阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结转移的诊断:现状与进展
Diagnosis of Inguinal Lymph Node Metastasis in Penile Cancer: Current Status and Progress
DOI: 10.12677/acm.2026.1631117, PDF, HTML, XML,   
作者: 郭烨鹏, 李再尚*:暨南大学第二临床医学院(深圳市人民医院)泌尿外科,广东 深圳;唐瑜梦:暨南大学第二临床医学院(深圳市人民医院)肾内科,广东 深圳
关键词: 阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结转移精准诊断Penile Cancer Inguinal Lymph Node Metastasis Accurate Diagnosis
摘要: 阴茎癌虽相对罕见但侵袭性强,腹股沟淋巴结转移是其最主要的转移途径与独立预后因素。准确判断淋巴结状态直接影响分期决策、治疗策略及生存结局。本文系统综述阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结转移的诊断现状与技术进展,聚焦从初筛至确诊的多层级评估体系。临床触诊作为基础筛查手段,简便易行但对微转移漏诊率高;影像学检查已形成分层评估路径:超声凭借高分辨率成为首选筛查工具,CT与PET-CT在全身分期及远处转移排查中发挥核心作用,MRI则以优异软组织显像能力在微小结构评估中独具价值。在病理确诊层面,超声引导细针穿刺活检有效衔接影像与病理诊断,动态前哨淋巴结活检已成为临床淋巴结阴性患者的标准分期术式,在保障诊断准确性的同时显著降低手术并发症。分子生物学检测正逐步从辅助工具向风险分层补充手段演进,p53、p16INK4a、PD-L1等标志物及流式细胞术、二代测序等技术在微灶检测与疑难病例鉴别中展现出潜力。当前,“无创筛查–精准影像–病理确诊–分子补充”的阶梯式协同诊断模式已基本形成,但仍面临微小转移灶检出敏感度不足、动态前哨淋巴结活检假阴性率波动、分子检测缺乏标准化及资源分布不均等挑战。未来,推动多模态技术融合、人工智能辅助判读、液体活检联合应用及低成本适宜技术研发,将成为实现阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结“精准化、微创化、个体化”诊断的重要方向。
Abstract: Although penile carcinoma is relatively rare, it is highly invasive, and inguinal lymph node metastasis is the most important metastasis route and an independent prognostic factor. Accurate judgment of lymph node status directly affects staging decision, treatment strategy and survival outcome. This paper systematically reviews the diagnosis status and technical progress of inguinal lymph node metastasis of penile cancer, focusing on the multi-level evaluation system from primary screening to diagnosis. As a basic screening method, clinical palpation is simple and easy, but the missed diagnosis rate of micrometastasis is high. Imaging examination has formed a hierarchical evaluation path: ultrasound has become the first choice screening tool because of its high resolution, CT and PET-CT play a core role in the whole body staging and distant metastasis investigation, and MRI has unique value in the evaluation of micro-structures because of its excellent soft tissue imaging ability. At the level of pathological diagnosis, ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy effectively connects the image with pathological diagnosis, and dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy has become the standard staging operation for patients with negative lymph nodes, which can ensure the accuracy of diagnosis and significantly reduce surgical complications. Molecular biological detection is gradually evolving from an auxiliary tool to a risk stratification supplementary means. Markers such as p53, p16INK4a and PD-L1, as well as technologies such as flow cytometry and second-generation sequencing, have shown potential in micro-focus detection and difficult case identification. At present, the step-by-step collaborative diagnosis model of “non-invasive screening-accurate imaging-pathological diagnosis-molecular supplement” has basically taken shape, but it still faces challenges such as insufficient sensitivity in detecting micrometastases, fluctuation of false negative rate of dynamic sentinel lymph node biopsy, lack of standardization of molecular detection and uneven distribution of resources. In the future, promoting the integration of multimodal technology, artificial intelligence-assisted interpretation, combined application of liquid biopsy and low-cost research and development of appropriate technologies will become an important direction to realize the “accurate, minimally invasive and individualized” diagnosis of inguinal lymph nodes in penile cancer.
文章引用:郭烨鹏, 唐瑜梦, 李再尚. 阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结转移的诊断:现状与进展[J]. 临床医学进展, 2026, 16(3): 3116-3126. https://doi.org/10.12677/acm.2026.1631117

1. 背景与目的

阴茎癌是一种相对罕见但具有高度侵袭性的恶性肿瘤,主要影响男性生殖系统,其病理类型以鳞状细胞癌为主,占比超过95% [1]。全球范围内,阴茎癌的发生率较低,在欧洲和美国每10万人中发病率不足1例,但在南美洲、亚洲部分地区及撒哈拉以南非洲等区域发病率显著偏高,成为当地男性恶性肿瘤的重要类型[2]。尽管阴茎癌的早期诊断和规范治疗能够显著改善患者预后,但由于疾病早期症状隐匿、部分患者存在认知壁垒或就诊延迟,许多患者确诊时已出现局部进展或转移,其中腹股沟淋巴结转移是最常见的转移途径,也是评估疾病分期、判断预后及制定治疗方案的核心依据[3]

腹股沟淋巴结转移状态是阴茎癌患者最重要的预后因素,其存在与否直接影响患者的生存结局——临床数据显示,无淋巴结转移(pN0)患者的5年癌症特异性生存率可达82%,而出现广泛淋巴结转移(pN3)的患者这一比例仅为14% [1]。阴茎癌的淋巴转移遵循相对可预测的路径,首先累及腹股沟淋巴结,随后可能进展至盆腔淋巴结,最终发生远处转移[4]。即使是临床检查未触及淋巴结肿大(cN0)的中高危患者,仍有15%~25%存在隐匿性淋巴结微转移[2],而这些隐匿性转移灶若未及时干预,将显著增加疾病复发风险。此外,腹股沟淋巴结转移的程度(如转移淋巴结数量、是否存在包膜外侵犯)也与预后密切相关,包膜外侵犯的患者5年生存率显著低于无包膜外侵犯者[5]。因此,准确评估腹股沟淋巴结状态对于阴茎癌患者的治疗决策至关重要。

阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结转移的临床特征具有独特性:初期多表现为无痛性肿大淋巴结,质地较软、活动度尚可,易被患者忽视,随着疾病进展,转移淋巴结可逐渐增大、变硬,甚至与周围组织粘连固定,严重时可出现皮肤破溃、感染或脓肿形成[6]。转移模式以单侧为主,但中高危患者双侧转移的比例可达30%以上[7]。临床上,腹股沟淋巴结转移的诊断依赖于临床体格检查、影像学评估及侵入性检查等多种手段,但传统检查方法在检测淋巴结微转移时存在局限性——临床触诊在肥胖患者中易出现漏诊,而术前影像学检查(如超声、CT)对微小转移灶的检出敏感性较低[8]。近年来,动态前哨淋巴结活检(DSNB)、机器人辅助腹腔镜淋巴结清扫等微创技术的应用的不断发展,为腹股沟淋巴结转移的精准诊断和治疗提供了新的思路[7]

因此,本文旨在系统探讨阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结转移的诊断方法,回顾目前临床常用的体格检查、影像学评估、侵入性活检及微创诊断技术,分析各类方法的诊断效能、优缺点及适用场景,并结合最新研究进展展望未来技术发展方向,以期为阴茎癌患者的早期精准诊断、分期及个性化治疗提供参考,最终改善患者的生存预后并降低治疗相关并发症。

2. 阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结转移的核心诊断技术

2.1. 体格检查:初诊筛查的基石与局限

在阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结转移的诊断体系中,临床体格检查(主要是腹股沟区触诊)始终是首要的基础筛查手段。触诊需重点评估评估淋巴结的大小、质地、数量及活动度。典型的转移性淋巴结常表现为直径 > 1 cm、质地坚硬、无痛性肿大以及活动度差(与周围组织粘连或固定)。该方法具备无创、便捷、低成本的显著优势。但研究数据显示,其微转移漏诊率(假阴性率)可超过30%,尤其在肥胖患者或淋巴结位置较深时,触诊极易受皮下脂肪层干扰[9]。此外,触诊结果具有高度的主观依赖性,受检查者经验影响较大。因此,临床触诊仅能作为初步筛选工具,不能单独作为排除淋巴结转移(特别是微转移)的确诊依据。

2.2. 影像学检查:分层评估与精准定位

2.2.1. 超声在阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结转移诊断中的应用价值与局限

超声检查凭借其实时成像、无辐射、低成本及高分辨率的特性,目前被公认为阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结评估的首选影像学方法。超声对转移性淋巴结的识别依赖于多维度的形态学指标。超声的核心判断指标已形成相对统一的临床标准,包括以>1 cm为可疑阈值的淋巴结大小、圆形或不规则形的异常形态(椭圆形多提示良性)、皮质增厚或偏心性增厚、脂肪门结构消失或模糊,以及紊乱或异常增多的血流信号,这些特征共同构成了转移灶识别的基础[10]。重要的是,超声能够弥补临床触诊的固有缺陷,对于肥胖患者或位置较深的淋巴结,可清晰显示触诊难以察觉的病灶,例如在临床淋巴结阴性(cN0)患者中,超声可检出约10%~15%触诊遗漏的结构异常淋巴结,为早期发现潜在转移提供了关键支持[8]。在淋巴结清扫术后的随访中,超声同样发挥着不可替代的作用。通过动态监测淋巴结的大小变化及血流特征,临床医生可及时发现局部复发迹象,为挽救性治疗争取时间窗[11]

2.2.2. CT/PET-CT在阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结转移诊断中的应用价值与局限

CT与PET-CT凭借各自技术特性占据重要地位,二者既具备独立诊断优势,又在临床实践中结合患者病情与诊疗需求形成互补。CT作为基础形态学成像手段,核心优势在于全面评估淋巴结大小、形态及解剖关系,其通过短轴直径(通常以>10~15 mm为可疑阈值)、中央坏死、边界不规则等特征识别转移灶,不仅可为临床淋巴结阳性(cN+)患者的根治性腹股沟淋巴结清扫术(ILND)规划手术范围,还能同步排查盆腔淋巴结及远处转移,完成全身分期,且因扫描速度快、普及率高,适用于术前初步筛查与术后随访监测[12] [13]。但CT的局限性同样显著,其诊断依赖淋巴结形态改变,对直径 < 5mm的微转移灶或细胞水平转移敏感性极低,在临床淋巴结阴性(cN0)患者中漏诊率较高,且阴茎原发灶感染、术后炎症引发的淋巴结反应性增生,易与转移灶形态特征重叠,导致假阳性率升高,难以单独作为精准分期依据[13] [14]

