Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Radiological Imaging in Penile Cancer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Textbook of Penile Cancer

  • 610 Accesses

Abstract

Although the EAU guidelines for penile cancer suggest that the only mandatory imaging modality required is an ultrasound of the inguinal nodes,1 a variety of other radiological techniques can provide further information with regards to the extent of the primary tumor as well as metastatic disease. These techniques have an important role in both the oncological and surgical planning for the primary tumor as well as the inguinal and pelvic lymph nodes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 159.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Pizzocaro G, Algaba F, Horenblas S, et al. EAU Guidelines on penile cancer 2009. Eur Urol. 2010;57(6):1002-1012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lont AP, Besnard APE, Gallee MPW, et al. A comparison of physical examination and imaging in determining the extent of primary penile carcinoma. BJU Int. 2003;91:493-495.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hricak H, Marotti M, Gilbert TJ, et al. Normal penile anatomy and abnormal penile conditions: evaluation with MR imaging. Radiology. 1988;169:683-690.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Pretorius ES, Siegelman ES, Ramchandani P, et al. MR imaging of the penis. Radiographics. 2001;21:S283-S298. discussion S298-S299.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hsu GL, Hsieh CH, Wen HS, et al. Penile venous anatomy: an additional description and its clinical implication. J Androl. 2003;24:921-927.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Singh AK, Gonzalez-Torrez P, Kaewlai R, et al. Imaging of penile neoplasm. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2007;28:287-296.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kochhar R, Taylor B, Sangar V. Imaging in primary penile cancer: current status and future directions. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(1):36-47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kirkham APS, Illing RO, Minhas S, et al. MR imaging of nonmalignant penile lesions. Radiographics. 2008;28(3):837-853. a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Horenblas S, Kroger R, Gallee MP, et al. Ultrasound in squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: A useful addition to clinical staging? A comparison of ultrasound with histopathology. Urology. 1994;43:702-707.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kaneko K, De Mouy EH, Lee BE. Sequential contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the penis. Radiology. 1994;191:75-77.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bertolotto M, Mucelli RP. Nonpenetrating penile traumas: sonographic and Doppler features. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183:1085-1089.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jacobellis U. Modified radical inguinal lymphadenectomy for carcinoma of the penis: technique and results. J Urol. 2003;169:1349-1352.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Protzel C, Alcaraz A, Horenblas S, et al. Lymphadenectomy in the surgical management of penile cancer. Eur Urol. 2009;55:1075-1088.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Yang WT, Lam WW, Yu MY, et al. Comparison of dynamic helical CT and dynamic MR imaging in the evaluation of pelvic lymph nodes in cervical carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175:759-766.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Rockall AG, Sohaib SA, Harisinghani MG, et al. Diagnostic performance of nanoparticle-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of lymph node metastases in patients with endometrial and cervical cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2813-2821.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bertolotto M, Serafini G, Dogliotti L, et al. Primary and secondary malignancies of the penis: ultrasound features. Abdom Imaging. 2005;30:108-112.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Wilkins CJ, Sriprasad S, Sidhu PS. Colour Doppler ultrasound of the penis. Clin Radiol. 2003;58:514-523.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Scardino E, Villa G, Bonomo G, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging combined with artificial erection for local staging of penile cancer. Urology. 2004;63:1158-1162.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bacar MM, Batislam E, Altinok D, et al. Sildenafil citrate for penile hemodynamic determination: an alternative to intracavernosal agents in Doppler ultrasound evaluation of erectile dysfunction. Urology. 2001;57:623-626. discussion 626-627.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hatzimouratidis K, Hatzichristou DG. A comparative review of the options for treatment of erectile dysfunction: Which treatment for which patient? Drugs. 2005;65:1621-1650.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Linet OI, Ogrinc FG. Efficacy and safety of intracavernosal alprostadil in men with erectile dysfunction. The Alprostadil Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:873-877.