Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article reviews the epidemiology, diagnostic modalities and treatment of localized and advanced penile cancer, with special emphasis on most recent findings from the literature. RECENT FINDINGS: Penile cancer is a rare disease and its treatment suffers from a paucity of evidence in the literature. Risk factors include phimosis with poor hygiene, human papilloma virus infections, chronic balanitis xerotica obliterans and smoking, among others. Surgical treatment for local disease remains the best option, but organ-preserving procedures provide good aesthetic and functional results with acceptable oncologic control. Regional disease, when present in the form of adenopathy, is best diagnosed with fine-needle aspiration, and treated with radical inguinal lymphadenectomy if resectable. Occult metastatic disease constitutes a challenge and is managed according to primary tumour risk factors. For nonresectable regional disease and metastases, neoadjuvant cisplatinum-based regimens are the best option, and provide a selection of patients who will be optimal candidates to consolidative surgical therapies. SUMMARY: Penile cancer at its various stages constitutes a therapeutic challenge. Management should be increasingly confined to high volumes centres of excellence, allowing for clinical trials, which will hopefully provide a better understanding of the disease and the best treatment approach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".