Sexual Outcomes after Conservative Management for Patients with Localized Penile Cancer
- PMID: 38132399
- PMCID: PMC10742874
- DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30120765
Sexual Outcomes after Conservative Management for Patients with Localized Penile Cancer
Abstract
Background: Men with localized invasive penile cancer (PC) can be treated with organ-sparing treatments with different functional and aesthetical outcomes. Thus, the aim of this study is to investigate sexual outcomes in patients with PC confined to the glans that underwent wide local excision (WLE) vs. glansectomy with urethral glanduloplasty.
Methods: Complete data from 60 patients with PC were analyzed at our institution from 2017 to 2022. Patients were asked for personal habits and clinical features. PC was assessed with a clinical visit and imaging techniques. At the outpatient follow-up visit or phone call, all patients compiled the Changes in Sexual Function Questionnaire (CSFQ) and the International Index of Erectile Function in its short 5-item form (IIEF-5). Erectile function (EF) impairment was categorized using Cappelleri's criteria.
Results: Overall, 34 patients with PC confined to the glans (c ≤ T2N0) were included. Of those, 12 underwent WLE and 22 underwent glansectomy with urethral glanduloplasty. Using multivariable logistic regression, glansectomy (OR: 3.49) and diabetes (OR: 2.33) were associated with erectile disfunction (IEEF < 22). Meanwhile, using multivariable linear regression analysis, younger patients (Coeff: -2.41) and those that underwent glansectomy (Coeff: -7.5) had a higher risk of sexual function impairment, according to the CSFQ.
Conclusions: Patients with PC ≤ T2N0 that underwent WLE have better outcomes in terms of sexual functioning than the patients who underwent glansectomy and uretheral gladuloplasty. Further research is needed to clarify the outcomes of penile-sparing surgery, to inform patients in pre-surgical counseling more comprehensively, and to meet their post-operative expectations more effectively.
Keywords: CSFQ; IIEF-5; erectile function; glansectomy; localized penile cancer; penile cancer; penile neoplasm; penile-sparing surgery; quality of life; sexual dysfunction; wide local resection.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
-
- Brouwer O.R., Albersen M., Parnham A., Protzel C., Pettaway C.A., Ayres B., Antunes-Lopes T., Barreto L., Campi R., Crook J., et al. European Association of Urology-American Society of Clinical Oncology Collaborative Guideline on Penile Cancer: 2023 Update. Eur. Urol. 2023;83:548–560. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.02.027. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Borque-Fernando Á., Gaya J.M., Esteban-Escaño L.M., Gómez-Rivas J., García-Baquero R., Agreda-Castañeda F., Gallioli A., Verri P., Ortiz-Vico F.J., Amir-Nicolau B.F., et al. Epidemiology, Diagnosis and Management of Penile Cancer: Results from the Spanish National Registry of Penile Cancer. Cancers. 2023;15:616. doi: 10.3390/cancers15030616. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Flammia R.S., Tufano A., Antonelli L., Bernardotto A., Castro Bigalli A.A., Tian Z., Smaldone M.C., Karakiewicz P.I., Panebianco V., Leonardo C. Diagnostic Performance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Preoperative Local Staging of Penile Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Appl. Sci. 2021;11:7090. doi: 10.3390/app11157090. - DOI
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous
