciaran,Shiatis Vishal,Brunckhorst Oliver,Muneer Asif,Ahmed Kamran A systematic review of non-HPV prognostic biomarkers used in penile squamous cell carcinoma. , 2021, ss.358 - 365. 10.5152/tud.2021.21199
AMA Bowie J,Singh S,O'Hanlon C,Shiatis V,Brunckhorst O,Muneer A,Ahmed K A systematic review of non-HPV prognostic biomarkers used in penile squamous cell carcinoma. . 2021; 358 - 365. 10.5152/tud.2021.21199
Vancouver Bowie J,Singh S,O'Hanlon C,Shiatis V,Brunckhorst O,Muneer A,Ahmed K A systematic review of non-HPV prognostic biomarkers used in penile squamous cell carcinoma. . 2021; 358 - 365. 10.5152/tud.2021.21199
IEEE Bowie J,Singh S,O'Hanlon C,Shiatis V,Brunckhorst O,Muneer A,Ahmed K "A systematic review of non-HPV prognostic biomarkers used in penile squamous cell carcinoma." , ss.358 - 365, 2021. 10.5152/tud.2021.21199
ISNAD Bowie, Jessica vd. "A systematic review of non-HPV prognostic biomarkers used in penile squamous cell carcinoma". (2021), 358-365. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2021.21199
APA Bowie J, Singh S, O'Hanlon C, Shiatis V, Brunckhorst O, Muneer A, Ahmed K (2021). A systematic review of non-HPV prognostic biomarkers used in penile squamous cell carcinoma. Turkish Journal of Urology, 47(5), 358 - 365. 10.5152/tud.2021.21199
Chicago Bowie Jessica,Singh Sobha,O'Hanlon Ciaran,Shiatis Vishal,Brunckhorst Oliver,Muneer Asif,Ahmed Kamran A systematic review of non-HPV prognostic biomarkers used in penile squamous cell carcinoma. Turkish Journal of Urology 47, no.5 (2021): 358 - 365. 10.5152/tud.2021.21199
MLA Bowie Jessica,Singh Sobha,O'Hanlon Ciaran,Shiatis Vishal,Brunckhorst Oliver,Muneer Asif,Ahmed Kamran A systematic review of non-HPV prognostic biomarkers used in penile squamous cell carcinoma. Turkish Journal of Urology, vol.47, no.5, 2021, ss.358 - 365. 10.5152/tud.2021.21199
AMA Bowie J,Singh S,O'Hanlon C,Shiatis V,Brunckhorst O,Muneer A,Ahmed K A systematic review of non-HPV prognostic biomarkers used in penile squamous cell carcinoma. Turkish Journal of Urology. 2021; 47(5): 358 - 365. 10.5152/tud.2021.21199
Vancouver Bowie J,Singh S,O'Hanlon C,Shiatis V,Brunckhorst O,Muneer A,Ahmed K A systematic review of non-HPV prognostic biomarkers used in penile squamous cell carcinoma. Turkish Journal of Urology. 2021; 47(5): 358 - 365. 10.5152/tud.2021.21199
IEEE Bowie J,Singh S,O'Hanlon C,Shiatis V,Brunckhorst O,Muneer A,Ahmed K "A systematic review of non-HPV prognostic biomarkers used in penile squamous cell carcinoma." Turkish Journal of Urology, 47, ss.358 - 365, 2021. 10.5152/tud.2021.21199
ISNAD Bowie, Jessica vd. "A systematic review of non-HPV prognostic biomarkers used in penile squamous cell carcinoma". Turkish Journal of Urology 47/5 (2021), 358-365. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2021.21199