ReviewResearch and reports in urology2024
Follow Up Care After Penile Sparing Surgery for Penile Cancer: Current Perspectives.
Review in Research and reports in urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Organ preservation or radical surgery? Modern surgical concepts within the complex interplay between function and oncology].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Penile cancer (PeCa) is a rare urologic tumor worldwide. In 2024, 2100 new cases and 500 deaths are estimated in the United States. Radical surgery via total penectomy has historically been the cornerstone of treatment, since it provides excellent long-term oncological control. The rationale of surgery for penile cancer was to achieve a 2 cm macroscopic surgical margin that is historically advocated to reduce recurrences. Over time, numerous studies have demonstrated that resection margin status does not affect patients' survival. Different penile-sparing techniques are currently recommended in the European Association of Urology-American Society of Clinical Oncology (EAU-ASCO) guidelines for the treatment of localized primary PeCa. Centralization of care could yield multiple benefits, including improved disease awareness, higher rates of penile-sparing surgery, enhanced detection rates, increased utilization of less invasive lymph node staging techniques, enhanced quality of specialized histopathological examinations, and the establishment of specialized multidisciplinary teams. Compared to more aggressive treatments, the higher recurrence rates after penile-sparing surgery do not hamper neither the metastasis-free survival nor the overall survival. Repeated penile-sparing surgery could be considered for selected cases. The psychological impact of penile cancer is not negligible since the perceived loss of masculinity might adversely affect mental health and overall well-being. Quality of life may be compromised by sexual and urinary dysfunction which may be the result either of the loss of penile tissue or the psychological status of the patient. It is of utmost importance to offer rehabilitative treatment as sexual therapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy, family and peer counseling.
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.