ArticleBJU international2025
Retrospective clinical and molecular characterisation of patients with 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo provide the first comprehensive molecular characterisation of penile intraepithelial neoplasia (PeIN) and to define the molecular alterations and clinical parameters associated with recurrence in order to enhance our ability to manage this disease. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe conducted a retrospective audit of records and an analysis of archived formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue from a single-centre population-based consecutive sample, to characterise the genetic landscape of 28 PeIN patients through DNA copy number analysis, RNA expression analysis, and gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA). The primary and secondary study outcomes were alterations in the genetic landscape of recurring vs non-recurring PeIN and clinical risk factors for recurrence.
resultsIn patients with PeIN recurrence, we identified seven significantly overexpressed genes (e.g., MYC, SCN8A and PSTK). Importantly, in the DNA analysis, the MYC locus was amplified (8q24.12-8q24.22 gain), the RNA analysis showed overexpression of MYC, and the MYC pathways (GSEA) were enriched compared to patients without PeIN recurrence. Limitations of the study include treatment heterogeneity and FFPE specimens challenging for RNA quality.
conclusionWe identified seven overexpressed genes in patients with PeIN recurrence. Some of these transcripts were previously reported to be involved in invasive penile cancer. These findings provide molecular evidence, that PeIN is a precursor lesion with a correlation to invasive penile cancer, and could potentially lead to new topical treatment strategies for PeIN and low-risk penile cancer.
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.