EUROPEAN UROLOGY 67 (2015) 142–150

available at www.sciencedirect.com
journal homepage: www.europeanurology.com

Guidelines

EAU Guidelines on Penile Cancer: 2014 Update

Oliver W. Hakenberg a,*, Eva M. Compérat b, Suks Minhas c, Andrea Necchi d, Chris Protzel a,
Nick Watkin e
a
Department of Urology, University Hospital Rostock, Rostock, Germany; b Department of Pathology, Hôpital La Pitié-Salpétrière, Université Pierre et Marie
Curie University Paris VI, Paris, France; c Department of Urology, University College Hospital, London, UK; d
Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione
IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy; e Department of Urology, St George’s Hospital, London, UK

Article info Abstract

Article history: Context: Penile cancer has high mortality once metastatic spread has occurred. Local
Accepted October 8, 2014 treatment can be mutilating and devastating for the patient. Progress has been made in
organ-preserving local treatment, lymph node management, and multimodal treatment
of lymphatic metastases, requiring an update of the European Association of Urology
Keywords: guidelines.
Penile cancer Objective: To provide an evidence-based update of treatment recommendations based
Squamous cell carcinoma on the literature published since 2008.
Evidence acquisition: A PubMed search covering the period from August 2008 to
Lymph node
November 2013 was performed, and 352 full-text papers were reviewed. Levels of
Invasive disease evidence were assessed and recommendations graded. Because there is a lack of
Metastasis controlled trials or large series, the levels of evidence and grades of recommendation
Surgery are low compared with those for more common diseases.
Evidence synthesis: Penile squamous cell carcinoma occurs in distinct histologic var-
Laser
iants, some of which are related to human papilloma virus infection; others are not.
Chemotherapy Primary local treatment should be organ preserving, if possible. There are no outcome
Reconstruction differences between local treatment modes in superficial and T1 disease. Management
Follow-up of inguinal lymph nodes is crucial for prognosis. In impalpable nodes, invasive staging
Quality of life should be done depending on the risk factors of the primary tumour. Lymph node
metastases should be treated by surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy in N2/N3 disease.
Guidelines
Conclusions: Organ preservation has become the standard approach to low-stage penile
European Association of Urology cancer, whereas in lymphatic disease, it is recognised that multimodal treatment with
radical inguinal node surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy improves outcome.
Patient summary: Approximately 80% of penile cancer patients of all stages can be
cured. With increasing experience in the management of penile cancer, it is recognized
that organ-preserving treatment allows for better quality of life and sexual function and
should be offered to all patients whenever feasible. Referral to centres with experience is
recommended.
# 2014 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author. University of Rostock, Department of Urology, PO Box 10 08 88, D-18055

Rostock, Germany. Tel. +49 381 494 7801; Fax: +49 381 494 7802.
E-mail address: oliver.hakenberg@med.uni-rostock.de (O.W. Hakenberg).

1. Introduction occurred. Local treatment can be mutilating and devastat-

ing for the psychological well-being of the patient.
Penile cancer can be cured in approximately 80% of cases Treatment requires careful diagnosis, adequate staging,
but has a poor prognosis once metastatic spread has and as much organ preservation as possible.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.017
0302-2838/# 2014 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 EUROPEAN UROLOGY 67 (2015) 142–150
The European Association of Urology Guidelines Group
on Penile Cancer has updated this guideline document to
assist medical professionals in the management of this
disease. The penile cancer guidelines were first published in
2001 and updated in 2004 and 2009.
2. Evidence acquisition
A systematic PubMed search covering the period from
August 2008 to November 2013 retrieved 1602 unique
records, of which 1020 were excluded (exclusion criteria:
case reports, reviews, and non–English language literature).
A total of 582 abstracts were assessed, resulting in 352 full-
text papers for panel review. Levels of evidence (LEs) were
assessed and grades of recommendation (GRs) were
assigned [1]. For penile cancer, there is a lack of controlled
trials or large series. The LEs and GRs are low compared with
those for more common diseases.
3. Evidence synthesis
3.1. Epidemiology and risk factors
The majority of penile carcinoma is squamous cell
carcinoma (SCC), but other types occur. It usually originates
from the inner prepuce or the glans. There are several
histologic subtypes. It shares similar pathology with SCC of
other origins.
In Europe and North America, penile cancer has low
incidence (<1 per 100 000) that increases with age, with a
peak during the sixth decade, but it also occurs in younger
men [2,3]. In South America, Southeast Asia, and parts of
Africa, the incidence is much higher, accounting for up to
1–2% of malignancies in men [2].
In the United States, where the overall age-adjusted
incidence rate decreased between 1973 and 2002 from
0.84 to 0.58 per 100 000, it varies by race and ethnicity,
with the highest incidence occurring among Hispanics.
In Europe, incidence has been stable, but increased
incidence has been reported in Denmark and the United
Kingdom [4].
Penile cancer is common in regions with high prevalence
of human papilloma virus (HPV), and this may account for
the geographic variation in incidence. One-third of cases
can be attributed to HPV-related carcinogenesis. No data
link penile cancer to HIV or AIDS.
HPV DNA has been identified in 30–40% of penile cancer
tissue (LE: 2a) with variation among the histologic
subtypes: High HPV prevalence is found in basaloid SCC
(76%), mixed warty-basaloid SCC (82%), and warty penile
SCC (39%). Verrucous and papillary penile SCCs are HPV
negative. HPV is probably a cofactor in the carcinogenesis of
only some variants of penile SCC [5]. The most frequently
found HPV types in penile SCC are HPV 16 (72%), HPV 6 (9%),
and HPV 18 (6%). The risk of penile cancer is increased with
condylomata acuminata (LE: 2b). Better disease-specific
survival has been reported for HPV-positive versus HPV-
negative cases (93% vs 78%), but data are conflicting
143
[6]. There is no association between the incidence of penile
cancer and cervical cancer [7].
Phimosis is strongly associated with penile cancer
(odds ratio [OR]: 11.4), but smegma is not a carcinogen
[8]. Other epidemiologic risk factors include cigarette
smoking (4.5-fold increased risk; 95% confidence interval
[CI], 2.0–10.1) and low educational and socioeconomic
status [9]. The incidence of lichen sclerosus (balanitis
xerotica obliterans) in penile cancer is relatively high but is
not associated with adverse features.
Neonatal circumcision reduces the incidence of penile
cancer, but adult circumcision does not. The lowest
incidence is reported for Israeli Jews (0.3 per 100 000 per
year). Circumcision removes about 50% of the tissue from
which penile cancer originates. The protective effect of
neonatal circumcision (OR: 0.41) does not apply to
carcinoma in situ (CIS; OR: 1.0) and is weaker when the
analysis is restricted to men without phimosis (OR: 0.79;
95% CI, 0.29–2).
3.2. Pathology and classification
It is unknown how often SCC is preceded by premalignant
lesions (Table 1) [10,11]. Distinct histologic variants with
different growth patterns, clinical aggressiveness, and HPV
association have been identified (Tables 1 and 2). Numerous
mixed forms exist.
The TNM classification stratifies T1 into two risk groups
depending on lymphovascular invasion and grade (Table 3).
Lymph node metastasis with extracapsular extension is
staged as pN3 [14]. Retroperitoneal lymph node metastases
are classified as extraregional distant metastases.
Invasion of the corpus spongiosum and the corpora
cavernosa are both staged as pT2, although local recurrence
rate (35% vs 17%) and mortality (30% vs 21%) differ (LE: 2b).
Long-term survival in T2 and T3 as well as N1 and N2
disease does not differ significantly (LE: 2a). In addition, pT3
tumours invading the distal urethra are not associated with
worse outcome.
3.2.1. Biopsy and histology
The diagnosis of penile cancer is often without doubt, but in
doubtful cases and if nonablative treatment is planned,
histologic verification is mandatory. Small lesions should be
totally included, and bigger lesions should have at least
Table 1 – Premalignant penile lesions (precursor lesions)
Lesions sporadically associated with SCC of the penis:
 Cutaneous horn of the penis
 Bowenoid papulosis of the penis
 Lichen sclerosus (balanitis xerotica obliterans)
Premalignant lesions (up to one-third transform to invasive SCC):
 Intraepithelial neoplasia grade III
 Giant condylomata (Buschke-Löwenstein)
 Erythroplasia of Queyrat
 Bowen’s disease
 Paget’s disease (intradermal ADK)
SCC = squamous cell carcinoma.
144 EUROPEAN UROLOGY 67 (2015) 142–150

