ArticleBJU international2022
Incidence of penile intraepithelial neoplasia and treatment strategies in Sweden 2000-2019.
Article in BJU international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Empowering people affected by penile cancer: towards a model for supportive self-management.International journal of impotence research · 2025Review
- Retrospective clinical and molecular characterisation of patients with penile intraepithelial neoplasia.BJU international · 2025Article
- The past, present and future of penile cancer in the Nordic countries. Results from NORDCAN.BJUI compass · 2025Article
- Risk of invasive penile cancer after treatment of penile intraepithelial neoplasia.BJU international · 2025Article
- Multicenter Evaluation of Morbidity and Predictors of Response to Imiquimod Treatment for Penile Intraepithelial Neoplasia.European urology open science · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo analyse the incidence, treatment strategies and complications associated with penile intraepithelial neoplasia (PeIN) in Sweden over a period of 20 years. MATERIALS AND
methodsData on PeIN from the Swedish National Penile Cancer Register were analysed regarding treatment in relation to age, size of the PeIN lesion, localization of the PeIN lesion and complications using chi-squared tests and logistic regression. The incidence of PeIN was calculated and age-standardized according to the European Standard population.
resultsBetween 2000 and 2019 a total of 1113 PeIN cases were reported. The age-standardized incidence of PeIN was 1.40 per 100 000 men (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32-1.49). An increase in incidence over time was seen, with a standardized incidence rate of 2.37 (95% CI 1.56-3.70) in 2019 compared to the baseline year, 2000. Surgical or topical treatments were given in 75.0% and 14.6% of cases, respectively. The complication rate was higher in laser surgery (12.1%, 7/58) compared to local surgery (4.6%, 16/348; P = 0.03) with an age-adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 2.82 (95% CI 1.10-7.19; P = 0.03). Local surgery was more common than laser surgery in the last 5 years compared to the first 5 years of the study period: OR 5.75 (95% CI 2.94-11.27). Treatments with imiquimod and topical 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) were more common than destructive methods such as photodynamic therapy, cryotherapy, curettage and electrocautery in the last 5 years compared to the first 5 years: OR 9.48 (95% CI 2.29-39.24).
conclusionsA twofold increase in the age-standardized incidence of PeIN was seen in Sweden over 20 years. Complications were three times more common in laser surgery compared to local surgery. Changes in treatment showed an increase of treatment strategies such as local surgery and treatment with imiquimod and topical 5-FU over time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.