Objective: The treatment of invasive penile cancer is based on partial or total penectomy and perineal urethrostomy configuration.1–3 To report surgical and functional outcomes of penile amputation and perineal urethrostomy configuration in a consecutive series of patients with invasive penile cancer. Materials and Methods: A single-center retrospective analysis was conducted from January 2018 to December 2022. Data were extracted from clinical records and operative notes. As primary outcomes, surgical complications were described. Oncological outcomes through cancer-specific survival and overall survival were analyzed. Patient survival was estimated by a Kaplan-Meier analysis. Functional outcomes were assessed through the administration of the International Prostatic Symptoms Score (IPSS) questionnaire at 3 months follow-up. Results: Overall 10 patients were enrolled. The median follow-up was 16 months (Interquartile range (IQR 12-18)). The median age was 71 years (IQR 63-79). Operative time was set at 195 minutes (IQR 155-275). The median hospital stay was 8 days (IQR: 6-10). Postoperative complications occurred in 20% of patients, in 1 case surgical revision was necessary. Positive surgical margins were detected only in 1 patient. The median catheterization time was 15 days (IQR: 15-32). One patient developed local recurrence. At 1 year, the cancer-specific survival was 80% and overall survival was 60%. The median preoperative IPSS was 15 (IQR 12-19). The median postoperative IPSS was 6 (IQR 5-7). Conclusion: Penile amputation and perineal urethrostomy configuration was demonstrated to be a safe and effective procedure to address invasive penile cancer.

Surgical and Functional Outcomes of Penile Amputation and Perineal Urethrostomy Configuration in Invasive Penile Cancer

Falcone, Marco;Preto, Mirko;Ferro, Ilaria;Cirigliano, Lorenzo;Plamadeala, Natalia;Scavone, Martina;Lavagno, Federico;Oderda, Marco;Gontero, Paolo
2023-01-01

Abstract

Objective: The treatment of invasive penile cancer is based on partial or total penectomy and perineal urethrostomy configuration.1–3 To report surgical and functional outcomes of penile amputation and perineal urethrostomy configuration in a consecutive series of patients with invasive penile cancer. Materials and Methods: A single-center retrospective analysis was conducted from January 2018 to December 2022. Data were extracted from clinical records and operative notes. As primary outcomes, surgical complications were described. Oncological outcomes through cancer-specific survival and overall survival were analyzed. Patient survival was estimated by a Kaplan-Meier analysis. Functional outcomes were assessed through the administration of the International Prostatic Symptoms Score (IPSS) questionnaire at 3 months follow-up. Results: Overall 10 patients were enrolled. The median follow-up was 16 months (Interquartile range (IQR 12-18)). The median age was 71 years (IQR 63-79). Operative time was set at 195 minutes (IQR 155-275). The median hospital stay was 8 days (IQR: 6-10). Postoperative complications occurred in 20% of patients, in 1 case surgical revision was necessary. Positive surgical margins were detected only in 1 patient. The median catheterization time was 15 days (IQR: 15-32). One patient developed local recurrence. At 1 year, the cancer-specific survival was 80% and overall survival was 60%. The median preoperative IPSS was 15 (IQR 12-19). The median postoperative IPSS was 6 (IQR 5-7). Conclusion: Penile amputation and perineal urethrostomy configuration was demonstrated to be a safe and effective procedure to address invasive penile cancer.
2023
177
29
35
Falcone, Marco; Preto, Mirko; Ferro, Ilaria; Cirigliano, Lorenzo; Peretti, Federica; Plamadeala, Natalia; Scavone, Martina; Lavagno, Federico; Oderda,...espandi
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/2035420
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 2
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact