With respect to the @entity5 there is no difference between the proposal of the UICC and the Heidelberg version for TNM classification of the @entity189 . Clinically the Heidelberg scheme seems more practical, but there were no statistical differences between them. With respect to the prognosis for the @entity1 , the size and localization of the @entity5 are of secondary importance. What is important is the degree of @entity5 spreading in the lymph system. From this point of view, one needs only to differentiate between T1 ( @entity5 restricted to the penis) and T2 ( @entity5 extending the bounds of the penis). On the other hand, size, localization, and degree of infiltration of @entity189 do have different therapeutic consequences, so from this point of view the differentiation of the @entity5 from T1 up to T4 should be retained. With respect to the classification of the state of the corresponding lymph system it is our opinion that the UICC proposal is too differentiated and has little meaning. In its stead, the Heidelberg scheme is clear and simple. Any examiner can complete it. With the help of life tables extending beyond 10 years after diagnosis we were able to determine that 5 years is not a sufficiently long time to clsoe a case of @entity5 . Even with proper treatment, the @entity1 may suffer up to 10 years or more from the disease. In @entity1 aged between 50 and 59 years of age the @entity5 seems to grow faster; in spite of proper and intensive treatment those @entity1 had a clearly limited life expectancy. In @entity1 aged 60-69 and more so in those between 70 and 79 years of age the @entity5 seemed to grow slowly and often had no effect on the survival rate.

On the classification of XXXX and its 10-year survival.

@entity5 :: ('MESH:D009369', 'Disease') :: ['tumor', 'cancer', 'primary tumor', 'penis cancer'] @entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients', 'patient'] @entity189 :: ('MESH:D002277', 'Disease') :: ['penis carcinoma']
@entity189 :: (MESH:D002277,Disease) :: ['penis carcinoma']
