ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Penile involvement associated with renal pelvic squamous cell carcinoma: a case report and mechanistic considerations.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. 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
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the renal pelvis is an uncommon malignancy, accounting for less than 1% of upper urinary tract tumors. Penile metastasis from renal pelvic SCC has not been documented. Case presentation: A 74-year-old man presented with a firm penile nodule. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated an intracavernosal mass, while contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) revealed a large left renal pelvic tumor (89 mm) with hepatic and hilar lymph node metastases, without pelvic or inguinal lymphadenopathy. Histopathological examination of both the renal pelvic and penile lesions showed keratinizing SCC. Immunohistochemistry demonstrated diffuse p40 and p63 positivity with PAX8 and p16 negativity, supporting a urothelial tract origin rather than a primary penile carcinoma. Given the disseminated disease and rapid clinical deterioration, no systemic or surgical therapy was undertaken, and best supportive care was provided. Conclusion: This case constitutes, to our knowledge, the first reported instance of penile involvement most consistent with metastatic renal pelvic SCC. In patients with advanced upper urinary tract malignancy who develop penile lesions, secondary involvement should be considered. The absence of regional lymphadenopathy and the disseminated pattern suggest a hematogenous retrograde venous dissemination pathway.
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.