CONTEXT: Historically penile cancer has been treated by partial or total penectomy.
More recently, conservative techniques have evolved to preserve function, cosmesis and psychological well-being.
OBJECTIVE: The oncologic safety of these innovations needs to be compared with the more radical ablative strategies.
METHODS: We conducted an extensive review of the literature of penile preserving and ablative techniques and report on the oncological as well as functional outcomes.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: There were no randomized studies comparing preserving and ablative techniques. The majority of studies consisted of retrospective cohorts. The quality of evidence is level 3 at best. Cancer specific survival is similar in penis preserving and ablative approaches for low stage disease. Penile preservation is superior in functional and cosmetic outcomes and should be offered as a primary treatment modality in men with low stage penile cancer.
Written by:
Hegarty PK, Eardley I, Heidenreich A, McDougal WS, Minhas S, Spiess PE, Watkin N, Horenblas S. Are you the author?
Reference: BJU Int. 2013 Jul 1. Epub ahead of print.
doi: 10.1111/bju.12338
PubMed Abstract
PMID: 24053403
UroToday.com Penile and Urethral Cancers Section