PET-CT通过融合18F-氟脱氧葡萄糖(18F-FDG)代谢成像与CT解剖定位,实现了诊断效能的显著升级。其核心价值体现在对转移灶的高特异性识别上,肿瘤细胞的高代谢特性使18F-FDG摄取增高,可有效区分炎性增生与肿瘤转移,在cN+患者中对腹股沟淋巴结转移的敏感性达80.6%~100%、特异性达70.0%~100%,能精准识别多枚转移灶并实现分期升级[14] [15]。同时,PET-CT可一次性完成腹股沟、盆腔淋巴结及远处转移的排查,对高危患者(如cN2/N3或T3/T4期)盆腔转移的检出敏感性达85%、阴性预测值(NPV)达90%,还能通过最大标准化摄取值(SUVmax)评估预后,例如SUVmax ≥ 6.5的淋巴结转移患者癌症特异性生存率显著降低[16] [17]。此外,在诊疗流程优化中,PET-CT可筛选cN0中高危患者中隐匿转移风险极低的人群,结合DSNB降低过度治疗率,对DSNB显示放射性沉默的腹股沟区域,其阳性结果还能指导外科探查,提高转移灶检出率[18]

然而,PET-CT对微转移灶的检出能力仍受限于技术特性,对直径 < 4 mm的微转移灶敏感性仅16.7%~20%,对5~9 mm转移灶敏感性约66.7%,在cN0患者中整体敏感性仅56.5%,难以可靠排除隐匿性转移[15] [19]。同时,术后炎症、淋巴结反应性增生可导致18F-FDG非特异性摄取,膀胱内18F-FDG生理性排泄还可能掩盖盆腔及腹股沟区域病灶,影响图像解读[13] [20]。由于PET-CT检查成本高、辐射剂量高于常规CT,且部分基层医院设备不可及,难以作为常规筛查手段,进一步限制了其临床普及[21]

2.2.3. MRI在阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结转移诊断中的应用价值与局限

MRI凭借优异的软组织分辨率,在评估淋巴结形态特征(如边界不规则、中心坏死)及判断与周围血管神经关系方面具有独特优势。对于高危患者,MRI识别淋巴结不规则边界的特异性可达95%,优于单纯依靠大小判断的传统标准[22]。此外,功能磁共振技术正在拓展诊断边界。新型淋巴靶向纳米颗粒增强MRI (如使用ferumoxtran-10)利用正常淋巴组织对超顺磁性氧化铁颗粒的吞噬作用,能通过信号差异识别微小病灶,研究显示其敏感性可达100% [23];弥散加权成像(DWI)通过测量表观弥散系数(ADC)反映组织细胞密度,预测淋巴结转移的敏感性与特异性均超过80% [24]。在治疗策略指导上,MRI有助于实施精细化的风险分层管理。Kumar等人的研究表明,利用MRI像特征对腹股沟淋巴结进行分层,指导临床选择DSNB或ILND,可显著降低DSNB的假阴性率,并减少不必要的根治性手术[25]。同时,MRI对盆腔淋巴结状态的评估也为晚期患者制定综合治疗方案提供了关键依据[26]

然而MRI仍有显著局限,首先对<5 mm微转移灶检出能力不足,临床触诊阴性患者中敏感性仅56.5%,易导致高危患者延误治疗,需结合DSNB进一步确认[19];其次,阴茎癌相关炎症引发的反应性淋巴结增生,与转移淋巴结在MRI信号上存在重叠,尤其肥胖患者脂肪干扰下,鉴别难度增加[27];此外,特殊造影剂(如Ferumoxtran-10)尚未获得广泛临床批准,目前多用于科研或特定中心。其可及性也限制其在常规临床中的广泛应用[28]

2.3. 病理学检查:定位“诊断金标准”

2.3.1. 细针穿刺活检(FNA)

超声引导下细针穿刺活检(FNA)有效衔接了“影像学筛查”与“病理学确诊”,是提升腹股沟淋巴结诊断效能的关键技术。临床推荐采用>9 MHz高频线性探头定位,引导23-25G细针进行多方向穿刺取样,既能精准避开血管神经,又能保证标本质量。该技术安全性极高,并发症发生率仅为1%~3% (主要为轻微血肿或疼痛),无严重不良事件报道[29] [30]。FNA有效弥补了单纯超声对微小病灶定性困难的缺陷。研究显示,FNA区分炎性增生与肿瘤转移的特异性高达91%~100%,阳性预测值接近100% [31]。一项纳入403例患者的研究显示,对于可触及淋巴结和不可触及的超声异常淋巴结,FNA均表现出良好的检出能力,且假阳性率极低(仅0.5%) [29]。在诊疗流程优化方面,对于cN+患者,FNA确诊后可直接指导ILND,避免非必要的中间检查;对于cN0中高危患者,FNA作为DSNB的前置筛选,可减少约10%~13%不必要的DSNB操作,从而显著降低医疗成本与患者创伤[25] [32]

然而,FNA并非完美的“金标准”,其技术局限性决定了必须与其他手段协同应用。一方面,取样误差导致“假阴性”风险。由于FNA获取细胞量有限,无法评估淋巴结的完整组织结构(如包膜外侵犯ENE),且对低分化肿瘤或直径 < 2 mm的微转移灶漏诊率较高(约20%~30%) [30] [33] [34]。另一方面,病理状态的干扰。伴有坏死的转移淋巴结可能因仅穿刺到坏死组织而呈假阴性;而反应性增生淋巴结可能因细胞形态改变导致假阳性[31]。此外,FNA主要针对影像学发现的异常淋巴结,若超声本身受限于操作者经验或对微转移灶(Micrometastasis)分辨率不足(漏诊率可达20%~25%),FNA的实施便无从谈起[8] [10] [33]

综合来看,超声及FNA在阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结转移诊断中并非孤立存在,而是与DSNB、ILND等技术形成协同互补的阶梯式诊疗体系。对于中高危cN0患者,不能仅凭FNA阴性排除转移,需进一步行DSNB以捕捉隐匿性微转移灶[29]。对于cN+患者中,FNA可快速确诊转移,为ILND的手术时机与范围规划提供直接依据[35]。这种协同模式既发挥了FNA快速、微创、高特异性的优势,又通过DSNB弥补了其在微转移检测上的短板,实现了诊断精准性与患者获益的最大化。

2.3.2. 动态前哨淋巴结活检(DSNB)

动态前哨淋巴结活检(DSNB)是阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结分期的里程碑式技术,已被EAU-ASCO联合指南推荐为临床淋巴结阴性(cN0)患者的首选诊断方案[36]。其核心理念在于通过精准定位肿瘤引流的第一站淋巴结,在获取准确分期信息的同时,最大程度规避了ILND带来的严重并发症。

在临床应用中,DSNB的核心优势体现在诊断效能与安全性的平衡。研究证实,DSNB对单个腹股沟淋巴结转移的检出率高达96%。在诊断准确性方面,其灵敏度为79%,而NPV高达97% [37],这意味着DSNB阴性结果可基本排除隐匿转移风险,避免80%以上cN0患者接受不必要的ILND [38]。对于中高危cN0患者(如≥pT1b期、G2~G3分级),DSNB能检出6%~30%常规影像学漏诊的微转移灶,而此类患者早期干预后的5年癌症特异性生存率可达80%以上,显著优于等待观察(Wait-and-see)策略[22]。此外,DSNB的并发症发生率仅为1%~22%,主要为轻度肿胀、血清肿等低级别的并发症,远低于ILND高达30%~70%的并发症率[21],极大改善了患者术后生活质量。DSNB的应用场景已拓展至原发性手术切除后的延迟活检[39]、单侧淋巴结显影患者的风险分层[40]等特殊情况,显示出良好的临床适应性。

然而,DSNB在临床推广中仍面临若干局限,需结合实际诊疗场景谨慎应对。首先,假阴性率(FNR)是核心挑战,尽管优化后的FNR已降至3.5%~12%,但肿瘤栓塞导致的淋巴引流改道或术者经验不足仍可能导致漏诊。低容量中心及缺乏多学科配合(核医学、病理科)的环境会显著增加风险[2]。其次,传统的平面显像易受皮肤污染或解剖重叠干扰。虽然SPECT/CT显著提升了定位精度和淋巴结检出数(其探测灵敏度远高于平面显像),但在肥胖或既往有手术史导致的引流路径改变患者中,定位依然存在难度[25]。再者,DSNB的临床应用存在一定局限性,对于可触及淋巴结患者的诊断价值仍存争议,尽管部分研究证实联合FNA可将其灵敏度提升至96% [29],但指南尚未将其列为常规推荐;而对于资源有限地区,核医学设备的缺乏及示踪剂制备的复杂性限制了DSNB技术普及。对于原发灶切除后能否行延迟DSNB,学术界尚存争议。Omorphos (2016)和Lau (2024)的研究认为原发灶切除未显著改变淋巴引流,延迟DSNB的敏感性仍达88.9%,可行性良好[39] [41]。然而,Nemitz (2022)的长期随访提示,延迟组的复发率较高(假阴性率达42.9%),认为手术瘢痕可能导致引流改道,因此建议尽可能同期手术[42]。最后,DSNB对后续治疗决策的指导价值仍需完善,约50% DSNB阳性患者接受ILND后未发现额外转移灶,提示部分患者可能面临过度治疗,需进一步探索更精准的风险分层标志物。

在阴茎癌淋巴结转移的临床实践中,诊断手段已由单一评估转向“影像学分层–病理学确诊”的阶梯式诊疗体系。针对cN0患者,鉴于常规影像学(超声/CT/MRI/PET-CT)对隐匿性微转移的检测效能有限,临床应遵循“高频超声/FNA初筛、必要时行DSNB确诊”的模式,将影像学价值定位于排除远处转移以优化手术边界。针对cN+患者,则需首选增强CT/MRI或18F-FDG PET-CT进行精准分期,为新辅助化疗或根治性手术等多模态治疗提供决策依据。为进一步提升诊断效能,DSNB的未来优化应聚焦于多维度协同:通过影像学预处理、SPECT/CT定位及术中荧光示踪等技术降低假阴性率,并结合病理连续切片与免疫组化减少微转移漏诊[21]。同时,积极探索超顺磁性氧化铁纳米颗粒等非放射性示踪方案,以提升技术可及性。在人工智能(AI)与影像组学(Radiomics)方面,AI通过对海量临床及影像数据的深度挖掘,正显著提升诊断的一致性与前瞻性。影像组学模型(Radiomics)能够从高分辨率MRI中提取肉眼无法识别的亚像素级特征,例如基于表观扩散系数(ADC)图谱及对比增强参数构建的机器学习模型,在预测cN0患者隐匿性转移方面展现出极高的受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC) [43]。但是阴茎癌作为罕见病面临数据集规模有限的挑战[44],未来通过多中心数据的联邦学习(Federated Learning),AI有望构建出具备更强泛化能力的普适性风险预测模型。

2.4. 分子生物学检测:定位“未来补充工具”

随着对阴茎癌分子机制研究的深入,靶向肿瘤特异性分子标志物已成为弥补传统影像学与病理检查局限性的重要辅助手段。这些技术不仅提升了微转移灶的检出率,更在cN0患者的风险分层中展现出重要价值。