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Muruve N, Hosking DH. Intracorporeal phenylephrine in the treatment of priapism. J Urol. 1996;155:141-143.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Te CC, Vemulapalli S, Confer SD, et al. Recurrent malignant melanoma of the penis. Urology. 2008;72(5):e15-e16. 1185.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ribuffo D, Alfano C, Ferrazzoli PS, et al. Basal cell carcinoma of the penis and scrotum with cutaneous metastases. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2002;36:180-182.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sasso F, Delicato G, Gentile G, et al. Primary synovial sarcoma of the penis. J Urol. 2002;168:633.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Chiang K-H, Chang P-Y, Lee S-K, et al. MR findings of penile lymphoma. Br J Radiol. 2006;79:526-528.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kendi T, Batislam E, Basar MM, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in penile metastases of extragenitourinary cancers. Int Urol Nephrol. 2006;38:105-109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lau TN, Wakeley CJ, Goddard P. Magnetic resonance imaging of penile metastases: a report on five cases. Australas Radiol. 1999;43:378-381.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Sherwood JB, Sagalowsky AI. The diagnosis and treatment of urethral recurrence after radical cystectomy. Urol Oncol. 2006;24:356-361.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bordeau KP, Lynch DF. Transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder metastatic to the penis. Urology. 2004;63:981-983.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Villavicencio H, Rubio-Briones J, Regalado R, et al. Grade, local stage and growth pattern as prognostic factors in carcinoma of the penis. Eur Urol. 1997;32:442-447.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Leijte JA, Gallee M, Antonini N, et al. Evaluation of current TNM classification of penile carcinoma. J Urol. 2008;180:933-938. discussion 938.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Agrawal A, Pai D, Ananthakrishnan N, et al. Clinical and sonographic findings in carcinoma of the penis. J Clin Ultrasound. 2000;28:399-406.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. de Kerviler E, Ollier P, Desgrandchamps F, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with penile carcinoma. Br J Radiol. 1995;68:704-711.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kayes O, Minhas S, Allen C, et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in the local staging of penile cancer. Eur Urol. 2007;51:1313-1318. discussion 1318-1319.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Pow-Sang MR, Benavente V, Pow-Sang JE, et al. Cancer of the penis. Cancer Control. 2002;9:305-314.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Smith Y, Hadway P, Biedrzycki O, et al. Reconstructive surgery for invasive squamous carcinoma of the glans penis. Eur Urol. 2007;52:1179-1185.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Brown CT, Minhas S, Ralph DJ. Conservative surgery for penile cancer: subtotal glans excision without grafting. BJU Int. 2005;96:911-912.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 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;96:1040-1043.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Gillitzer R, Hampel C, Wiesner C, et al. Single-institution experience with primary tumours of the male urethra. BJU Int. 2008;101:964-968.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Dinney CP, Johnson DE, Swanson DA, et al. Therapy and prognosis for male anterior urethral carcinoma: an update. Urology. 1994;43:506-514.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Farrer JH, Lupu AN. Carcinoma of deep male urethra. Urology. 1984;24:527-531.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Gheiler EL, Tefilli MV, Tiguert R, et al. Management of primary urethral cancer. Urology. 1998;52:487-493.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Christopher N, Arya M, Brown RS, et al. Penile preservation in squamous cell carcinoma of the bulbomembranous urethra. BJU Int. 2002;89:464-465.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Dehner LP, Smith BH. Soft tissue tumors of the penis: a clinicopathological study of 46 cases. Cancer. 1970;25:1431-1447.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Oto A. MR findings of penile epithelioid sarcoma. Eur Radiol. 2000;10:1836.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Sirikci A, Bayram M, Demirci M, et al. Penile epithelioid sarcoma: MR imaging findings. Eur Radiol. 1999;9:1593-1595.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. de Bree E, Sanidas E, Tzardi M, et al. Malignant melanoma of the penis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1997;23:277-279.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Rashid AM, Williams RM, Horton LW. Malignant melanoma of penis and male urethra. Is it a difficult tumor to diagnose? Urology. 1993;41:470-471.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Gaviani P, Mullins ME, Braga TA, et al. Improved detection of metastatic melanoma by T2*-weighted imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27:605-608.