ArticleThe Canadian journal of urology2026
At a glans: metastatic prostate cancer disguised as penile squamous cell carcinoma; a case report.
Article in The Canadian journal of urology, 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
backgroundThe incidence rate of prostate adenocarcinoma in the United States was 112 per 100,000 in 2019. Men aged 65 to 74 years had a higher incidence rate (638 per 100,000), and 70% of the cases were detected locally (confined to the primary site) per the United States Cancer Statistics. While rare, prostate adenocarcinoma metastasis to the penis has variable presentation and potentially atypical histology that may require immunohistochemical, biomarker, and genetic analysis for confident diagnosis. CASE DESCRIPTION: We present a 56-year-old patient with advanced prostate cancer post-chemoradiation and androgen deprivation therapy with an uncommon site of metastasis to the penis. The clinical presentation and progression of the disease led to surgical removal and frozen section analysis. Initial pathologic assessment proved equivocal in the distinction between metastatic prostatic carcinoma versus primary penile squamous cell carcinoma. Diagnostic difficulty due to ambiguous histomorphological features was attributed to the loss of intrinsic prostatic protein markers in metastatic post-treatment cases. Immunohistochemistry and detailed biomarker analysis eventually aided diagnosis.
conclusionsThis report illustrates some of the gross and microscopic histological ambiguity that can obfuscate immediate diagnostic certainty of origin of rapidly growing cutaneous penile lesion in the context of existing prostate cancer, while elaborating on immunohistochemical and genetic markers that can increase otherwise elusive diagnostic certainty. Early patient education and intervention represent sites of potential improvement in management of similar cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42682067What 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.