Literature DB >> 29656798

A Comparative study of two types of organ-sparing surgeries for early stage penile cancer: Wide local excision vs partial penectomy.

Xiang Wan1, Dachao Zheng1, Chong Liu1, Huan Xu1, Minkai Xie1, Juan Zhou1, Hai-Jun Yao2, Zhong Wang3.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Till date, there have been few reports of comparative studies on the outcomes of these different treatment modalities. In this study, we have aimed to comparatively evaluate the quality-of-life parameters, including sexual function, urinary function, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL), in patients with early stage penile cancers who underwent two different organ-sparing surgeries.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: From March 2012 to March 2015, we enrolled 15 patients with early stage penile cancers who underwent either wide local excision or partial penectomy as organ-sparing surgical treatments. We assessed their sexual and urinary functions and their HRQOL, using the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-15), Self-Esteem and Relationship (SEAR), and Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) questionnaires and urodynamic determinations, and comparatively analyzed the outcomes of these patients who underwent either type of surgery.
RESULTS: All patients who underwent these two types of surgeries experienced satisfactory outcomes. The patients who underwent wide local excision performed relatively better, in terms of their sexual functions, urinary functions, and HRQOL, but no statistically significant differences were observed in the data collected via the IIEF-15, SEAR, EDITS, and EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaires and urodynamic determinations (p > 0.05), except in the data corresponding to the orgasmic function (p = 0.033).
CONCLUSION: Both types of organ-sparing surgeries assessed in this study achieved good outcomes, in terms of the aesthetics, sexual functions, urinary functions, and HRQOL in patients, without compromising the therapeutic effects of these surgeries. However, the observed decreases in orgasmic function will need to be addressed further.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Health-related quality of life; Partial penectomy; Penile cancer; Sexual function; Urinary function; Wide local excision

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29656798     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.03.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol        ISSN: 0748-7983            Impact factor:   4.424


  4 in total

Review 1.  What Is the Most Effective Management of the Primary Tumor in Men with Invasive Penile Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Available Treatment Options and Their Outcomes.

Authors:  Vasileios I Sakalis; Riccardo Campi; Lenka Barreto; Herney Garcia Perdomo; Isabella Greco; Łukasz Zapala; Mithun Kailavasan; Tiago Antunes-Lopes; Jack David Marcus; Kenneth Manzie; John Osborne; Benjamin Ayres; Luc M F Moonen; Andrea Necchi; Juanita Crook; Pedro Oliveira; Lance C Pagliaro; Chris Protzel; Arie S Parnham; Maarten Albersen; Curtis A Pettaway; Philippe E Spiess; Scott T Tagawa; R Bryan Rumble; Oscar R Brouwer
Journal:  Eur Urol Open Sci       Date:  2022-05-02

2.  Effects of partial penectomy for penile cancer on sexual function: A systematic review.

Authors:  Eleanor Whyte; Alexandra Sutcliffe; Philip Keegan; Tom Clifford; Jamie Matu; Oliver M Shannon; Alex Griffiths
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-09-22       Impact factor: 3.752

Review 3.  Sexual function in the penile cancer survivor: a narrative review.

Authors:  Florian A Stroie; Matthew D Houlihan; Tobias S Kohler
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-06

4.  Erectile function after partial penectomy for penile cancer.

Authors:  Leonardo L Monteiro; Rodrigo Skowronski; Fadi Brimo; Paulo da C Carvalho; Romulo A L Vasconcelos; Charley R C V Pacheco; Adriano A Calado; Wassim Kassouf
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2021 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.541

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.