ReviewFrontiers in oncology2026
From biology to morphology and treatment: the current role of pathology in penile cancer - a narrative review.
Review 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Penile carcinoma is a rare but psychosexually devastating malignancy associated with the worst prognosis among male-specific genitourinary malignancies (prostate, testicular, and penile cancer). In addition to loss of the organ itself, patients frequently suffer from chronic lymphedema following inguinal lymph node dissection. Despite advances in oncology, the prognosis of penile cancer has not substantially improved over the past half century, and the disease has long remained underrepresented in basic research, clinical trials, and patient advocacy initiatives. During the 2020s, however, the situation has begun to change, with an increasing number of large studies and the emergence of the first meta-analyses focused on penile carcinoma. Current morphological and molecular studies aim to identify features of aggressive disease that may guide treatment escalation or de-escalation and thereby improve patients' quality of life. This review summarizes recent advances in the field, with particular emphasis on prognostic parameters accessible by routine histopathological examination. In many settings, simple pathological biomarkers may provide greater clinical utility than expensive molecular analyses. Special attention is devoted to the interplay between morphology, HPV status, immune microenvironment, and molecular alterations. The review discusses histological grading, morphological subtypes, HPV status and its correlation with morphology and mutational profiles, the prognostic significance of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and PD-L1 expression, and particularly tumor budding, which is strongly associated with aberrant p53 status and adverse prognosis. Future perspectives include refinement of penile carcinoma classification into: 1) HPV-associated, 2) HPV-independent, p53 wild-type, and 3) HPV independent, p53-altered tumors. Additional parameters with potential to improve prognostic stratification include tumor budding and the subjectively assessed peritumoral lymphocytic rim (brisk versus non-brisk), both of which appear suitable for routine reporting alongside conventional staging and grading. To sum up: Morphology really matters even in the molecular era.
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.