Advertisement

Lichen Sclerosus and Phimosis – Discrepancies Between Clinical and Pathological Diagnosis and Its Consequences

Published:November 25, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.11.027

      OBJECTIVE

      To assess the accuracy of clinical diagnoses and the true incidence of lichen sclerosus (LS) in patients with phimosis.

      MATERIALS AND METHODS

      The 92 adult male patients who were qualified for circumcision due to phimosis, were included in the study. The patients were diagnosed clinically by a urologist and dermatologist before the surgical procedure. After the circumcision, the resected foreskins were examined by 2 independent uropathologists.

      RESULTS

      Preoperative clinical diagnosis of LS was established in 54 patients (58.7%); healthy-looking skin in 26 (28.3%) and other penile diseases in 12 (13.1%) patients.
      After histopathological examination, the diagnosis of LS was established in 62 patients (67.4%), but only in 44 patients with previous LS clinical diagnosis. LS was histopathologically confirmed in 18 other patients with clinically diagnosed healthy skin (n = 17) or lichen planus (n = 1). Healthy skin was histopathologically confirmed in 10 cases in patients diagnosed clinically before as LS. Other 15 histopathological diagnoses were Zoon balanitis (n = 3), nonspecific balanitis (n = 5), lichen planus (n = 1), psoriasis (n = 1), invasive penile cancer (n = 3), Bowen's disease (n = 1), penile intraepithelial neoplasia 2 usual type (n = 1).

      CONCLUSION

      LS has been revealed as the most common histopathological diagnosis in patients undergoing circumcision in our study. Histopathological examination seems to be necessary to exclude this disease.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Clouston D
        • Hall A
        • Lawrentschuk N
        Penile lichen sclerosus (balanitis xerotica obliterans).
        BJU Int. 2011; 108: 14-19
        • Stuhmer A
        Balanitis xerotica obliterans (post-operationem) und ihreberzeiihungenzur‘kraurosisglandis et praeputii’ penis.
        Rch Dermatol Syph. 1928; 156: 613-623
        • Charlton OA
        • Smith SD
        Balanitis xerotica obliterans: a review of diagnosis and management.
        Int J Dermatol. 2019; 58: 777-781
        • Kirtschig G
        Lichen sclerosus-presentation, diagnosis and management.
        DtschArztebl Int. 2016; 113: 337-343
        • Ranjan N
        • Singh SK
        Malignant transformation of penile lichen sclerosus: exactly how common is it.
        Int J Dermatol. 2008; 47: 1308-1309
        • Pietrzak P
        • Hadway P
        • Corbishley CM
        • Watkin NA
        Is the association between balanitis xerotica obliterans and penile carcinoma underestimated.
        BJU Int. 2006; 98: 74-76
        • Borghi A
        • Virgili A
        • Corazza M
        Dermoscopy of inflammatory genital diseases: practical insights.
        Dermatol Clin. 2018; 36: 451-461
        • Larre Borges A
        • Tiodorovic-Zivkovic D
        • Lallas A
        • et al.
        Clinical, dermoscopic and histopathologic features of genital and extragenital lichen sclerosus.
        J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2013; 27: 1433-1439
        • Kirtschig G
        • Becker K
        • Günthert A
        • et al.
        Evidence-based (S3) Guideline on (anogenital) Lichen sclerosus.
        J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015; 29: e1-43
        • Nasca MR
        • Innocenzi D
        • Micali G
        Penile cancer among patients with genital lichen sclerosus.
        J Am Acad Dermatol. 1999; 41: 911-914
        • Billings SD
        • Cotton J
        Inflammatory Dermatopathology. A Pathologist's Survival Guide.
        Springer Science + Business Media LLC, New York2011
        • Pilatz A
        • Altinkilic B
        • Schormann E
        • et al.
        Congenital phimosis in patients with and without lichen sclerosus: distinct expression patterns of tissue remodeling associated genes.
        J Urol. 2013; 189: 268-274
        • Bochove-Overgaauw DM
        • Gelders W
        • De Vylder AM
        Routine biopsies in pediatric circumcision: (non) sense.
        J Pediatr Urol. 2009; 5: 178-180
        • Kiss A
        • Király L
        • Kutasy B
        • Merksz M
        High incidence of balanitis xerotica obliterans in boys with phimosis: prospective 10-year study.
        Pediatr Dermatol. 2005; 22: 305-308
        • Jayakumar S
        • Antao B
        • Bevington O
        • et al.
        Balanitis xerotica obliterans in children and its incidence under the age of 5 years.
        J Pediatr Urol. 2012; 8: 272-275
        • Meuli M
        • Briner J
        • Hanimann B
        • Sacher P
        Lichen sclerosus et atrophicus causing phimosis in boys: a prospective study with 5-year followup after complete circumcision.
        J Urol. 1994; 152: 987-989
        • Yardley IE
        • Cosgrove C
        • Lambert AW
        Paediatric preputial pathology: are we circumcising enough.
        Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2007; 89: 62-65
        • Boksh K
        • Patwardhan N
        Balanitis xerotica obliterans: has its diagnostic accuracy improved with time.
        JRSM Open. 2017; 82054270417692731
        • Shah VS
        • Jung NL
        • Lee DK
        • Nepple KG
        Does routine pathology analysis of adult circumcision tissue identify penile cancer.
        Urology. 2015; 85: 1431-1434
        • Clemmensen OJ
        • Krogh J
        • Petri M
        The histologic spectrum of prepuces from patients with phimosis.
        Am J Dermatopathol. 1988; 10: 104-108
        • Liatsikos EN
        • Perimenis P
        • Dandinis K
        • et al.
        Lichen sclerosus et atrophicus. Findings after complete circumcision.
        Scand J UrolNephrol. 1997; 31: 453-456
        • West DS
        • Papalas JA
        • Selim MA
        • Vollmer RT
        Dermatopathology of the foreskin: an institutional experience of over 400 cases.
        J CutanPathol. 2013; 40: 11-18
        • Aynaud O
        • Piron D
        • Casanova JM
        Incidence of preputial lichen sclerosus in adults: histologic study of circumcision specimens.
        J Am Acad Dermatol. 1999; 41: 923-926
        • Pearce I
        • Payne SR
        Do men having routine circumcision need histological confirmation of the cause of their phimosis or postoperative follow-up.
        Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2002; 84: 325-327
        • Nyirády P
        • Borka K
        • Bánfi G
        • Kelemen Z
        Lichen sclerosus in urological practice.
        Orv Hetil. 2006; 147: 2125-2129
        • Edmonds EV
        • Hunt S
        • Hawkins D
        • et al.
        Clinical parameters in male genital lichen sclerosus: a case series of 329 patients.
        J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2012; 26: 730-737
        • Kravvas G
        • Shim TN
        • Doiron PR
        • et al.
        The diagnosis and management of male genital lichen sclerosus: a retrospective review of 301 patients.
        J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018; 32: 91-95
        • Douglawi A
        • Masterson TA
        Penile cancer epidemiology and risk factors: a contemporary review.
        CurrOpin Urol. 2019; 29 (03): 145-149
        • Morris BJ
        • Gray RH
        • Castellsague X
        • et al.
        The strong protective effect of circumcision against cancer of the penis.
        Adv Urol. 2011; 2011812368
        • Mundy AR
        • Andrich DE
        Urethral strictures.
        BJU Int. 2011; 107: 6-26