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Perez LM, Shumway RA, Carson CC 3rd, et al. Penile metastasis secondary to supraglottic squamous cell carcinoma: review of the literature. J Urol. 1992;147:157-160.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Chan PT, Begin LR, Arnold D, et al. Priapism secondary to penile metastasis: a report of two cases and a review of the literature. J Surg Oncol. 1998;68:51-59.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Escribano G, Allona A, Burgos FJ, et al. Cavernosography in diagnosis of metastatic tumors of the penis: 5 new cases and a review of the literature. J Urol. 1987;138:1174-1177.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Andresen R, Wegner HE, Dieberg S. Penile metastasis of sigmoid carcinoma: comparative analysis of different imaging modalities. Br J Urol. 1997;79:477-478.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Wilson F, Staff WG. Malignant priapism: an unexpected response to local anaesthetic infiltration of the dorsal nerves of the penis. Br J Surg. 1982;69:469.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Golijanin D, Singer E, Davis R, et al. Doppler evaluation of erectile dysfunction – Part 2. Int J Impot Res. 2007;19:43-48.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Restrepo R, Oneto J, Lopez K, et al. Head and neck lymph nodes in children: the spectrum from normal to abnormal. Pediatr Radiol. 2009;39:836-846.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Ahuja AT, Ying M. Sonographic evaluation of cervical lymph nodes. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:1691-1699.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Krishna RP, Sistla SC, Smile R, et al. Sonography: an underutilized diagnostic tool in the assessment of metastatic groin nodes. J Clin Ultrasound JCU. 2008;36:212-217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Evans RM, Ahuja A, Metreweli C. The linear echogenic hilus in cervical lymphadenopathy – A sign of benignity or malignancy? Clin Radiol. 1993;47:262-264.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Steinkamp HJ, Maurer J, Cornehl M, et al. Recurrent cervical lymphadenopathy: differential diagnosis with color-duplex sonography. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 1994;251:404-409.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Vassallo P, Wernecke K, Roos N, et al. Differentiation of benign from malignant superficial lymphadenopathy: the role of high-resolution US. Radiology. 1992;183:215-220.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Abang Mohammed DK, Uberoi R, de BL A, et al. Inguinal node status by ultrasound in vulva cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;77:93-96.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Kataoka MY, Sala E, Baldwin P, et al. The accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in staging of vulvar cancer: a retrospective multi-centre study. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;117(1):82-87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Bipat S, Fransen GA, Spijkerboer AM, et al. Is there a role for magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of inguinal lymph node metastases in patients with vulva carcinoma? Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103:1001-1006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Sohaib SA, Richards PS, Ind T, et al. MR imaging of carcinoma of the vulva. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178:373-377.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Hughes B, Leijte J, Shabbir M, et al. Non-invasive and minimally invasive staging of regional lymph nodes in penile cancer. World J Urol. 2009;27:197-203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Ornellas AA, Seixas AL, Marota A, et al. Surgical treatment of invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: retrospective analysis of 350 cases. J Urol. 1994;151:1244-1249.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Eisner BH, Feldman AS. Nanoparticle imaging for genitourinary cancers. Cancer Biomark. 2009;5:75-79.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Hovels AM, Heesakkers RA, Adang EM, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol. 2008;63:387-395.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Jager GJ, Barentsz JO, Oosterhof GO, et al. Pelvic adenopathy in prostatic and urinary bladder carcinoma: MR imaging with a three-dimensional TI-weighted magnetization-prepared-rapid gradient-echo sequence. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167:1503-1507.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Tabatabaei S, Harisinghani M, McDougal WS. Regional lymph node staging using lymphotropic nanoparticle enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with ferumoxtran-10 in patients with penile cancer. J Urol. 2005;174:923-927. discussion 927.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. King AD, Tse GM, Ahuja AT, et al. Necrosis in metastatic neck nodes: diagnostic accuracy of CT, MR imaging, and US. Radiology. 2004;230:720-726.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Laubenbacher C, Saumweber D, Wagner-Manslau C, et al. Comparison of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET, MRI and endoscopy for staging head and neck squamous-cell carcinomas. J Nucl Med. 1995;36:1747-1757.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Antoch G, Saoudi N, Kuehl H, et al. Accuracy of whole-body dual-modality fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for tumor staging in solid tumors: comparison with CT and PET. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:4357-4368.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Schoder H, Larson SM, Yeung HW. PET/CT in oncology: integration into clinical ­management of lymphoma, melanoma, and gastrointestinal malignancies. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(Suppl 1):72S-81S.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Scher B, Seitz M, Reiser M, et al. 18 F-FDG PET/CT for staging of penile cancer. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1460-1465.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Leijte JAP, Graafland NM, Valdés Olmos RA, et al. Prospective evaluation of hybrid18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in staging clinically node-negative patients with penile carcinoma. BJU Int. 2009;104:640-644.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Graafland NM, Leijte JAP, Valdés Olmos RA, et al. Scanning with 18 F-FDG-PET/CT for detection of pelvic nodal involvement in inguinal node-positive penile carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2009;56:339-345.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Kim JH, Beets GL, Kim MJ, et al. High-resolution MR imaging for nodal staging in rectal cancer: Are there any criteria in addition to the size? Eur J Radiol. 2004;52:78-83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Brown G, Richards CJ, Bourne MW, et al. Morphologic predictors of lymph node status in rectal cancer with use of high-spatial-resolution MR imaging with histopathologic comparison. Radiology. 2003;227:371-377.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Harisinghani MG, Barentsz J, Hahn PF, et al. Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2491-2499.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Bernd H, De Kerviler E, Gaillard S, et al. Safety and tolerability of ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide contrast agent: comprehensive analysis of a clinical development program. Invest Radiol. 2009;44:336-342.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Horenblas S, Van Tinteren H, Delemarre JF, et al. Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: accuracy of tumor, nodes and metastasis classification system, and role of lymphangiography, computerized tomography scan and fine needle aspiration cytology. J Urol. 1991;146:1279-1283.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Senthil Kumar MP, Ananthakrishnan N, Prema V. Predicting regional lymph node metastasis in carcinoma of the penis: a comparison between fine-needle aspiration cytology, sentinel lymph node biopsy and medial inguinal lymph node biopsy. Br J Urol. 1998;81:453-457.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Saisorn I, Lawrentschuk N, Leewansangtong S, et al. Fine-needle aspiration cytology predicts inguinal lymph node metastasis without antibiotic pretreatment in penile carcinoma. BJU Int. 2006;97:1225-1228.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Kroon BK, Horenblas S, Deurloo EE, et al. Ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology before sentinel node biopsy in patients with penile carcinoma. BJU Int. 2005;95:517-521.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Crawshaw JW, Hadway P, Hoffland D, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy using dynamic lymphoscintigraphy combined with ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in penile carcinoma. Br J Radiol. 2009;82:41-48.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Bouchot O, Rigaud J, Maillet F, et al. Morbidity of inguinal lymphadenectomy for invasive penile carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2004;45:761-765. discussion 765-766.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Cabanas RM. An approach for the treatment of penile carcinoma. Cancer. 1977;39:456-466.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Wespes E, Simon J, Schulman CC. Cabanas approach: Is sentinel node biopsy reliable for staging penile carcinoma? Urology. 1986;28:278-279.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Perinetti E, Crane DB, Catalona WJ. Unreliability of sentinel lymph node biopsy for staging penile carcinoma. J Urol. 1980;124:734-735.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Pettaway CA, Pisters LL, Dinney CP, et al. Sentinel lymph node dissection for penile carcinoma: the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center experience. J Urol. 1995;154:1999-2003.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Sullivan DC, Croker BP Jr, Harris CC, et al. Lymphoscintigraphy in malignant melanoma: 99mTc antimony sulfur colloid. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1981;137:847-851.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Morton DL, Wen DR, Wong JH, et al. Technical details of intraoperative lymphatic mapping for early stage melanoma. Arch Surg. 1992;127:392-399.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Steinbecker KM, Muruve NA. Lymphoscintigraphy for penile cancer. J Urol. 2000;163:1251-1252.