Table 2.
Patient characteristics
| Inguinal lymph node status | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All cases (N = 32) | pN0 (N = 16) | pN1 (N = 16) | ||
| Median age (years) | 70.7 (39.8–87.5) | 68.6 (39.8–77.7) | 74.3 (40.5–87.5) | p = 0.017 |
| Tumor stage | ||||
| pT1b | 16 (50.0%) | 8 (50.0%) | 8 (50.0%) | |
| pT2 | 10 (31.2%) | 4 (25.0%) | 6 (37.5%) | |
| pT3 | 6 (18.8%) | 4 (25.0%) | 2 (12.5%) | p = 0.59 |
| Tumor grade | ||||
| G1 | 2 (6.3%) | 2 (12.5%) | 0 | |
| G2 | 20 (62.5%) | 9 (56.3%) | 11 (68.8%) | |
| G3 | 10 (31.2%) | 5 (31.2%) | 5 (31.2%) | p = 0.61 |
| Peritumoral desmoplastic change | ||||
| None | 4 (12.5%) | 2 (12.5%) | 2 (12.5%) | |
| Weak | 10 (31.3%) | 5 (31.3%) | 5 (31.3%) | |
| Moderate | 3 (9.3%) | 1 (6.2%) | 2 (12.5%) | |
| Strong | 15 (46.9%) | 8 (50.0%) | 7 (43.7%) | p = 1.0 |
| Peritumoral inflammatory response | ||||
| None | 8 (25.0%) | 4 (25.0%) | 4 (25.9%) | |
| Weak | 6 (18.8%) | 1 (6.3%) | 5 (31.3%) | |
| Moderate | 10 (31.2%) | 7 (43.8%) | 3 (18.7%) | |
| Strong | 8 (25.0%) | 4 (25.0%) | 4 (25.0%) | p = 0.26 |
| Pattern of invasion | ||||
| Spray-like | 19 (59.4%) | 10 (62.5%) | 9 (56.3%) | |
| Finger-like | 13 (40.6%) | 6 (37.5%) | 7 (43.8%) | p = 1.0 |
| p53-staininga | ||||
| Aberrant | 20 (64.5%)b | 11 (68.7%) | 9 (60.0%) | |
| Wild type | 11 (35.5%) | 5 (31.3%) | 6 (40%) | p = 0.61 |
| p16-staininga | ||||
| Block | 12 (38.7%)b | 5 (31.2%) | 7 (46.7%) | |
| Non-block | 19 (61.3%) | 11 (68.7%) | 8 (53.3%) | p = 0.38 |
| Ki-67-staininga | ||||
| Score 1 | 16 (51.6%) | 10 (66.7%) | 6 (40.0%) | |
| Score 2 | 7 (22.6%) | 3 (20.0%) | 4 (26.7%) | |
| Score 3 | 8 (25.8%) | 3 (13.3%) | 5 (33.3%) | p = 0.52 |
aIn one case no tumor tissue was left within the only available tumor containing block for immunostaining
bOne single case represented aberrant p53 expression as well as block-p16-positivity within the tumor (Fig. 4c,d)