Oncological and Functional Outcomes After Organ-Sparing Plastic Reconstructive Surgery for Penile Cancer


      To describe oncological and functional outcomes in patients treated with reconstructive organ-sparing surgery (OSS) for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Plastic reconstructive OSS of the penis with a split thickness skin graft has been proposed as a treatment option for penile cancer, with the objective being preservation of physiological voiding and sexual function without comprising oncological control.


      Multicenter study reporting clinicopathological data of 57 patients with malignant lesions of the penis treated with OSS and plastic reconstructive surgery with split thickness skin graft from 2007 to 2019. Health related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed with EuroQoL-5D-3L, urinary symptoms with the International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire for Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms, and erectile function with the International Index of erectile function (IIEF)-5.


      Fifty-seven patients underwent OSS reconstructive surgery. Twenty underwent glans resurfacing, 23 partial penectomy, and 14 glansectomy. Median age was 55.1 years (interquartile range [IQR] 29-90), median follow-up 55.7 months (3-149). At the time of data analysis, 6 patients had died of Squamous Cell Carcinoma (SCC) (12.5%) and 10 (17.8%) had progressed. Kaplan-Meier estimates showed a 5-year survival rate of 87.5% and a 5-year progression-free survival of 83%. We assessed HRQoL and functional outcomes in 32 patients. EuroQol 5D-3L showed a mean health status of 82.5%, median Voiding score of the ICIQ-MLTUS was 4 (IQR 1-15), and median IIEF-5 19 (IQR 10.75-25).


      OSS of the penis remains a safe and viable option for the treatment of SCC, ensuring a favorable appearance of the penis, preserving urinary and sexual function, with good HRQoL and without comprising oncological safety in selected cases.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Acosta-Guevara C
        • Calderón-Carvajal L
        • Torres L
        • Rosselli D
        Cáncer de pene y sexo con animales: a propósito de un caso.
        Urol Colomb. 2017; 26: 144-147
        • Barnholtz-Sloan JS
        • Maldonado JL
        • Pow-sang J
        • Guiliano AR
        Incidence trends in primary malignant penile cancer.
        Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig. 2007; 25: 361-367
      1. Ancona LD, Jo N, Lavoura DAS, Khater J. of Life After Partial Penectomy. 1997;593–6.

        • Lindner AK
        • Schachtner G
        • Steiner E
        • et al.
        Organ-sparing surgery of penile cancer: higher rate of local recurrence yet no impact on overall survival.
        World J Urol. 2020; 38 (Available from:): 417-424
        • Djajadiningrat RS
        • Van Werkhoven E
        • Meinhardt W
        • et al.
        Penile sparing surgery for penile cancer - does it affect survival?.
        J Urol. 2014; 192 (Available from:): 120-126
        • Li J
        • Zhu Y
        • Zhang SL
        • et al.
        Organ-sparing surgery for penile cancer: complications and outcomes.
        Urology. 2011; 78: 1121-1124
        • Kamel MH
        • Bissada N
        • Warford R
        • Farias J
        • Davis R
        Organ sparing surgery for penile cancer: a systematic review.
        J Urol. 2017; 198 (Available from:): 770-779
        • Scarberry K
        • Angermeier KW
        • Montague D
        • Campbell S
        • Wood HM
        Outcomes for organ-preserving surgery for penile cancer.
        Sex Med. 2015; 3: 62-66
        • Maddineni SB
        • Lau MM
        • Sangar VK
        Identifying the needs of penile cancer sufferers: a systematic review of the quality of life, psychosexual and psychosocial literature in penile cancer.
        BMC Urol. 2009; 9 (Available from:): 8
        • Perez-Niño J
        • Fernandez N
        • Sarmiento G
        Actas Urológicas Españolas Penectomía parcial y reconstrucción peneana.
        Manejo quirúrgico. 2014; 38: 62-65
      2. Niño P, Jaime F, Schlessinger A, Ramos L, López H. Reconstrucción de pene en pacientes con cáncer. 2008;XVII:62–5.

        • Bracka A
        Surgery illustrated—surgical atlas: Glans resection and plastic repair.
        BJU Int. 2010; 105: 136-144
        • Janssen MF
        • Szende A
        • Cabases J
        • Ramos-Goñi JM
        • Vilagut G
        • König HH
        Population norms for the EQ-5D-3L: a cross-country analysis of population surveys for 20 countries.
        Eur J Heal Econ. 2019; 20 (Available from:): 205-216
        • Huang W
        • Wang Q
        • Chen J
        • Wu P
        Development and validation of the International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire for Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (ICIQ-MLUTS) and the ICIQ-MLUTS Long Form in Chinese population.
        LUTS Low Urin Tract Symptoms. 2019; : 1-6
        • Zegarra L
        • Loza C
        • Pérez V
        Validación Psicométrica Del Instrumento Índice Internacional De Función Eréctil En Pacientes Con Disfunción Eréctil En Perú Psychometric Validation of the International Index of Erectile Function in Patients With Erectile Dysfunction in Peru.
        Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica. 2011; 28: 477-483
      3. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. “NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: penile cancer.” (2019). 1-48.

        • Heyns CF
        • Fleshner N
        • Sangar V
        • Schlenker B
        • Yuvaraja TB
        • Van Poppel H
        Management of the lymph nodes in penile cancer.
        Urology. 2010; 76 (S43–57. Available from:)
        • Tillett JW
        • St. Luce S
        • Heredia-Melero G
        • Issa MM.
        Successful penile preservation surgery for large proximal penile carcinoma: 7-year follow-up.
        Urology. 2006; 67 (1290.e13-1290.e14)
        • Gómez-Ferrer Á
        • Rubio-Briones J
        • Collado A
        • et al.
        Reconstrucción del glande con injerto cutáneo libre según técnica de Bracka.
        Actas Urol Esp. 2011; 35: 180-183
        • Hadway P
        • Corbishley CM
        • Watkin NA
        Total glans resurfacing for premalignant lesions of the penis: Initial outcome data.
        BJU Int. 2006; 98: 532-536
        • Kamel MH
        • Tao J
        • Su J
        • et al.
        Survival outcomes of organ sparing surgery, partial penectomy, and total penectomy in pathological T1/T2 penile cancer: report from the national cancer database.
        Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig. 2018; 36 (82.e7-82.e15. Available from:)
        • 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: 1040-1043
        • Jackson MJ
        • Sciberras J
        • Mangera A
        • et al.
        Defining a patient-reported outcome measure for urethral stricture surgery.
        Eur Urol. 2011; 60: 60-68
        • Yu C
        • Hequn C
        • Longfei L
        • et al.
        Sexual function after partial penectomy: a Prospectively Study from China.
        Sci Rep. 2016; 6 (Available from:): 4-7
        • Sedigh O
        • Falcone M
        • Ceruti C
        • et al.
        Sexual function after surgical treatment for penile cancer: Which organ-sparing approach gives the best results?.
        Can Urol Assoc J. 2015; 9: 423