2.4.1. 分子标志物的临床预判价值

p53作为关键的肿瘤抑制因子,其表达模式(如弥漫强阳性或完全缺失的突变型表达)与PSCC的侵袭性密切相关。研究证实,p53突变型表达是腹股沟淋巴结转移的独立预测因子,可引导cN0期患者采取更积极的干预策略,以捕捉隐匿性病灶[45]。p16INK4a作为HPV感染的替代标志物,p16INK4a强核阳性对高危型HPV DNA具有高度预测特异性(达83%)。尽管HPV阳性肿瘤通常表现出较低的局部侵袭性,但联合检测p16INK4a有助于明确肿瘤分子亚型,为年轻或高发人群提供补充性的风险信息[46] PD-L1表达水平反映了肿瘤的免疫逃逸潜能。临床数据显示,PD-L1联合阳性评分(CPS) ≥ 1的阴茎癌患者,其淋巴结转移率显著高于低表达者(63.6% vs 25.0%)。这提示对于PD-L1阳性的局部进展期患者,应强化淋巴结分期评估,并探索免疫联合手术的综合治疗模式[47]

2.4.2. 高灵敏度检测技术的应用突破

流式细胞术(FACS)通过检测肿瘤特异性标志物的表达,为腹股沟淋巴结微转移的诊断提供了高灵敏度方法。研究采用FACS检测阴茎癌患者淋巴结中泛细胞角蛋白AE1/AE3的表达,成功识别出传统病理检查遗漏的微转移灶,且该技术检测下限可达0.11%,具有良好的稳定性和可重复性[48]。在临床实践中,对于传统病理诊断为阴性但存在高危因素(如肿瘤分级G3、血管侵犯)的患者,可采用FACS检测泛细胞角蛋白AE1/AE3,提高微转移灶的检出率,避免过度治疗或治疗不足。

2.4.3. 下一代测序(NGS)技术

NGS技术的应用为解决临床疑难病例提供了新工具。对于阴茎癌患者合并孤立性胸腹部病灶时,通过NGS检测肿瘤组织的基因突变特征(如TP53、ERBB2突变),可明确病灶是否为腹股沟淋巴结转移的远处延伸,为治疗决策提供分子证据[6]。当影像学和传统病理无法明确腹股沟淋巴结转移灶的性质时,NGS的基因突变谱分析可作为重要补充手段,适用于复发性或转移性阴茎癌的诊断与鉴别诊断。

2.4.4. 液体活检技术

液体活检通过对循环肿瘤DNA (ctDNA)和循环肿瘤细胞(CTC)的无创监测,为微小残留病灶(MRD)的早期发现提供了关键手段[49]。最新研究显示,在非转移性局部晚期阴茎癌中,基于肿瘤知情(tumor-informed)的ctDNA检测展现出极高的临床灵敏度。Patel等人研究指出,ctDNA能够早于放射学影像发现中位时间数月捕获微转移迹象,其在监测治疗反应方面的效能显著优于传统影像学。ctDNA能有效识别隐匿性微转移,降低因影像学假阴性导致的漏诊率[50]。循环肿瘤细胞(CTC)的富集与定量分析则更多作为“预后因子”,与肿瘤的侵袭性及远处转移风险密切相关[51]。未来,通过整合ctDNA阴性状态与临床危险因素,未来有望实现对低风险患者的“精准豁免”:若患者ctDNA监测持续呈阴性,提示隐匿性转移风险极低,临床医生可选择继续严密随访而非立即实施创伤较大的ILND。

尽管分子标志物具有潜在诊断价值,但单一指标效能不足,如p53在HPV阳性亚型中突变率较低,且不同研究对PD-L1的检测标准(CPS阈值)尚未统一[6] [45]。FACS操作复杂且依赖专业设备,NGS成本高昂且周期长,难以在基层医疗机构普及[6] [46]。此外,多数分子检测基于手术切除的标本,难以用于术前淋巴结转移风险的无创评估,限制了其在治疗方案制定中的前置价值。现有结论多基于回顾性小样本研究,缺乏大样本、前瞻性临床试验证实其诊断效[45]。例如,关于p16INK4a与淋巴结转移的关联,不同研究得出了不一致的结论,可能与样本量、检测标准等因素相关[46]。HPV阳性通常预示着相对较好的预后,但目前的共识是,无论HPV状态如何,标准的淋巴结分期流程不应改变。相比之下,p53和PD-L1更多被视为强有力的预后因子:p53的异常表达和PD-L1的高水平浸润往往与肿瘤的高侵袭性及较低的癌症特异性生存率相关。因此,分子生物学诊断目前仍处于辅助地位,不能替代传统的病理检查和影像学评估。未来的发展方向应聚焦于多标志物联合检测模型的构建,通过整合分子标志物、临床病理特征及影像学数据,提高淋巴结转移预测的准确性。同时推动低成本、快速化分子检测技术的研发,实现术前无创评估淋巴结转移风险。此外,开展大样本前瞻性临床试验,验证分子生物学诊断的临床效能,建立标准化的检测流程和解读规范,才能真正实现分子生物学技术在阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结转移诊断中的临床转化,改善患者预后。

3. 讨论与总结

阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结转移的精准诊断,是优化临床分期、制定治疗决策及改善患者预后的核心环节。本文系统梳理了当前临床应用的核心诊断技术体系:临床触诊作为基础筛查工具,凭借无创便捷的优势成为初诊快速评估的首选,但因微转移漏诊率较高,需与其他技术协同互补;影像学检查构建了分层评估体系——其中,超声是初步筛查的核心手段,CT与PET-CT主导全身分期及远处转移排查,MRI则凭借优异的软组织分辨率,在细微结构评估与微转移检出中发挥重要补充价值。三者通过阶梯式应用,实现了无创评估效能的最大化。

在确诊环节,病理学检查仍是金标准。细针穿刺活检(FNA)有效衔接了超声筛查与病理确诊,而动态前哨淋巴结活检(DSNB)已成为临床淋巴结阴性(cN0)患者的首选分期技术,在保障诊断准确性的同时,显著降低了手术并发症风险。分子生物学检测目前仍主要处于辅助地位,但p53、PD-L1等生物标志物及流式细胞术、下一代测序(NGS)等技术,已为预测微转移风险、优化患者分层及疑难病例鉴别开辟了新路径。

尽管现有的“无创筛查–精准分期–病理确诊–分子补充”协同模式已日趋成熟,但临床实践仍面临诸多挑战:传统影像技术对微小转移灶的检出敏感性仍然不足;DSNB的假阴性率受限于术者经验与设备条件;分子检测尚缺乏标准化的操作流程与大样本临床验证;以及基层医疗资源分布不均等问题亟待解决。

展望未来,阴茎癌腹股沟淋巴结转移的诊断将坚定朝着“精准化、微创化、无创化、个体化”的方向演进。首先,应推动多模态技术的深度融合。例如,利用AI辅助影像分析提升对微转移灶的自动识别能力,以及探索DSNB联合循环肿瘤DNA(ctDNA)/循环肿瘤细胞(CTC)检测,构建“微创 + 无创”的综合评估体系,以进一步降低漏诊与过度治疗的风险。其次,应加速分子检测的临床转化。重点在于通过大样本前瞻性研究验证多标志物联合模型的效能,建立标准化的检测与解读规范,从而实现术前的无创风险分层。最后,随着诊疗指南的持续更新与多学科协作(MDT)模式的深化,通过研发低成本、易普及的适宜技术缩小区域诊疗差距,我们有望实现从传统的“分层诊断”向“个体化精准诊断”的跨越,最终为每一位阴茎癌患者提供最优化的诊断策略,最大限度地改善生存预后并提升生活质量。

NOTES

*通讯作者。

参考文献

[1] Jeanne-Julien, A., Bouchot, O., De Vergie, S., Branchereau, J., Perrouin-Verbe, M. and Rigaud, J. (2023) Long-Term Oncological Results in Penile Cancer Treated by Inguinal Lymphadenectomy. World Journal of Urology, 41, 1589-1595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[2] Fallara, G., Pozzi, E., Onur Cakir, O., Tandogdu, Z., Castiglione, F., Salonia, A., et al. (2023) Diagnostic Accuracy of Dynamic Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Penile Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. European Urology Focus, 9, 500-512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[3] Perdonà, S., Izzo, A., Tufano, A., Passaro, F., Quarto, G., Aveta, A., et al. (2025) Advancing Surgical Management of Penile Cancer: Single Port Bilateral Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection. International Brazilian Journal of Urology, 51, e20240663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[4] Brassetti, A., Bove, A.M., Proietti, F., Anceschi, U., Bologna, E., Cartolano, S., et al. (2025) Single-Port Antegrade Robotic Lymphadenectomy: A Novel Minimally Invasive Approach to Treat Lymph Nodes in Men with Penile Cancer. European Urology, 88, 381-387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[5] Sachdeva, A., McGuinness, L., Zapala, Ł., Greco, I., Garcia-Perdomo, H.A., Kailavasan, M., et al. (2024) Management of Lymph Node-Positive Penile Cancer: A Systematic Review. European Urology, 85, 257-273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[6] Moen, C.A., Nordanger, I.M., Karlsdóttir, Á., Honoré, A., Juliebø‐Jones, P., Blomberg, S.M., et al. (2025) Penile Cancer Distant Metastasis or Primary Lung Cancer? Using Focused Genomic Profiling of Tumor and Germline Mutations with Next‐Generation Sequencing for Clinical Decision‐Making. Cancer Reports, 8, e70278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[7] Pandolfo, S.D., Biasatti, A., Parnham, A., Autorino, R. and Brouwer, O.R. (2025) Current Role of Robotic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy in Penile Cancer. European Urology Focus, 11, 43-45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[8] Greco, I., Fernandez-Pello, S., Sakalis, V.I., Barreto, L., Albersen, M., Ayres, B., et al. (2024) Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Minimally Invasive Procedures for Surgical Inguinal Nodal Staging in Penile Carcinoma. European Urology Focus, 10, 567-580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[9] Machado, R.D., Faria, E.F., Júnior, A.A.R., Stirpari, F., Feres, R.N., Spiess, P.E., et al. (2025) Is Body Mass Index a Risk Factor for Lymphnode Metastasis in Penile Cancer? BMC Cancer, 25, Article No. 394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[10] Sievert, K.-D., Dräger, D.-L., Köhn, F.-M., et al. (2018) Peniskarzinom: Diagnose und Staging. Der Urologe, 57, 418-422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[11] Vreeburg, M.T.A., Vaessen, G.M., de Vries, H.M., Heeres, B.C., van Dijk‐de Haan, M.C., van der Noort, V., et al. (2025) Evaluating Follow‐Up in Patients with Lymph Node‐Negative Penile Cancer at a High‐Volume Centre. BJU International, 136, 675-681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[12] Graafland, N.M., Teertstra, H.J., Besnard, A.P.E., van Boven, H.H. and Horenblas, S. (2011) Identification of High Risk Pathological Node Positive Penile Carcinoma: Value of Preoperative Computerized Tomography Imaging. Journal of Urology, 185, 881-887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[13] Galgano, S.J., Norton, J.C., Porter, K.K., West, J.T. and Rais-Bahrami, S. (2022) Imaging for the Initial Staging and Post-Treatment Surveillance of Penile Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Diagnostics, 12, Article No. 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[14] Jakobsen, J.K., Frahm Nielsen, T., Ipsen, P., Albrecht‐Beste, E., Cardoso Costa, J., Alslev, L., et al. (2020) Dapeca‐7: Comparative Assessment of Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (CT) and Conventional Diagnostic CT in Diagnosis of Lymph Node Metastases, Distant Metastases and Incidental Findings in Patients with Invasive Penile Cancer. BJU International, 127, 254-262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[15] Leijte, J.A.P., Graafland, N.M., Valdés Olmos, R.A., Van Boven, H.H., Hoefnagel, C.A. and Horenblas, S. (2009) Prospective Evaluation of Hybrid 18F‐Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Staging Clinically Node‐Negative Patients with Penile Carcinoma. BJU International, 104, 640-644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[16] Ottenhof, S.R., Djajadiningrat, R.S., Versleijen, M.W.J., Donswijk, M.L., van der Noort, V., Brouwer, O.R., et al. (2022) F-18 Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography with Computed Tomography Has High Diagnostic Value for Pelvic and Distant Staging in Patients with High-Risk Penile Carcinoma. European Urology Focus, 8, 98-104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[17] Salazar, A., Júnior, E.P., Salles, P.G.O., Silva-Filho, R., Reis, E.A. and Mamede, M. (2018) 18F-FDG PET/CT as a Prognostic Factor in Penile Cancer. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 46, 855-863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[18] Jakobsen, J.K., Alslev, L., Ipsen, P., Costa, J.C., Krarup, K.P., Sommer, P., et al. (2015) Dapeca‐3: Promising Results of Sentinel Node Biopsy Combined with 18F‐Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Clinically Lymph Node‐Negative Patients with Penile Cancer—A National Study from Denmark. BJU International, 118, 102-111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[19] Sadeghi, R., Gholami, H., Zakavi, S.R., Kakhki, V.R.D. and Horenblas, S. (2012) Accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT for Diagnosing Inguinal Lymph Node Involvement in Penile Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature. Clinical Nuclear Medicine, 37, 436-441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[20] Dräger, D.L., Heuschkel, M., Protzel, C., et al (2018) [18F]FDG PET/CT for Assessing Inguinal Lymph Nodes in Patients with Penile Cancer—Correlation with Histopathology after Inguinal Lymphadenectomy.
[21] Wever, L., de Vries, H., van der Poel, H., van Leeuwen, F., Horenblas, S. and Brouwer, O. (2022) Minimally Invasive Evaluation of the Clinically Negative Inguinal Node in Penile Cancer: Dynamic Sentinel Node Biopsy. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 40, 209-214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[22] Bloom, J.B., Stern, M., Patel, N.H., Zhang, M. and Phillips, J.L. (2018) Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Penile Cancer. Translational Andrology and Urology, 7, 879-886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[23] Tabatabaei, S., Harisinghani, M. and McDougal, W.S. (2005) Regional Lymph Node Staging Using Lymphotropic Nanoparticle Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Ferumoxtran-10 in Patients with Penile Cancer. Journal of Urology, 174, 923-927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[24] Barua, S.K., Kaman, P.K., Baruah, S.J., T.P., R., Bagchi, P.K., Sarma, D., et al. (2018) Role of Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DWMRI) in Assessment of Primary Penile Tumor Characteristics and Its Correlations with Inguinal Lymph Node Metastasis: A Prospective Study. World Journal of Oncology, 9, 145-150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[25] Kumar, V., Kumar, P.R., Juette, A., Pawaroo, D., Ball, R.Y. and Sethia, K.K. (2023) Improved Outcome in Penile Cancer with Radiologically Enhanced Stratification Protocol for Lymph Node Staging Procedures: A Study in 316 Inguinal Basins with a Mean Follow-Up of 5 Years. BMC Urology, 23, Article No. 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[26] O’Shea, A., Kilcoyne, A., Hedgire, S.S. and Harisinghani, M.G. (2019) Pelvic Lymph Nodes and Pathways of Disease Spread in Male Pelvic Malignancies. Abdominal Radiology, 45, 2198-2212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[27] Kochhar, R., Taylor, B. and Sangar, V. (2009) Imaging in Primary Penile Cancer: Current Status and Future Directions. European Radiology, 20, 36-47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[28] Mueller-Lisse, U.G., Scher, B., Scherr, M.K. and Seitz, M. (2008) Functional Imaging in Penile Cancer: PET/Computed Tomography, MRI, and Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy. Current Opinion in Urology, 18, 105-110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[29] Lee, E.W.C., Issa, A., Oliveira, P., Lau, M., Sangar, V., Parnham, A., et al. (2022) High Diagnostic Accuracy of Inguinal Ultrasonography and Fine‐Needle Aspiration Followed by Dynamic Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Men with Impalpable and Palpable Inguinal Lymph Nodes. BJU International, 130, 331-336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[30] Heyns, C.F., Fleshner, N., Sangar, V., Schlenker, B., Yuvaraja, T.B. and van Poppel, H. (2010) Management of the Lymph Nodes in Penile Cancer. Urology, 76, S43-S57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[31] Kroon, B.K., Horenblas, S., Deurloo, E.E., Nieweg, O.E. and Teertstra, H.J. (2005) Ultrasonography‐Guided Fine‐Needle Aspiration Cytology before Sentinel Node Biopsy in Patients with Penile Carcinoma. BJU International, 95, 517-521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[32] Zou, Z., Liu, Z., Tang, L., Wang, Y., Liang, J., Zhang, R., et al. (2016) Radiocolloid-Based Dynamic Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Penile Cancer with Clinically Negative Inguinal Lymph Node: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Urology and Nephrology, 48, 2001-2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[33] Graafland, N.M., Lam, W., Leijte, J.A.P., Yap, T., Gallee, M.P.W., Corbishley, C., et al. (2010) Prognostic Factors for Occult Inguinal Lymph Node Involvement in Penile Carcinoma and Assessment of the High-Risk EAU Subgroup: A Two-Institution Analysis of 342 Clinically Node-Negative Patients. European Urology, 58, 742-747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[34] Fankhauser, C.D., de Vries, H.M., Roussel, E., Jakobsen, J.K., Issa, A., Lee, E.W.C., et al. (2022) Lymphovascular and Perineural Invasion Are Risk Factors for Inguinal Lymph Node Metastases in Men with T1G2 Penile Cancer. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, 148, 2231-2234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[35] Nerli, R.B., Sharma, M., Patel, P., Ghagane, S.C., Patil, S.D., Gupta, P., et al. (2021) Modified Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection in Groin-Negative Patients of Penile Cancer: Our Experience. Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology, 12, 229-234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[36] Vreeburg, M.T.A., Donswijk, M.L., Albersen, M., Parnham, A., Ayres, B., Protzel, C., et al. (2024) New EAU/ASCO Guideline Recommendations on Sentinel Node Biopsy for Penile Cancer and Remaining Challenges from a Nuclear Medicine Perspective. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 51, 2861-2868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[37] Gebruers, J., Elst, L., Baldewijns, M., De Wever, L., Van Laere, K., Albersen, M., et al. (2023) Accuracy of Dynamic Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Inguinal Lymph Node Staging in cN0 Penile Cancer. EJNMMI Research, 13, Article No. 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[38] Yeung, L.L. and Brandes, S.B. (2013) Dynamic Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy as the New Paradigm for the Management of Penile Cancer. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 31, 693-696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[39] Omorphos, S., Saad, Z., Arya, M., Freeman, A., Malone, P., Nigam, R., et al. (2015) Feasibility of Performing Dynamic Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy as a Delayed Procedure in Penile Cancer. World Journal of Urology, 34, 329-335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[40] O'Brien, J.S., Teh, J., Kelly, B.D., Chen, K., Manning, T., Furrer, M., et al. (2022) Interrogating the Impassable: A Case Series and Literature Review of Unilateral SPECT-CT Groin Visualization in Men with Penile Cancer. Frontiers in Surgery, 9, Article ID: 882011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[41] Lau, W., Lim, I.C.Z.Y., Wong, J.C.S., Ali, S.Z., Kannivelu, A., Lee, J.C.B., et al. (2024) The Surgical Technique and Protocol for Dynamic Sentinel Node Biopsy for Penile Cancer at a Southeast Asian Regional Hospital. Translational Andrology and Urology, 13, 1268-1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[42] Nemitz, L., Vincke, A., Michalik, B., Engels, S., Meyer, L., Henke, R., et al. (2022) Radioisotope-Guided Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Penile Cancer: A Long-Term Follow-Up Study. Frontiers in Oncology, 12, Article ID: 850905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[43] Regent, B., Nowak, K., Skrobisz, K., Matuszewski, M. and Studniarek, M. (2025) MRI of the Scrotum and Penis: Current Applications and Clinical Relevance. Diagnostics, 15, Article No. 3134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[44] Cicchetti, R., Amparore, D., Tamborino, F., Tătaru, O.S., Ferro, M., Digiacomo, A., et al. (2025) The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Urologic Oncology: Current Insights and Challenges. Research and Reports in Urology, 17, 293-308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[45] Hrudka, J., Prouzová, Z., Kendall Bártů, M., Hojný, J., Čapka, D., Zavillová, N., et al. (2023) Immune Cell Infiltration, Tumour Budding, and the p53 Expression Pattern Are Important Predictors in Penile Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study of 152 Cases. Pathology, 55, 637-649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[46] Steinestel, J., Al Ghazal, A., Arndt, A., Schnoeller, T.J., Schrader, A.J., Moeller, P., et al. (2015) The Role of Histologic Subtype, p16INK4a Expression, and Presence of Human Papillomavirus DNA in Penile Squamous Cell Carcinoma. BMC Cancer, 15, Article No. 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[47] Peyroteo, I., Santos, F., Marialva, C. and Brito Ramos, R. (2024) Programmed Death-Ligand Expression and Lymph Node Involvement in Penile Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[48] Zhang, L., Hu, J., Ali Zirakzadeh, A., Rosvall, J., Hedlund, M., Hu, P.S., et al. (2018) Detection of Micro-Metastases by Flow Cytometry in Lymph Nodes from Patients with Penile Cancer. BMC Urology, 18, Article No. 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[49] Moen, C.A. and Jakobsen, J.K. (2025) Sentinel Node Mapping in Penile Cancer: An Update on Methods and Pitfalls. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[50] Patel, K.R., Moon, S.C., Shumaker, L.A., Patel, S., Galgano, S.J., Ferguson, J.E., et al. (2025) Utility of Tumor-Informed Circulating Tumor DNA for Monitoring Treatment Response in Nonmetastatic, Locally Advanced Penile and Primary Urethral Cancers. JCO Precision Oncology, 9, e2500045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[51] Kao, C.-C., Xu, T., Yang, Y.-N., Tsai, Y., Liu, S., Wu, S., et al. (2022) Detection of Circulating Tumor Cells as Therapeutic Markers in Patients with Penile Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Preliminary Study. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association, 85, 95-101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]