Local Therapy and Reconstruction in Penile Cancer: A Review.

Local therapy for penile cancer provides robust survival and can preserve the penis functionally and cosmetically. Interventions must target the appropriate clinical stage. We reviewed studies regarding the primary therapy in penile cancer, from topical therapy to radical penectomy, and reconstructive techniques. Topical therapy (5-FU or Imiquimod) provides a robust oncologic response in patients with Ta or Tis disease. Multiple laser therapies are available for localized patients and those with low-grade T1 disease. There is a non-trivial risk of progression and nodal metastases in poorly selected patients. Wide local excision provides an oncologically sound option in patient with up to T1 disease; less evidence exists for Mohs microsurgery in the setting of penile cancer. Increasingly aggressive approaches include glansectomy and partial/radical penectomy, which provide 5- and 10-year cancer-specific survival rates of over 80%. Meticulous reconstruction is necessary for the durable function of the remaining penis. Preservation of voiding and sexual function occurs via penile skin grafting, glans resurfacing, creation of a functional penile stump, and phalloplasty with a penile implant. Perineal urethrostomy provides an alternative in pathology demanding extensive partial or radical penectomy, and a durable option for seated voiding. Clinical suspicion and timely diagnosis are paramount in terms of management as less-invasive options for earlier-stage disease develop.

Improving Quality of Life and Psychosocial Health for Penile Cancer Survivors: A Narrative Review.

Treatment of penile cancer (PC) focuses on organ preservation, employing various surgical and non-surgical approaches. These interventions may lead to disfigurement, impacting patients' functional outcomes and psychosocial well-being. We reviewed studies related to penile health and PC up to February 2024, limited to studies published in English. Studies employing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessments have identified a detrimental association between aggressive treatment and overall health status, physical functioning, and relationships. In contrast, organ-sparing demonstrates improved measures related to HRQoL and sexual function. Assessment through validated questionnaires reveals diverse voiding outcomes, and varying impacts on QoL and sexual activity, emphasizing the necessity for multidisciplinary personalized care. Studies highlight substantial variations in sexual function, with patients reporting adaptations, reduced satisfaction, and concerns about body image and sexual well-being. Furthermore, unmet needs include challenges in patient-clinician communication, obtaining information, and accessing psychosocial support. Patient experiences underscore the importance of timely diagnosis, treatment access, and addressing psychological consequences. Organ-sparing approaches have higher QoL preservation and sexual function. Individualized support, including sexual therapy, support groups, and family counseling, is essential for post-treatment rehabilitation. Timely diagnosis and comprehensive care are paramount in addressing the multifaceted impact of PC on patients and families.

Anesthetic considerations and postoperative pain management in radical penectomy: Case report / Penectomía radical, consideraciones anestésicas y manejo del dolor postoperatorio: Reporte de un caso

Abstract Radical penectomy (RP) is infrequently performed as it is reserved for specific cases of penile cancer, hence the paucity of reports regarding surgical and anesthetic considerations. Acute postoperative pain, chronic post-surgical pain, concomitant mood disorders as well as a profound impact on the patient's quality of life have been documented. This case is of a patient with diabetes and coronary heart disease, who presented with advanced, over infected penile cancer, depressive disorder and a history of pain of neuropathic characteristics. The patient underwent radical penectomy using a combined spinal-epidural technique for anesthesia. Preoperatively, the patient was treated with pregabalin and magnesium sulphate, and later received a blood transfusion due to intraoperative blood loss. Adequate intra and postoperative analgesia was achieved with L-bupivacaine given through a peridural catheter during one week. Recovery was good, pain was stabilized to preoperative levels and the patient received pharmacological support and follow-up by psychiatry and the pain team.

Resumen La penectomía radical (PR) es una cirugía infrecuente, reservada para casos específicos de cáncer de pene, por lo que hay escasos informes sobre sus consideraciones quirúrgicas y anestésicas. Se ha documentado dolor agudo postoperatorio, dolor crónico posquirúrgico y alteraciones del estado de ánimo concomitantes, así como un profundo impacto en la calidad de vida posterior del paciente. Se presenta el caso de un paciente diabético y cardiópata coronario con cáncer de pene avanzado y sobreinfectado, trastorno depresivo y dolor previo de características neuropáticas, que recibe técnica combinada espinal-peridural para cirugía de penectomía radical. Se le trata también con pregabalina preoperatoria, sulfato de magnesio y transfusión por sangrado quirúrgico. Se otorgó una adecuada analgesia intra y postoperatoria, mediante catéter peridural con L-bupivacaína hasta por una semana. El paciente tuvo una buena recuperación, estabilización del dolor a niveles preoperatorios, controles y apoyo farmacológico por psiquiatría de enlace y equipo del dolor.

Radical penectomy, a compromise for life: results from the PECAD study.

BACKGROUND: The use of organ sparing strategies to treat penile cancer (PC) is currently supported by evidence that has indicated the safety, efficacy and benefit of this surgery. However, radical penectomy still represents up to 15-20% of primary tumor treatments in PC patients. The aim of the study was to evaluate efficacy in terms of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of radical penectomy in PC patients. METHODS: Data from a retrospective multicenter study (PEnile Cancer ADherence study, PECAD Study) on PC patients treated at 13 European and American urological centers (Hospital "Sant'Andrea", Sapienza University, Roma, Italy; "G.D'Annunzio" University, Chieti and ASL 2 Abruzzo, Hospital "S. Pio da Pietrelcina", Vasto, Italy; Department of Genitourinary Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA; Hospital of Budapest, Hungary; Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, Urology and Andrology Unit II, University of Bari, Italy; Hospital "Spedali Civili", Brescia, Italy; Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; University of Modena & Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain; Ceara Cancer Institute, Fortaleza, Brazil; Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA; Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece; Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center, Warsaw, Poland) between 2010 and 2016 were used. Medical records of patients who specifically underwent radical penectomy were reviewed to identify main clinical and pathological variables. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate 1- and 5-year OS and DFS. RESULTS: Of the entire cohort of 425 patients, 72 patients (16.9%) treated with radical penectomy were extracted and were considered for the analysis. The median age was 64.5 (IQR, 57.5-73.2) years. Of all, 41 (56.9%) patients had pT3/pT4 and 31 (43.1%) pT1/pT2. Moreover, 36 (50.0%) were classified as pN1-3 and 5 (6.9%) M1. Furthermore, 61 (84.7%) had a high grade (G2-G3) with 6 (8.3%) positive surgical margins. The 1- and 5-year OS rates were respectively 73.3% and 59.9%, while the 1- and 5-year DFS rates were respectively 67.3% and 35.1%. CONCLUSIONS: PC is an aggressive cancer particularly in more advanced stage. Overall, more than a third of patients do not survive at 5 years and more than 60% report a disease recurrence, despite the use of a radical treatment.

The role of penectomy in penile cancer-evolving paradigms.

Penile cancer is a rare cancer, with the majority treated with penile preserving methods. There remains a role for partial and totally penectomy for advanced and more proximal penile cancers. Significant functional and psychological morbidity can ensue for patients undergoing surgical management. Recent studies and guidelines are changing the way Urologists approach surgical management of penile malignancies. Reductions in safe surgical margin recommendations from 2 cm to 3-5 mm provide surgeons with the ability to perform penile preserving techniques to maximise patient functionality. These guidelines are reflected by recent studies showing that smaller surgical margins; although heralding higher rates of local recurrence, have no detriment on cancer specific or overall survival rate. Although oncological clearance remains the primary outcome for surgical management of penile cancer, the ability to perform radical salvage surgery at a later date means patients are more likely to experience a longer period of functionality without sacrificing oncologic outcomes. The importance of patient education on regular self-examination as well as clinic follow up are key in identifying local recurrence and planning salvage surgery if needed to maintain oncologic control. Ongoing studies into the functional and psychological outcomes of patients undergoing partial penectomy show encouraging results however further studies are needed to elucidate long-term outcomes. The evolving paradigm of surgical management in penile malignancy is shifting to favour organ preserving techniques in order to maximise functional, psychological and aesthetic outcomes without compromising patients' oncologic outcomes-however a role still exists for radical surgery in advanced penile malignancy.