3.9 Article

Glans-Preserving Surgery for Superficial Penile Cancer

Journal

JOURNAL OF ANDROLOGY
Volume 33, Issue 3, Pages 435-440

Publisher

AMER SOC ANDROLOGY, INC
DOI: 10.2164/jandrol.111.013896

Keywords

Penile carcinoma; conservative surgery; cosmesis; sexual function

Categories

Funding

  1. Development of Innovative Research Team in the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University
  2. Key Medical Disciplines of Jiangsu Province

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, we investigated the safety and feasibility of glans-preserving surgery for superficial penile squamous cell carcinoma. Young patients with penile primary tumors exhibiting favorable histologic features were best suited for organ-sparing procedures, enabling them to avoid sexual disturbances. The study included 12 patients, 38-53 years of age (median age 46 years), with superficial lesions involving the glans penis, coronary sulcus, or shaft skin. After clinical staging and grading, those patients were offered a glans-preserving procedure to preserve the normal appearance and functional integrity of the glans penis. Of the 12 patients referred, the tumors were TaG1 in 4 patients, TaG2 in 3, TisG1 in 1, TisG2 in 1, T1G1 in 2, and T1G2 in 1. All patients returned to normal sexual activity 1 month postoperatively. Sexual function and sexual satisfaction were well maintained after surgery. The cosmetic results were considered satisfying/very satisfying by 83% (10 of 12 patients). Follow-up data were available on 12 patients at a mean follow-up of 62.5 months. Only 1 patient had recurrence 6 months after surgery, which was managed by a second glans-preserving surgery without recurrence. With careful patient selection and vigilant follow-up, anatomically suitable superficial penile cancer can be offered this glans-preserving surgery, while preserving function of the penis wherever possible.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available