Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Response to Comment on: Comparative outcomes of partial versus total penectomy for penile carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study on demographics and postoperative complications

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 37, pages 719–720 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

Dr. Shukla raised some concerns about our article entitled “Comparative outcomes of partial versus total penectomy for penile carcinoma: A retrospective cohort study on demographics and postoperative complications“ [1].

The constructive and insightful comments on our article [2] by Dr. Shukla are highly appreciated. This study is a retrospective multi-center analysis that we hope provides context into the comparative peri- and post-operative outcomes between partial and total penectomy. We appreciate the contribution to discourse in this growing area of research in urologic malignancy.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Shukla CJ. Comment on article on complications of total vs partial penectomy. Int J Impot Res. 2024 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-024-00976-6.

  2. Velasquez D, Liu A, Kalidoss S, Yeaman C, Bryk D, Fustok JN, et al. Comparative outcomes of partial versus total penectomy for penile carcinoma: A retrospective cohort study on demographics and postoperative complications. Int J Impot Res. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-024-00935-1.

  3. Coddington ND, Redger KD, Higuchi TT. Surgical principles of penile cancer for penectomy and inguinal lymph node dissection: a narrative review. AME Med J. 2021;6:29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Yao HH-I, Sengupta S, Chee J. Penile sparing therapy for penile cancer. Transl Androl Urol. 2020;9:3195–209.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Lont AP, Gallee MPW, Meinhardt W, van Tinteren H, Horenblas S. Penis conserving treatment for T1 and T2 penile carcinoma: clinical implications of a local recurrence. J Urol. 2006;176:575–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Opjordsmoen S, Fosså SD. Quality of life in patients treated for penile cancer. A follow-up study. Br J Urol. 1994;74:652–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yu C, Hequn C, Longfei L, Minfeng C, Zhi C, Feng Z, et al. Sexual function after partial penectomy: a prospective study from China. Sci Rep. 2016;6:21862.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang Z, Jackson SL, Gillespie C, Merritt R, Yang Q. Depressive symptoms and mortality among US adults. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6:e2337011.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Matulewicz RS, Flum AS, Helenowski I, Jovanovic B, Palis B, Bilimoria KY, et al. Centralization of penile cancer management in the United States: a combined analysis of the American Board of Urology and National Cancer Data Base. Urology. 2016;90:82–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ayres B, Hounsome L, Alnajjar H, Sharma D, Verne J, Watkin N. Has centralisation of penile cancer services in the United Kingdom improved survival? Eur Urol Suppl. 2014;13:e50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Senthooran Kalidoss, David Velasquez & Allison Liu

  2. Glickman Urological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Abu Dhabi, UAE

    Omer Raheem

Authors
  1. Senthooran Kalidoss
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Velasquez
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Allison Liu
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Omer Raheem
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed equally to manuscript. Authors SK, DV and AL contributed to analyzing data and writing manuscripts and references. Author OAR contributed and supervised the complete and final version of the manuscript and provided extensive revisions and final conclusions.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Omer Raheem.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kalidoss, S., Velasquez, D., Liu, A. et al. Response to Comment on: Comparative outcomes of partial versus total penectomy for penile carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study on demographics and postoperative complications. Int J Impot Res 37, 719–720 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-025-01038-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-025-01038-1

Search

Advanced search

Quick links