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:

Comment on article on complications of total vs partial penectomy

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 37, pages 717–718 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Penile cancer is a rare malignancy in the western world, and is increasing in incidence [1,2,3]. Most primary and secondary care clinicians rarely manage this condition except in countries where such conditions and their management are centralised to subspecialist centres e.g. in the UK. The article by Vasqualez et al. [4] outlining the 30 day complications of Total Penectomy (TP) and Partial Penectomy (PP) is welcome. The authors utilise retrospective and historic data over a 10 year period from the NSQIP (National Surgical Quality Improvement Programme) database with data from various centres and surgeons’ outcomes. To-date there hasn’t been any data on direct comparison of these two surgeries and expected postoperative outcomes. Vasqualez et al. showed that TP is a more invasive procedure and has a greater risk of complications within 30 days of surgery as compared to PP [4].

Like most surgery involving malignancies, goals of oncological outcomes usually are paramount to those of functional outcomes. Survival is dictated largely by stage, with early detection and management, especially of recurrent disease or metastatic groyne disease being key to better survival.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

References

  1. Fu L, Tian T, Yao K, Chen X, 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. Cancer Research UK. Penile Cancer incidence trends over time. 2021. Access date July 2024. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/penile-cancer#heading-One.

  3. Wenzel M, Siron N, Ruvolo C, Nocera L, Würnschimmel C, Tian Z, et al. Temporal trends, tumor characteristics and stage-specific survival in penile non- squamous cell carcinoma vs. squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Causes Control. 2022;33:25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Velasquez DA, Liu A, Kalidoss S, Yeaman C, Bryk D, Fustok J, 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.

  5. Roussel E, Peeters E, Vanthoor J, Bozzini G, Muneer A, Ayres B, et al. Predictors of local recurrence and its impact on survival after glansectomy for penile cancer: time to challenge the dogma? BJU Int. 2021;127:606.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Minhas S, Kayes O, Hegarty P, Kumar P, Freeman A, Ralph D. What surgical resection margins are required to achieve oncological control in men with primary penile cancer? BJU Int. 2005;96:1040–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Brennan J. Adjustment to cancer - coping or personal transition? Psychooncology. 2001;10:1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Branney P, Witty K, Braybrook D, Bullen K, White A, Eardley I. Mortality and sexuality after diagnosis of penile cancer: a participative study. Int J Urol Nurs. 2016;10:137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Simpson WG, Klaasan Z, Jen R, Hughes W 5th, Neal D Jr, Terris M. Analysis of suicide risk in patients with penile cancer and review of the literature. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2018;16:e257.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK

    C. J. Shukla

Authors
  1. C. J. Shukla
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All contributions were from the single author.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. J. Shukla.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares 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

Shukla, C.J. Comment on article on complications of total vs partial penectomy. Int J Impot Res 37, 717–718 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-024-00976-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-024-00976-6

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links