ArticleBJU international2025
Risk of invasive penile cancer after treatment of penile intraepithelial neoplasia.
Article in BJU international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evidence- and consensus-based guideline on lichen sclerosus.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2026Guideline
- [Organ preservation or radical surgery? Modern surgical concepts within the complex interplay between function and oncology].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo examine the risk of progression and time to progression from penile intraepithelial neoplasia (PeIN) to invasive penile cancer in patients treated for PeIN with either surgery, laser ablation or topical treatment, and to examine recurrence risk after treatment of PeIN. PATIENTS AND
methodsData on patients diagnosed with PeIN (n = 1122) between 2000 and 2020 were extracted from the Swedish National Penile Cancer Registry (NPECR). Progression was defined as a second registration of invasive penile cancer in this registry. Additionally, patient charts from the three largest cities in Sweden (Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö) were analysed with regard to both progression of PeIN to invasive cancer and recurrence risk after treatment.
resultsThe NPECR included 1122 patients with PeIN, of whom 23 were re-registered as having invasive penile cancer. In the 927 PeIN patients for whom data on treatment were available, re-registration of invasive cancer was seen in 13 patients after surgery, six after laser ablation, and one after topical treatment. The progression-free probabilities at 24 months in these treatment groups were 99.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.987; 0.999), 100% (95% CI 1.000; 1.000) and 98.8% (95% CI 0.965; 1.000), respectively (log-rank test P = 0.192). In the Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö cohort, 253 patients with PeIN were followed and 14 developed invasive penile cancer. Of the 247 PeIN cases with data on treatment, four progressed after surgery, eight after laser ablation, and one after topical treatment. The progression-free probabilities at 24 months in these treatment groups were 98.2% (95% CI 0.956; 1.000), 86.2% (95% CI 0.744; 0.997) and 100% (95% CI 1.000; 1.000), respectively (log-rank test P < 0.001).
conclusionWe found that PeIN has a low risk of progressing into invasive penile cancer regardless of treatment modality. However, laser ablation therapy is not recommended due to a higher risk of progression after such treatment compared to surgical and topical treatment. We recommend individualised follow-up protocols of PeIN based on treatment and lesion location.
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.