ReviewEuropean urology open science2022
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.
Review in European urology open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Organ-sparing radiotherapy in penile cancer: therapeutic approaches.International urology and nephrology · 2026Pooled it
- The Australian Penile Cancer Clinical Registry: a comprehensive national approach to data collection.BJU international · 2026Article
- The evolution of penile reconstructive techniques in urology.International journal of impotence research · 2026Review
- Unveiling the variations in penile cancer care: identifying knowledge gaps and research priorities.BMJ oncology · 2026Review
- [Organ preservation or radical surgery? Modern surgical concepts within the complex interplay between function and oncology].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Psychometric properties and content of instruments for assessing penile cancer patients' quality of life: A systematic review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2025Review
- Penile cancer treatment and sexuality: a narrative review.International journal of impotence research · 2025Review
- Review
- Improving Quality of Life and Psychosocial Health for Penile Cancer Survivors: A Narrative Review.Cancers · 2024Review
- Follow Up Care After Penile Sparing Surgery for Penile Cancer: Current Perspectives.Research and reports in urology · 2024Review
- Total Margin Control Is Superior to Traditional Margin Assessment for Treatment of Low-Stage Penile Squamous Cell Carcinoma.The Journal of urology · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors at 20 institutions in 11 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: The primary lesion in penile cancer is managed by surgery or radiation. Surgical options include penile-sparing surgery, amputative surgery, laser excision, and Moh's micrographic surgery. Radiation is applied as external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy. The treatment aims to completely remove the primary lesion and preserve a sufficient functional penile stump. Objective: To assess whether the 5-yr recurrence-free rate and other outcomes, such as sexual function, quality of life, urination, and penile preserving length, vary between various treatment options. Evidence acquisition: The EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Cochrane HTA, DARE, HEED), Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for publications from 1990 through May 2021. Randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized comparative studies (NRCSs), and case series (CSs) were included. Evidence synthesis: The systematic review included 88 studies, involving 9578 men from 16 NRCSs and 72 CSs. The cumulative mean 5-yr recurrence-free rates were 82.0% for penile-sparing surgery, 83.9% for amputative surgery, 78.6% for brachytherapy, 55.2% for EBRT, 69.4% for lasers, and 88.2% for Moh's micrographic surgery, as reported from CSs, and 76.7% for penile-sparing surgery and 93.3% for amputative surgery, as reported from NRCSs. Penile surgery affects sexual function, but amputative surgery causes more appearance concerns. After brachytherapy, 25% of patients reported sexual dysfunction. Both penile-sparing surgery and amputative surgery affect all aspects of psychosocial well-being. Conclusions: Despite the poor quality of evidence, data suggest that penile-sparing surgery is not inferior to amputative surgery in terms of recurrence rates in selected patients. Based on the available information, however, broadly applicable recommendations cannot be made; appropriate patient selection accounts for the relative success of all the available methods. Patient summary: We reviewed the evidence of various techniques to treat penile tumor and assessed their effectiveness in oncologic control and their functional outcomes. Penile-sparing as well as amputative surgery is an effective treatment option, but amputative surgery has a negative impact on sexual function. Penile-sparing surgery and radiotherapy are associated with a higher risk of local recurrence, but preserve sexual function and quality of life better. Laser and Moh's micrographic surgery could be used for smaller lesions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.