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Han KR, Brogle BN, Goydos J, et al. Lymphatic mapping and intraoperative lymphoscintigraphy for identifying the sentinel node in penile tumors. Urology. 2000;55:582-585.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Tanis PJ, Lont AP, Meinhardt W, et al. Dynamic sentinel node biopsy for penile cancer: reliability of a staging technique. J Urol. 2002;168:76-80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Kroon BK, Horenblas S, Meinhardt W, et al. Dynamic sentinel node biopsy in penile carcinoma: evaluation of 10 years experience. Eur Urol. 2005;47:601-606. discussion 606.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Leijte JAP, Kroon BK, Valdés Olmos RA, et al. Reliability and safety of current dynamic sentinel node biopsy for penile carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2007;52:170-177.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Jensen JB, Jensen KM, Ulhoi BP, et al. Sentinel lymph-node biopsy in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. BJU Int. 2009;103:1199-1203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Perdonà S, Autorino R, Gallo L, et al. Role of dynamic sentinel node biopsy in penile cancer: our experience. J Surg Oncol. 2006;93:181-185.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Hungerhuber E, Schlenker B, Frimberger D, et al. Lymphoscintigraphy in penile cancer: limited value of sentinel node biopsy in patients with clinically suspicious lymph nodes. World J Urol. 2006;24:319-324.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. de Kanter AY, Menke-Pluijmers MB, Henzen-Logmans SC, et al. Reasons for failure to identify positive sentinel nodes in breast cancer patients with significant nodal involvement. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2006;32:498-501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Fayad LM, Carrino JA, Fishman EK. Musculoskeletal infection: role of CT in the emergency department. Radiographics. 2007;27:1723-1736.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Rippentrop JM, Joslyn SA, Konety BR. Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: evaluation of data from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program. Cancer. 2004;101:1357-1363.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Sohaib SA, Koh D-M, Husband JE. The role of imaging in the diagnosis, staging, and management of testicular cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:387-395.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Schmidt GP, Baur-Melnyk A, Haug A, et al. Whole-body MRI at 1.5 T and 3 T compared with FDG-PET-CT for the detection of tumour recurrence in patients with colorectal cancer. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:1366-1378.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Hovels AM, Heesakkers RA, Adang EM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of MR lymphography for the detection of lymph node metastases in patients with prostate cancer. Radiology. 2009;252:729-736.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Solsona E, Algaba F, Horenblas S, et al. EAU guidelines on penile cancer. Eur Urol. 2004;46:1-8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Ficarra V, Zattoni F, Artibani W, et al. Nomogram predictive of pathological inguinal lymph node involvement in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. J Urol. 2006;175:1700-1704. discussion 1704–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Horenblas S, van Tinteren H, Delemarre JF, et al. Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. III. Treatment of regional lymph nodes. J Urol. 1993;149:492-497.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. Schlenker B, Tilki D, Gratzke C et al: Intermediate-differentiated invasive (pT1 G2) penile cancer-oncological outcome and follow-up. Urol Oncol. Epub Nov, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Hawnaur JM, Zhu XP, Hutchinson CE. Quantitative dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of recurrent pelvic masses in patients treated for cancer. Br J Radiol. 1998;71:1136-1142.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital, London, UK

    Alex P. S. Kirkham FRCS, FRCR

Authors
  1. Alex P. S. Kirkham FRCS, FRCR
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Urology, Univeristy College London Hospitals, Euston Road, London, NW1 2PG, United Kingdom

    Asif Muneer

  2. University College London Hospital, Euston Road, London, N1W 2PG, United Kingdom

    Manit Arya

  3. Antoni van Leeuwenhoekhuis, Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, 1066 CX, Netherlands

    Simon Horenblas

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag London Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kirkham, A.P.S. (2011). Radiological Imaging in Penile Cancer. In: Muneer, A., Arya, M., Horenblas, S. (eds) Textbook of Penile Cancer. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-879-7_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-879-7_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-84882-878-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-84882-879-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation