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.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Penile cancer treatment and sexuality: a narrative review

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 37, pages 699–710 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Penile squamous cell carcinoma is a rare malignancy that poses a significant concern to those affected due to its aggressive nature and profound impact on patients’ quality of life. This review examines the evidence on the impact of penile cancer and its various treatments on the sexual health of patients. Men’s post-surgical sexual functioning has mainly been assessed with the International Index of Erectile Functioning. Some studies asked men to report retrospectively on pre-surgical sexual functioning or compared surgical techniques with non-randomized samples. Studies on patient’s perspectives on sexual sensations and appearance are emerging,  however reliable assessments of sexual wellbeing are missing. Penile cancer significantly impacts patients’ sexual activity, sexual function, sexual sensations, cosmesis and sexual wellbeing. Considerable proportions of patients resume sexual activity following treatments, including organ-sparing procedures, partial or total penectomy, and adjuvant therapies. While organ-sparing surgeries can largely preserve sexual functioning, more invasive treatments like partial or total penectomy result in greater declines, with the impact on sexual wellbeing remaining underexplored. Rigorous prospective studies assessing valid and reliable patient reported outcome measures for sexual wellbeing besides sexual functioning are needed in order to fully understand and address the impact of penile cancer treatment on sexual health.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fu L, Tian T, Yao K, Chen X-F, Luo G, Gao Y, et al. Global pattern and trends in penile cancer incidence: population-based study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2022;8:e34874.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Ashley LW, Sutton KF, Ju A, Edwards G, Pasli M, Bhatt AA. SEER database retrospective cohort of 547 patients with penile non-squamous cell carcinoma: demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes. Front Oncol. 2023;13:1271913.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Thomas A, Necchi A, Muneer A, Tobias-Machado M, Tran ATH, Van Rompuy AS, et al. Penile cancer. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2021;7:11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kravvas G, Ge L, Ng J, Shim TN, Doiron PR, Watchorn R, et al. The management of penile intraepithelial neoplasia (PeIN): clinical and histological features and treatment of 345 patients and a review of the literature. J Dermatolog Treat. 2022;33:1047–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pagliaro LC, Crook J. Multimodality therapy in penile cancer: when and which treatments? World J Urol. 2009;27:221–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mortensen GL, Jakobsen JK. Patient perspectives on quality of life after penile cancer. Dan Med J. 2013;60:A4655.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gordon H, LoBiondo-Wood G, Malecha A. Penis cancer: the lived experience. Cancer Nurs. 2017;40:E30–E38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Roumieux C, Royakkers L, Albersen M, Dancet E. The impact of diagnosis and treatment of penile cancer on intimacy: a qualitative assessment. Int J Impot Res. 2024; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-024-00992-6.

  9. Brouwer OR, Albersen M, Parnham A, Protzel C, Pettaway CA, Ayres B, et al. European Association of urology-american society of clinical oncology collaborative guideline on penile cancer: 2023 update. Eur Urol. 2023;83:548–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Djajadiningrat RS, Bergman AM, van Werkhoven E, Vegt E, Horenblas S. Neoadjuvant taxane-based combination chemotherapy in patients with advanced penile cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2015;13:44–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dean RC, Lue TF. Physiology of penile erection and pathophysiology of erectile dysfunction. Urol Clin North Am. 2005;32:379–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Cox G, Krieger JN, Morris BJ. Histological correlates of penile sexual sensation: does circumcision make a difference? Sex Med. 2015;3:76–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Rosen RC, Riley A, Wagner G, Osterloh IH, Kirkpatrick J, Mishra A. The international index of erectile function (IIEF): a multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology. 1997;49:822–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cappelleri JC, Rosen RC, Smith MD, Mishra A, Osterloh IH. Diagnostic evaluation of the erectile function domain of the international index of erectile function. Urology. 1999;54:346–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rosen RC, Cappelleri JC, Smith MD, Lipsky J, Peña BM. Development and evaluation of an abridged, 5-item version of the international index of erectile function (IIEF-5) as a diagnostic tool for erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res. 1999;11:319–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Symonds T, Abraham L, Bushmakin AG, Williams K, Martin M, Cappelleri JC. Sexual function questionnaire: further refinement and validation. J Sex Med. 2012;9:2609–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Opjordsmoen S, Waehre H, Aass N, Fossa SD. Sexuality in patients treated for penile cancer: patients’ experience and doctors’ judgement. Br J Urol. 1994;73:554–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Clayton AH, McGarvey EL, Clavet GJ. The changes in sexual functioning questionnaire (CSFQ): development, reliability, and validity. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1997;33:731–45.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Porst H, Padma-Nathan H, Giuliano F, Anglin G, Varanese L, Rosen R. Efficacy of tadalafil for the treatment of erectile dysfunction at 24 and 36h after dosing: a randomized controlled trial. Urology. 2003;62:121–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mulhall JP, Goldstein I, Bushmakin AG, Cappelleri JC, Hvidsten K. Validation of the erection hardness score. J Sex Med. 2007;4:1626–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Porst H, Burbridge C, Msc S, Collins X, Huang T, Symonds V, et al. Original research-outcomes assessment: development and validation of the quality of erection questionnaire. J Sex Med. 2007;4:372–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yang J, Chen J, Wu XF, Song NJ, Xu XY, Li Q, et al. Glans preservation contributes to postoperative restoration of male sexual function: a multicenter clinical study of glans preserving surgery. J Urol. 2014;192:1410–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yang J, Chen J, Wu XF, Song NJ, Li Q, Qiao D, et al. Glans-reconstruction with preputial flap is superior to primary closure for post-surgical restoration of male sexual function in glans-preserving surgery. Andrology. 2014;2:729–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Soh J, Naya Y, Ushijima S, Naitoh Y, Ochiai A, Mizutani Y, et al. Efficacy of sildenafil for Japanese patients with audio-visual sexual stimulation (AVSS) test by the RigiScan Plus. Arch Androl. 2006;52:163–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Musi G, Russo A, Conti A, Mistretta FA, Di Trapani E, Luzzago S, et al. Thulium–yttrium–aluminium–garnet (Tm:YAG) laser treatment of penile cancer: oncological results, functional outcomes, and quality of life. World J Urol. 2018;36:265–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Windahl T, Skeppner E, Andersson SO, Fugl-Meyer KS. Sexual function and satisfaction in men after laser treatment for penile carcinoma. J Urol. 2004;172:648–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Skeppner E, Windahl T, Andersson SO, Fugl-Meyer KS. Treatment-seeking, aspects of sexual activity and life satisfaction in men with laser-treated penile carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2008;54:631–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Jakobsen JK, Sørensen CM, Krarup KP, Jensen JB. Quality of life, voiding and sexual function of penile cancer patients: DaPeCa-10-a cross-sectional questionnaire survey. BJUI Compass. 2022;3:354–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Palminteri E, Fusco F, Berdondini E, Salonia A. Aesthetic neo-glans reconstruction after penis-sparing surgery for benign, premalignant or malignant penile lesions. Arab J Urol. 2011;9:115–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Beech BB, Chapman DW, Rourke KF. Clinical outcomes of glansectomy with split-thickness skin graft reconstruction for localized penile cancer. Can Urol Assoc J. 2020;14:E482–e486.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Harju E, Pakarainen T, Vasarainen H, Törnävä M, Helminen M, Perttilä I, et al. Health-Related quality of life, self-esteem and sexual functioning among patients operated for penile cancer - a cross-sectional study. J Sex Med. 2021;18:1524–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Tewari M, Kumar M, Shukla HS. Nd:YAG laser treatment of early stage carcinoma of the penis preserves form and function of penis. Asian J Surg. 2007;30:126–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Morelli G, Pagni R, Mariani C, Campo G, Menchini-Fabris F, Minervini R, et al. Glansectomy with split-thickness skin graft for the treatment of penile carcinoma. Int J Impot Res. 2009;21:311–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. O’Kane HF, Pahuja A, Ho KJ, Thwaini A, Nambirajan T, Keane P. Outcome of glansectomy and skin grafting in the management of penile cancer. Adv Urol. 2011;2011:240824.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Carver BS, Mata JA, Venable DD, Eastham JA. Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: a retrospective review of forty-five patients in northwest Louisiana. South Med J. 2002;95:822–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Garaffa G, Raheem AA, Christopher NA, Ralph DJ. Total phallic reconstruction after penile amputation for carcinoma. BJU Int. 2009;104:852–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Croghan SM, Compton N, Daniels AE, Fitzgibbon L, Daly PJ, Cullen IM. Phallus preservation in penile cancer surgery: patient-reported aesthetic & functional outcomes. Urology. 2021;152:60–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Davis SNP, Binik YM, Amsel R, Carrier S. The index of male genital image: a new scale to assess male genital satisfaction. J Urol. 2013;190:1335–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Wan X, Zheng D, Liu C, Xu H, Xie M, Zhou J, et al. A Comparative study of two types of organ-sparing surgeries for early stage penile cancer: wide local excision vs partial penectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44:1425–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sansalone S, Silvani M, Leonardi R, Vespasiani G, Iacovelli V. Sexual outcomes after partial penectomy for penile cancer: results from a multi-institutional study. Asian J Androl. 2017;19:57–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Althof SE, Corty EW, Levine SB, Levine F, Burnett AL, McVary K, et al. EDITS: development of questionnaires for evaluating satisfaction with treatments for erectile dysfunction. Urology. 1999;53:793–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Gulino G, Sasso F, Palermo G, D’Onofrio A, Racioppi M, Sacco E, et al. Sexual outcomes after organ potency-sparing surgery and glans reconstruction in patients with penile carcinoma. Indian J Urol. 2013;29:119–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Bigelow DA, Young DJ. Effectiveness of a case management program. Community Ment Health J. 1991;27:115–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Raskin Y, Vanthoor J, Milenkovic U, Muneer A, Albersen M. Organ-sparing surgical and nonsurgical modalities in primary penile cancer treatment. Curr Opin Urol. 2019;29:156–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Tang DH, Yan S, Ottenhof SR, Draeger DL, Baumgarten AS, Chipollini JJ, et al. Laser ablation as monotherapy for penile squamous cell carcinoma: A multi-center cohort analysis. Urol Oncol. 2018;36:147–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Morris BJ, Krieger JN. The contrasting evidence concerning the effect of male circumcision on sexual function, sensation, and pleasure: a systematic review. Sex Med. 2020;8:577–98.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Sedigh O, Falcone M, Ceruti C, Timpano M, Preto M, Oderda M, et al. Sexual function after surgical treatment for penile cancer: which organ-sparing approach gives the best results? Can Urol Assoc J. 2015;9:E423–427.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Li J, Zhu Y, Zhang SL, Wang CF, Yao XD, Dai B, et al. Organ-sparing surgery for penile cancer: complications and outcomes. Urology. 2011;78:1121–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Cilio S, Tufano A, Pezone G, Alvino P, Spena G, Pandolfo SD, et al. Sexual outcomes after conservative management for patients with localized penile cancer. Curr Oncol. 2023;30:10501–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Preto M, Falcone M, Blecher G, Capece M, Cocci A, Timpano M, et al. Functional and patient reported outcomes following total glans resurfacing. J Sex Med. 2021;18:1099–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Pang KH, Muneer A, Alnajjar HM. Glansectomy and reconstruction for penile cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol Focus. 2022;8:1318–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. O’Kelly F, Lonergan P, Lundon D, Nason G, Sweeney P, Cullen I, et al. A prospective study of total glans resurfacing for localized penile cancer to maximize oncologic and functional outcomes in a tertiary referral network. J Urol. 2017;197:1258–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Hadway P, Corbishley CM, Watkin NA. Total glans resurfacing for premalignant lesions of the penis: initial outcome data. BJU Int. 2006;98:532–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Pérez J, Chavarriaga J, Ortiz A, Orrego P, Rueda S, Quiroga W, et al. Oncological and functional outcomes after organ-sparing plastic reconstructive surgery for penile cancer. Urology. 2020;142:161–5.e161.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Zimmermann EF, Embury-Young Y, Dickerson D, Manjunath A. Sexual and urinary function after organ sparing surgery for penile cancer: a questionnaire study of consecutive patients over a 3-year period in a single region. J Clin Urol. 2024;17:424–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Cakir OO, Schifano N, Venturino L, Pozzi E, Castiglione F, Alnajjar HM, et al. Surgical technique and outcomes following coronal-sparing glans resurfacing for benign and malignant penile lesions. Int J Impot Res. 2022;34:495–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Parnham AS, Albersen M, Sahdev V, Christodoulidou M, Nigam R, Malone P, et al. Glansectomy and split-thickness skin graft for penile cancer. Eur Urol. 2018;73:284–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Falcone M, Preto M, Blecher G, Timpano M, Peretti F, Ferro I, et al. The outcomes of glansectomy and split thickness skin graft reconstruction for invasive penile cancer confined to glans. Urology. 2022;165:250–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Scarberry K, Angermeier KW, Montague D, Campbell S, Wood HM. Outcomes for organ-preserving surgery for penile cancer. Sex Med. 2015;3:62–66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Monteiro LL, Skowronski R, Brimo F, Carvalho PDCN, Vasconcelos RAL, Pacheco C, et al. Erectile function after partial penectomy for penile cancer. Int Braz J Urol. 2021;47:515–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Romero FR, Romero KR, Mattos MA, Garcia CR, Fernandes Rde C, Perez MD. Sexual function after partial penectomy for penile cancer. Urology. 2005;66:1292–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Vreeburg M, van Harten M, de Vries H-M, de Ligt K, van Muilekom E, van Kesteren J, et al. Quality of life after penile cancer surgery: comparison between amputative and penile-sparing surgery. Paris, France: EAU;; 2024.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Chaubey A, Tiwari S, Suryavanshi P, Jain V. Quality of life evaluation after partial penile amputation for penile cancer. Ann Afr Med. 2024;23:352–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Whyte E, Sutcliffe A, Keegan P, Clifford T, Matu J, Shannon OM, et al. Effects of partial penectomy for penile cancer on sexual function: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2022;17:e0274914.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. D’Ancona CA, Botega NJ, De Moraes C, Lavoura NS Jr., Santos JK. Rodrigues Netto N, Jr. Quality of life after partial penectomy for penile carcinoma. Urology. 1997;50:593–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Suarez-Ibarrola R, Cortes-Telles A, Miernik A. Health-related quality of life and sexual function in patients treated for penile cancer. Urol Int. 2018;101:351–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Alei G, Letizia P, Sorvillo V, Alei L, Ricottilli F, Scuderi N. Lichen sclerosus in patients with squamous cell carcinoma. Our experience with partial penectomy and reconstruction with ventral fenestrated flap. Ann Ital Chir. 2012;83:363–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Elst L, Vreeburg M, Brouwer O, Albersen M. Challenges in organ-sparing surgery for penile cancer: what are the limits? Eur Urol Focus. 2023;9:241–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. de Vries HM, Chipollini J, Slongo J, Boyd F, Korkes F, Albersen M, et al. Outcomes of perineal urethrostomy for penile cancer: a 20-year international multicenter experience. Urol Oncol. 2021;39:500.e509–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Sosnowski R, Kulpa M, Kosowicz M, Wolski JK, Kuczkiewicz O, Moskal K, et al. Quality of life in penile carcinoma patients - post-total penectomy. Cent European J Urol. 2016;69:204–11.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Sosnowski R, Wolski JK, Kulpa M, Ziętalewicz U, Kosowicz M, Kalinowski T, et al. Assessment of quality of life in patients surgically treated for penile cancer: Impact of aggressiveness in surgery. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2017;31:1–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Bhat GS, Nelivigi G, Barude V, Shastry A. Sexuality in surgically treated carcinoma penis patients and their partners. Indian J Surg. 2018;80:19–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Lee WG, Christopher AN, Ralph DJ. Phalloplasty following penectomy for penile cancer. Asian J Urol. 2022;9:460–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Sakalis VI, Campi R, Barreto L, Perdomo HG, Greco I, Zapała Ł, et al. 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. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;40:58–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Sosnowski R, Wolski JK, Zi Talewicz U, Szyma Ski M, Baku AR, Demkow T. Assessment of selected quality of life domains in patients who have undergone conservative or radical surgical treatment for penile cancer: an observational study. Sex Health. 2019;16:32–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Kieffer JM, Djajadiningrat RS, van Muilekom EA, Graafland NM, Horenblas S, Aaronson NK. Quality of life for patients treated for penile cancer. J Urol. 2014;192:1105–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Hakenberg OW, Dräger DL, Erbersdobler A, Naumann CM, Jünemann KP, Protzel C. The diagnosis and treatment of penile cancer. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2018;115:646–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Menon NS, Noronha V, Patil VM, Joshi A, Bhattacharjee A, Kalra D, et al. Quality of life in patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma undergoing concurrent chemoradiation with once-a-week versus once-every-3-weeks cisplatin. Cancer Med. 2022;11:3939–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Schwartz S, Plawecki HM. Consequences of chemotherapy on the sexuality of patients with lung cancer. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2002;6:212–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Incrocci L, Jensen PT. Pelvic radiotherapy and sexual function in men and women. J Sex Med. 2013;10:53–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Draeger DL, Sievert KD, Hakenberg OW. Cross-sectional patient-reported outcome measuring of health-related quality of life with establishment of cancer- and treatment-specific functional and symptom scales in patients with penile cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2018;16:e1215–e1220.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Vignes S. Genital lymphedema after cancer treatment: a narrative review. Cancers. 2022;14:5809.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Lau K, Patel S, Rogers K, Smith S, Riba M. Cancer-related lymphedema and psychological distress. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2024;26:635–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Alnajjar HM, Castiglione F, Ahmed K, Haider A, Nigam R, Muneer A. A novel ‘Batman’ scrotectomy technique for the management of scrotal lymphoedema following treatment for penile cancer. Transl Androl Urol. 2019;8:448–56.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Leone A, Diorio GJ, Pettaway C, Master V, Spiess PE. Contemporary management of patients with penile cancer and lymph node metastasis. Nat Rev Urol. 2017;14:335–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Paterson C, Primeau C, Bowker M, Jensen B, MacLennan S, Yuan Y, et al. What are the unmet supportive care needs of men affected by penile cancer? a systematic review of the empirical evidence. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2020;48:101805.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Bullen K, Edwards S, Marke V, Matthews S. Looking past the obvious: experiences of altered masculinity in penile cancer. Psychooncology. 2010;19:933–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Bullen K, Matthews S, Edwards S, Marke V. Exploring men’s experiences of penile cancer surgery to improve rehabilitation. Nurs Times. 2009;105:20–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Witty K, Branney P, Evans J, Bullen K, White A, Eardley I. The impact of surgical treatment for penile cancer - patients’ perspectives. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2013;17:661–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Stulhofer A, Jurin T, Graham C, Enzlin P, Træen B. Sexual well-being in older men and women: construction and validation of a multi-dimensional measure in four European countries. J Happiness Stud. 2019;20:2329–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Sandberg L. Just feeling a naked body close to you: men, sexuality and intimacy in later life. Sexualities. 2013;16:261–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Müller B, Nienaber CA, Reis O, Kropp P, Meyer W. Sexuality and affection among elderly German men and women in long-term relationships: results of a prospective population-based study. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e111404.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Mitchell KR, Mercer CH, Ploubidis GB, Jones KG, Datta J, Field N, et al. Sexual function in Britain: findings from the third national survey of sexual attitudes and lifestyles (Natsal-3). Lancet. 2013;382:1817–29.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Santos-Iglesias P, Byers ES, Moglia R. Sexual well-being of older men and women. Can J Hum Sex. 2016;25:86–98.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Hald GM, Graham C, Štulhofer A, Carvalheira A, Janssen E, Træen B. Prevalence of sexual problems and associated distress in aging men across 4 European countries. J Sex Med. 2019;16:1212–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Štulhofer A, Jurin T, Graham C, Janssen E, Træen B. Emotional intimacy and sexual well-being in aging European couples: a cross-cultural mediation analysis. Eur J Ageing. 2020;17:43–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Jovanović D, Aćimović M, Pejčić T, Milojević B, Čegar B, Zeković M, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of quality of life in penile cancer patients following surgical treatment. Healthcare. 2023;11:3091.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

CR (11A3825N) and KV (1177325N) are predoctoral scholars of the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO). This review was written as part of a seeding grant for “Kom Op Tegen Kanker – KOTK” endowed to ED and MA. MA receives a fundamental research mandate of the Belgian Foundation Against Cancer (STK). ED received a Starting Grant from KU Leuven.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Camille Roumieux, Kaat Vandermaesen.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Camille Roumieux & Eline Dancet

  2. Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Kaat Vandermaesen & Maarten Albersen

Authors
  1. Camille Roumieux
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kaat Vandermaesen
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eline Dancet
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maarten Albersen
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception and design: MA, CR and KV. Data acquisition: CR and KV. Synthesis and interpretation of data: CR and KV. Drafting of Manuscript: CR and KV. Critical revision of manuscript: CR, KV, ED and MA. Supervision: ED and MA. Approval of the final manuscript: CR, KV, ED and MA.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maarten Albersen.

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

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roumieux, C., Vandermaesen, K., Dancet, E. et al. Penile cancer treatment and sexuality: a narrative review. Int J Impot Res 37, 699–710 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-025-01095-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-025-01095-6

Search

Advanced search

Quick links