Jacobien M Kieffer1, Rosa S Djajadiningrat2, Erik A M van Muilekom2, Niels M Graafland2, Simon Horenblas2, Neil K Aaronson3. 1. Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: n.aaronson@nki.nl.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We assessed the impact of primary surgery, including penile sparing surgery vs (partial) penectomy and lymphadenectomy, on sexuality and health related quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We invited 147 patients surgically treated for penile cancer at our institution between 2003 and 2008 to complete the IIEF-15, SF-36®, IOC (version 2) and questions on urinary function. We evaluated the impact of primary surgery type and lymphadenectomy on these outcomes. We also compared patient SF-36 scores with those of an age and gender matched normative sample from the general Dutch population. RESULTS: A total of 90 patients (62%) returned a completed questionnaire. Surgery type and extent were not associated significantly with most of the study outcomes assessed. However, men who underwent (partial) penectomy reported significantly more problems than those treated with penile sparing surgery, including orgasm (effect size 0.54, p = 0.031), appearance concerns (effect size 0.61, p = 0.008), life interference (effect size 0.49, p = 0.032) and urinary function (83% vs 43%, p <0.0001). Men who underwent lymphadenectomy reported significantly more life interference (effect size 0.50, p = 0.037). The patient sample scored significantly better than the normative sample on the SF-36 physical component (p = 0.044) and the bodily pain subscale (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Few differences were observed in sexuality and health related quality of life as a function of primary surgery and lymphadenectomy. However, (partial) penectomy and lymphadenectomy were associated with more problems with orgasm, body image, life interference and urination. Additional longitudinal studies are warranted to evaluate individual changes with time in these outcomes.
PURPOSE: We assessed the impact of primary surgery, including penile sparing surgery vs (partial) penectomy and lymphadenectomy, on sexuality and health related quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We invited 147 patients surgically treated for penile cancer at our institution between 2003 and 2008 to complete the IIEF-15, SF-36®, IOC (version 2) and questions on urinary function. We evaluated the impact of primary surgery type and lymphadenectomy on these outcomes. We also compared patient SF-36 scores with those of an age and gender matched normative sample from the general Dutch population. RESULTS: A total of 90 patients (62%) returned a completed questionnaire. Surgery type and extent were not associated significantly with most of the study outcomes assessed. However, men who underwent (partial) penectomy reported significantly more problems than those treated with penile sparing surgery, including orgasm (effect size 0.54, p = 0.031), appearance concerns (effect size 0.61, p = 0.008), life interference (effect size 0.49, p = 0.032) and urinary function (83% vs 43%, p <0.0001). Men who underwent lymphadenectomy reported significantly more life interference (effect size 0.50, p = 0.037). The patient sample scored significantly better than the normative sample on the SF-36 physical component (p = 0.044) and the bodily pain subscale (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Few differences were observed in sexuality and health related quality of life as a function of primary surgery and lymphadenectomy. However, (partial) penectomy and lymphadenectomy were associated with more problems with orgasm, body image, life interference and urination. Additional longitudinal studies are warranted to evaluate individual changes with time in these outcomes.
Authors: Omid Sedigh; Marco Falcone; Carlo Ceruti; Massimiliano Timpano; Mirko Preto; Marco Oderda; Franklin Kuehhas; Mattia Sibona; Arianna Gillo; Paolo Gontero; Luigi Rolle; Bruno Frea Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2015 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Gennaro Musi; Andrea Russo; Andrea Conti; Francesco A Mistretta; Ettore Di Trapani; Stefano Luzzago; Roberto Bianchi; Giuseppe Renne; Stefano Ramoni; Matteo Ferro; Deliu Victor Matei; Marco Cusini; Luca Carmignani; Ottavio de Cobelli Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-12-02 Impact factor: 4.226