Table 2 – Histologic subtypes of penile carcinomas, their frequency, and outcome

Subtype Frequency, % of cases Prognosis

Common SCC 48-65 Depends on location, stage, and grade

Basaloid carcinoma 4–10 Poor prognosis, frequently early inguinal nodal metastasis
Warty carcinoma 7–10 Good prognosis, metastasis rare
Verrucous carcinoma 3–8 Good prognosis, no metastasis
Papillary carcinoma 5–15 Good prognosis, metastasis rare
Sarcomatoid carcinoma 1–3 Very poor prognosis, early vascular metastasis
Mixed carcinoma 9–10 Heterogeneous group
Pseudohyperplastic carcinoma <1 Foreskin, related to lichen sclerosus, good prognosis, metastasis not reported
Carcinoma cuniculatum <1 Variant of verrucous carcinoma, good prognosis, metastasis not reported
Pseudoglandular carcinoma <1 High-grade carcinoma, early metastasis, poor prognosis
Warty-basaloid carcinoma 9–14 Poor prognosis, high metastatic potential [12] (higher than in warty, lower than
in basaloid SCC)
Adenosquamous carcinoma <1 Central and perimeatal glans, high-grade carcinoma, high metastatic potential
but low mortality
Mucoepidermoid carcinoma <1 Highly aggressive, poor prognosis
Clear cell variant of penile carcinoma 1–2 Exceedingly rare, associated with HPV, aggressive, early metastasis, poor
prognosis, outcome lesion dependent, frequent lymphatic metastasis [13]

HPV = human papilloma virus; SCC = squamous cell carcinoma.

three or four blocks. Lymph nodes and surgical margins
have to be totally included. The pathology report has to
include the histologic variant, grade, perineural and
vascular invasion, and surgical margins.
With an average biopsy size of 0.1 cm, there is difficulty
in evaluating the depth of invasion in 91% [11]. Although
a punch biopsy may be sufficient, an excisional biopsy
is preferable. The width of negative surgical margins
should follow a grade-based risk-adapted strategy, and a
5-mm tumour-free tissue margin is considered sufficient
[15].
3.2.2. Prognostic factors
Perineural and lymphatic invasion and grade are prognostic
predictors. Grading has been shown to be highly observer
dependent [16]. Some types of penile SCC have good
prognosis: verrucous, papillary, warty, pseudohyperplastic,
and carcinoma cuniculatum. These types are locally
destructive but metastasize rarely. High-risk variants are
the basaloid, sarcomatoid, adenosquamous, and poorly
differentiated types, which metastasize early. An interme-
diate-risk group comprises the usual SCCs, mixed forms,
and the pleomorphic form of warty carcinomas. Carcinomas
limited to the foreskin have better prognosis.
3.2.3. Molecular biology
Sparse data link chromosomal abnormalities in penile SCC
to biological behaviour. DNA copy number alterations are
comparable to those found in SCC of other origins. Lower
copy and alteration numbers have been linked to poor
survival. Alterations in the locus 8q24 seem to play a major
role [17].
Epigenetic alterations of CpG island methylation in
CDKN2A have been found. This encodes for two tumour-
suppressor proteins (p16INK4A and p14ARF). Moreover, 62%
of invasive penile cancers display allelic loss of p16, and this
has been linked to lymph node metastasis and prognosis
[18]. Allelic loss of the p53 gene occurs in 42% [19] and has
been linked to poor prognosis [20].
3.3. Diagnosis and staging
Physical examination should include palpation of the penis
and the inguinal regions. Ultrasound or magnetic resonance
(MR) with an artificial erection can give information about
infiltration of the corpora [21,22]. Penile carcinoma is often
clinically obvious but can be hidden under a phimosis.
In clinically normal inguinal nodes, the likelihood of the
presence of micrometastatic disease is approximately 25%.
Current imaging techniques are not reliable in detecting
these micrometastases. Ultrasound (7.5 MHz), computed
tomography (CT), MR imaging (MRI), or F 18 fluorodeoxy-
glucose positron emission tomography/CT (18F-FDG-PET/CT)
scans cannot detect micrometastases reliably [23–25]. An
exception can be made for obese patients in whom palpation
is unreliable.
The diagnostic management with normal inguinal nodes
should be guided by pathologic risk factors including
lymphovascular invasion, stage, and grade [26,27]. Nomo-
grams are unreliable. Invasive lymph node staging is required
in patients at intermediate or high risk of lymphatic spread.
With enlarged inguinal lymph nodes, the presence of
lymph node metastases is very likely. Physical examination
should note the number of nodes and whether these are
fixed or mobile. Staging for pelvic nodes and systemic
disease should be done with abdominopelvic CT and chest
x-ray or CT [28–30] (LE: 2b). 18F-FDG-PET/CT can confirm
metastases in palpable inguinal lymph nodes [25].
There is no tumour marker for penile cancer. The SCC
antigen is increased in <25% and does not predict metastatic
disease but possibly predicts disease-free survival in lymph
node–positive patients [31].
3.4. Treatment of the primary tumour
The aims of treatment are radical tumour removal with as
much organ preservation as possible. Local recurrence in
itself has little influence on long-term survival, so organ-
preservation strategies are justified [32].
 EUROPEAN UROLOGY 67 (2015) 142–150 145

Table 3 – 2009 TNM clinical and pathological classification of For small invasive lesions (Ta/T1a), a penis-preserving
penile cancer [14]
strategy is recommended (GR: C). Circumcision should be
Clinical classification performed and may be sufficient for tumours confined to
the prepuce.
T: Primary tumour
TX Primary tumour cannot be assessed Intraoperative assessment of surgical margins by frozen
T0 No evidence of primary tumour section is recommended (GR: C) [35]. Total removal of the
Tis Carcinoma in situ glans (glansectomy) and prepuce has the lowest local
Ta Non-invasive carcinoma
recurrence rates among the treatment modalities for small
T1 Tumour invades subepithelial connective tissue
T1a Tumour invades subepithelial connective tissue without penile lesions (2%) [35], and a negative surgical margin of
lymphovascular invasion and is not poorly differentiated 5 mm is adequate [35,36].
or undifferentiated (T1G1-2) Treatment choice should depend on tumour size,
T1b Tumour invades subepithelial connective tissue with
lymphovascular invasion or is poorly differentiated
histology, stage and grade, localization relative to the
or undifferentiated (T1G3-4) meatus, and patient preference. Laser ablation can be done
T2 Tumour invades corpus spongiosum and/or corpora cavernosa with a neodymium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Nd:YAG)
T3 Tumour invades urethra laser or a carbon dioxide (CO2) laser [37], and visualisation
T4 Tumour invades other adjacent structures
N: Regional lymph nodes
may be enhanced by photodynamic diagnosis. Local
NX Regional lymph nodes cannot be assessed recurrence rates for laser treatment of CIS/T1 are 14–23%
N0 No palpable or visibly enlarged inguinal lymph node with a CO2 laser and 10–48% with an Nd:YAG laser
N1 Palpable mobile unilateral inguinal lymph node
[37]. Other studies using a variety of laser treatments have
N2 Palpable mobile multiple unilateral or bilateral inguinal
lymph nodes
reported similar results [38]. Local recurrence rates of 0–6%
N3 Fixed inguinal nodal mass or pelvic lymphadenopathy, for total or partial glans resurfacing [34,39,40] and 7–8% for
unilateral or bilateral glansectomy [35,41] have been reported.
M: Distant metastasis
Evidence is insufficient to suggest a difference regarding
M0 No distant metastasis
M1 Distant metastasis outcomes of different penis-sparing strategies that appear
Pathologic classification to have good oncologic results. Organ-sparing treatments
The pT categories correspond to the clinical T categories. The pN including reconstructive surgery improve quality of life, but
categories are based upon biopsy or surgical excision.
the risk of local recurrence is higher than with partial
pN: Regional lymph nodes
pNX Regional lymph nodes cannot be assessed penectomy (5–12% vs 5%). Local recurrence after organ-
pN0 No regional lymph node metastasis sparing surgery has only a small effect on long-term
pN1 Intranodal metastasis in a single inguinal lymph node survival.
pN2 Metastasis in multiple or bilateral inguinal lymph nodes
pN3 Metastasis in pelvic lymph node(s), unilateral or bilateral or
extranodal extension of any regional lymph node metastasis 3.4.2. Radiation therapy for T1/T2 disease
pM: Distant metastasis Radiotherapy gives good results in T1–2 lesions <4 cm in
pM0 No distant metastasis diameter [42,43] (LE: 2b), given as external radiotherapy
pM1 Distant metastasis
(60 Gy) combined with a brachytherapy boost or as
G: Histopathologic grading
GX Grade of differentiation cannot be assessed brachytherapy only [42,43]. Brachytherapy achieves local
G1 Well differentiated control rates of 70–90% [42–44]. Local recurrence rates are
G2 Moderately differentiated higher than after partial penectomy, but salvage surgery can
G3-4 Poorly differentiated/undifferentiated
achieve local control [45]. Complications are not uncom-
mon, with urethral stenosis in 20–35% and glans necrosis in
There are no controlled trials comparing different 10–20%; with brachytherapy, metal stenosis occurs in >40%
treatment modalities. The existing evidence must generally (LE: 3).
be regarded as low. Penile preservation appears to be
superior in functional and cosmetic outcomes. Histologic 3.4.3. Management of regional lymph nodes
diagnosis with local staging must be obtained when Management of regional lymph nodes is decisive for long-
nonsurgical treatment modalities are considered (GR: C). term patient survival. Cure can be achieved in regional
Treatment of the primary tumour and of the regional lymph node disease. Radical inguinal lymphadenectomy
nodes can be done as staged procedures. (ILND) is the treatment of choice (GR: B), but multimodal
treatment with chemotherapy is often indicated.
3.4.1. Treatment of superficial noninvasive disease Lymphatic spread can be uni- or bilateral from any
For CIS, topical chemotherapy with imiquimod or 5- primary penile cancer [46]. The superficial and deep
fluorouracil (5-FU) is a first-line treatment with low toxicity inguinal lymph nodes are the first nodal group reached,
and a complete response rate of up to 57% [33]. It requires with the nodes of the medial superior and central inguinal
close follow-up and should not be repeated in case of zones most commonly affected [47]. The second regional
failure. Other options are laser ablation or total or partial groups are the ipsilateral pelvic lymph nodes. Pelvic
glans resurfacing (complete removal of the glandular nodal disease does not seem to occur without ipsilateral
epithelium and split skin grafting). Histologic verification inguinal disease, and crossover metastatic spread has never
is required because up to 20% of cases have been reported to been reported. Para-aortic and paracaval nodes are classi-
have invasive disease [34]. fied as systemic metastatic disease.
146 EUROPEAN UROLOGY 67 (2015) 142–150
Early ILND in clinically node-negative patients gives
superior survival compared with therapeutic ILND when
regional nodal recurrence has occurred (survival >90% vs
<40%) [32,36,48]. Comparing ILND, inguinal radiotherapy,
and surveillance in node-negative patients, the best overall
survival was reported for surgery (74% vs 66% and 63%,
respectively) [49].
Surveillance for clinically normal nodes carries the risk of
nodal recurrence because 25% of patients will harbour
micrometastatic disease [48,50]. Management with normal
nodes depends on stage, grade, and the presence or absence
of lymphovascular invasion [26]. Moreover, pTa/pTis and
low-grade tumours are at low risk of lymphatic metastasis,
as is well-differentiated pT1, which otherwise is interme-
diate risk; pT2 or higher plus all G3 tumours are high risk
[51]. Surveillance should be offered only to patients with
normal inguinal nodes and low-risk tumours. Fine needle
aspiration cytology does not reliably exclude micrometa-
static disease.
For patients with intermediate- and high-risk tumours
and impalpable nodes, two invasive diagnostic procedures
are available: modified ILND and dynamic sentinel-node
biopsy (DSNB). Modified ILND defines a limited template
whereby the superficial inguinal lymph nodes from at least
the central and both superior Daseler’s zones are removed
[46] (LE: 3). DSNB is based on the assumption that
lymphatic drainage from penile cancer goes to only one
inguinal lymph node on each side, which may be located in
different positions based on individual anatomy. Techne-
tium Tc 99 nanocolloid is injected around the cancer site,
and a gamma-ray probe detects the sentinel node, which is
possible in 97% of cases [52] (GR: B). Some groups have
reported high sensitivity of 90–94% [52,53] (LE: 2b). In a
pooled meta-analysis of 18 studies, sensitivity was 88% and
was 90% with the additional use of patent blue.
Both methods can miss micrometastatic disease
[32]. The false-negative rate of DSNB can be as high as
12–15% even in experienced centres [48,50], whereas that
of modified ILND is not known. If lymph node metastasis is
found with either method, an ipsilateral radical ILND is
indicated.
With palpable inguinal lymph nodes (cN1/cN2), the
likelihood of metastasis is high. Prophylactic antibiotic
treatment is not indicated. Ultrasound-guided fine needle
aspiration cytology can be an option. Additional staging for
pelvic nodes is useful. 18F-FDG-PET/CT can identify metas-
tases in lymph node–positive patients [54]. Dynamic
sentinel node biopsy is unreliable in patients with enlarged
nodes and should not be used (LE: 3).
In node-positive patients, radical ILND is indicated. Radical
ILND has significant morbidity related to lymph drainage and
wound healing. Although morbidity can be as high as 50%,
with increased body mass index being a significant risk factor,
recent studies reported a complication rate of about 25%
[55,56] (LE: 2b). Radical ILND can be curative and may be
underused for fear of associated morbidity. Lymph node
density is a prognostic factor for complications [57].
Surgical technique should be meticulous regarding
tissue handling and closure of lymph vessels, which cannot
be closed by electrocautery, so ligation or clips should be
used [58]. Additional measures such as inguinal pressure
dressings or vacuum suction [59] and prophylactic anti-
biotics can reduce postoperative morbidity. The most
commonly reported complications are wound infections
(1.2–1.4%), skin necrosis (0.6–4.7%), lymphedema (5–13.9%),
and lymphocele formation (2.1–4%) [55,56].
The feasibility of performing laparoscopic and robot-
assisted ILND has been reported. Whether this provides any
advantage is unclear [60,61].
If two or more positive lymph nodes are found or if one
node with extracapsular extension (pN3) is found, ipsilat-
eral pelvic lymphadenectomy is indicated. Positive pelvic
nodes were found in 23% in cases with more than two
positive inguinal nodes and in 56% if three positive inguinal
nodes were found or if extracapsular involvement was
found [36,57] (LE: 2b).
With positive pelvic nodes, the prognosis is worse
compared with pure inguinal nodal metastasis (5-yr cancer-
specific survival of 71.0% vs 33.2%). Pelvic lymphadenecto-
my may be performed simultaneously or as a secondary
procedure. It is important to avoid unnecessary delay if
surgery is indicated [62].
In patients with pN2/pN3 disease, adjuvant chemother-
apy is recommended (GR: C). This is based on one
retrospective study in which survival with adjuvant
chemotherapy was much better than without in a historical
control group (84% vs 39%).
In bulky and fixed inguinal lymph nodes, metastatic
disease is beyond doubt, and histologic verification by
biopsy is not generally required. With reasonable doubt, an
excisional or core needle biopsy may be done. These
patients have poor prognosis, and primary surgery is not
generally recommended because it is unlikely to be curative
(GR: B) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical
ILND in responders is recommended [63,64]. For such
patients, long-term survival of 37% has been reported [63].
3.4.4. Management of lymph node recurrence
Patients with regional recurrence after surveillance should be
treated as patients with primary cN1/cN2 disease. Patients
with regional recurrence following negative invasive staging
have disordered lymphatic anatomy and are at high risk of
irregular metastatic progression. Patients with inguinal
nodal recurrence after therapeutic radical ILND have poor
prognosis, with 5-yr survival of 16% [65]. There is no evidence
for the best management, but neoadjuvant chemotherapy
and radical lymph node surgery are advised.
3.4.4.1. The role of radiotherapy for the treatment of lymph node
disease. Due to a lack of positive evidence, radiotherapy for
inguinal nodal disease in penile cancer is not generally
recommended. Neither neoadjuvant nor adjuvant radio-
therapy has been reported to improve oncologic outcome in
node-positive patients [66]. A prospective trial comparing
inguinal radiotherapy with radical ILND reported superior
results for surgery [49], and in one retrospective series,
adjuvant chemotherapy was superior to adjuvant radio-
therapy in node-positive patients. A Surveillance
 EUROPEAN UROLOGY 67 (2015) 142–150
Epidemiology and End Results database analysis of
2458 patients treated by either surgery alone or surgery
combined with radiotherapy found no positive effect of
adjuvant radiotherapy on cancer-specific survival [67]. Ad-
juvant inguinal radiotherapy may be a palliative option for
surgically unresectable disease.
3.4.4.2. Chemotherapy. In nodal disease, adjuvant chemother-
apy improves survival [63]. A triple-drug regimen contain-
ing cisplatin is recommended when the goal is curative
treatment (LE: 2b). Vincristine, bleomycin, and methotrex-
ate (VBM regimen) is also effective [63], and similar results
were achieved with cisplatin and 5-FU, with lower toxicity
(LE: 2b). A taxane-based regimen (cisplatin and 5-FU plus
paclitaxel or docetaxel) resulted in 52% disease-free
survival, and similar results were obtained with a paclitaxel–
cisplatin regimen [68]. No data support adjuvant chemother-
apy in stage pN1; this approach should be restricted to clinical
trials.
For neoadjuvant treatment in bulky inguinal lymph
nodes (cN3), a triple combination including cisplatin and a
taxane is advisable (LE: 2a; GR: B). Median overall survival
of 17 mo has been reported [69] (LE: 2a).
In advanced cases, the presence of visceral metastases
and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance
status 1 are independent prognostic factors. Cisplatin-
based chemotherapy gives better outcomes than non–
cisplatin-based regimens [70] (LE: 3), and taxanes seem to
have enhanced the efficacy of the regimens used
[32,64,68,69,71–74]. There is only one report of second-
line therapy with paclitaxel monotherapy, showing a 30%
response rate but no survival [74] (LE: 2a; GR: B).
Because epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is
almost invariably expressed in penile SCC [75,76], anti-
EGFR targeted monotherapy with panitumumab and
cetuximab has been used with modest success [77,78]
(LE: 4). The same applies to tyrosine kinase inhibitors [76].
3.5. Follow-up
Recurrence mostly occurs within 2 yr of primary treatment.
Moreover, 74% of all recurrences occur within 2 yr, as do
66% of local recurrences, 86% of regional recurrences, and
100% of distant recurrences. Overall, 92.2% of all recurrences
occurred within the first 5 yr, and all seen after that were
local recurrences or new primary lesions [32].
Intensive follow-up during the first 2 yr is necessary,
with less intensive follow-up thereafter for a minimum of
5 yr. Follow-up should continue thereafter but may be
omitted in patients who reliably carry out self-examination
[32].
In node-negative patients, follow-up includes physical
examination of the penis and the groins; additional imaging
is of no proven value. After laser ablation or topical
chemotherapy, histology may need to be obtained to
ascertain a disease-free status. After curative treatment
for inguinal nodal metastases, imaging by CT or MRI should
be done at 3-mo intervals during the first 2 yr [79].
147
3.5.1. Recurrence
Local recurrence is more likely with all types of local organ-
preserving treatment [32] and occurs during the first 2 yr in
up to 27%. After partial penectomy, the risk of local
recurrence is 4–5% [32]. Patient education for self-
examination is important.
The highest rate of regional recurrence (9%) occurs in
patients under a surveillance strategy, the lowest after
invasive nodal staging with negative nodes (2.3%). Ultra-
sound and fine needle aspiration cytology in doubtful cases
may improve early detection of regional recurrence
[23,80]. After ILND with positive nodes without adjuvant
treatment, the risk of regional recurrence is 19% [32].
3.6. Quality of life
In patients with long-term survival, sexual dysfunction,
voiding problems, and cosmetic appearance are treatment
consequences. In studies after laser treatment, one reported
a marked decrease in some sexual practices but general
satisfaction with life overall; another noted no patient-
reported problems with erectile capability or sexual
function [38]. After glansectomy, 79% of patients did not
report any difference in spontaneous erection, rigidity, or
penetrative capacity [41]. After partial penectomy, 55.6%
reported erectile function that allowed sexual intercourse
but markedly reduced satisfaction [81,82]. After full- or
near-total penile amputation, total phallic reconstruction
can be an option in selected cases.
4. Conclusions
Approximately 80% of penile cancer patients of all stages
can be cured. Partial penectomy has negative consequences
for self-esteem and sexual function. With increasing
experience in the management of penile cancer, it is
recognized that organ-preserving treatment allows for
better quality of life and sexual function and should be
offered to all patients whenever feasible. Referral to centres
with experience is recommended, and psychological
support is very important for penile cancer patients.
Author contributions: Oliver W. Hakenberg had full access to all the data
in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the
accuracy of the data analysis.
Study concept and design: Hakenberg, Compérat, Minhas, Necchi, Protzel,
Watkin.
Acquisition of data: Hakenberg, Compérat, Minhas, Necchi, Protzel,
Watkin.
Analysis and interpretation of data: Hakenberg, Compérat, Minhas, Necchi,
Protzel, Watkin.
Drafting of the manuscript: Hakenberg.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content:
Hakenberg, Compérat, Minhas, Necchi, Protzel, Watkin.
Statistical analysis: None.
Obtaining funding: None.
Administrative, technical, or material support: None.
Supervision: Hakenberg.
Other (specify): None.
148 EUROPEAN UROLOGY 67 (2015) 142–150
Financial disclosures: Oliver W. Hakenberg certifies that all conflicts of
interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and
affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the
manuscript (eg, employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultan-
cies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties,
or patents filed, received, or pending), are the following: None.
Funding/Support and role of the sponsor: None.
References
[1] Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine – levels of evidence
(March 2009). Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Web site. http://
www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-
evidence-march-2009/.
[2] Backes DM, Kurman RJ, Pimenta JM, Smith JS. Systematic review of
human papillomavirus prevalence in invasive penile cancer. Cancer
Causes Control 2009;20:449–57.
[3] Chaux A, Netto GJ, Rodriguez IM, et al. Epidemiologic profile, sexual
history, pathologic features, and human papillomavirus status of
103 patients with penile carcinoma. World J Urol 2013;31:861–7.
[4] Arya M, Li R, Pegler K, et al. Long-term trends in incidence, survival
and mortality of primary penile cancer in England. Cancer Causes
Control 2013;24:2169–76.
[5] Stankiewicz E, Kudahetti SC, Prowse DM, et al. HPV infection and
immunochemical detection of cell-cycle markers in verrucous car-
cinoma of the penis. Mod Pathol 2009;22:1160–8.
[6] Lont AP, Kroon BK, Horenblas S, et al. Presence of high-risk human
papillomavirus DNA in penile carcinoma predicts favorable out-
come in survival. Int J Cancer 2006;119:1078–81.
[7] D’Hauwers KW, Depuydt CE, Bogers JJ, et al. Human papillomavirus,
lichen sclerosus and penile cancer: a study in Belgium. Vaccine
2012;30:6573–7.
[8] Van Howe RS, Hodges FM. The carcinogenicity of smegma: debunk-
ing a myth. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2006;20:1046–54.
[9] Koifman L, Vides AJ, Koifman N, Carvalho JP, Ornellas AA. Epidemi-
ological aspects of penile cancer in Rio de Janeiro: evaluation of
230 cases. Int Braz J Urol 2011;37:231–40, discussion 240–3.
[10] Velazquez EF, Barreto JE, Rodriguez I, Piris A, Cubilla AL. Limitations
in the interpretation of biopsies in patients with penile squamous
cell carcinoma. Int J Surg Pathol 2004;12:139–46.
[11] Velazquez EF, Cubilla AL. Lichen sclerosus in 68 patients with
squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: frequent atypias and corre-
lation with special carcinoma variants suggests a precancerous
role. Am J Surg Pathol 2003;27:1448–53.
[12] Chaux A, Velazquez EF, Barreto JE, Ayala E, Cubilla AL. New pathologic
entities in penile carcinomas: an update of the 2004 world health
organization classification. Semin Diagn Pathol 2012;29:59–66.
[13] Mannweiler S, Sygulla S, Tsybrovskyy O, Razmara Y, Pummer K,
Regauer S. Clear-cell differentiation and lymphatic invasion, but
not the revised TNM classification, predict lymph node metastases
in pT1 penile cancer: a clinicopathologic study of 76 patients from a
low incidence area. Urol Oncol 2013;31:1378–85.
[14] Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C, editors. TNM classifi-
cation of malignant tumours. ed 7. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell;
2009.
[15] Minhas S, Kayes O, Hegarty P, Kumar P, Freeman A, Ralph D. What
surgical resection margins are required to achieve oncological con-
trol in men with primary penile cancer? BJU Int 2005;96:1040–3.
[16] Gunia S, Burger M, Hakenberg OW, et al. Inherent grading character-
istics of individual pathologists contribute to clinically and prognos-
tically relevant interobserver discordance concerning Broders’
grading of penile squamous cell carcinomas. Urol Int 2013;90:
207–13.
[17] Alves G, Heller A, Fiedler W, et al. Genetic imbalances in 26 cases of
penile squamous cell carcinoma. Genes Chromosomes Cancer
2001;31:48–53.
[18] Kayes OJ, Loddo M, Patel N, et al. DNA replication licensing factors
and aneuploidy are linked to tumor cell cycle state and clinical
outcome in penile carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:7335–44.
[19] Poetsch M, Hemmerich M, Kakies C, et al. Alterations in the tumor
suppressor gene p16(INK4A) are associated with aggressive behav-
ior of penile carcinomas. Virchows Arch 2011;458:221–9.
[20] Gunia S, Kakies C, Erbersdobler A, Hakenberg OW, Koch S, May M.
Expression of p53, p21 and cyclin D1 in penile cancer: p53 predicts
poor prognosis. J Clin Pathol 2012;65:232–6.
[21] Lont AP, Besnard AP, Gallee MP, van Tinteren H, Horenblas S. A
comparison of physical examination and imaging in determining
the extent of primary penile carcinoma. BJU Int 2003;91:493–5.
[22] Kayes O, Minhas S, Allen C, Hare C, Freeman A, Ralph D. The role of
magnetic resonance imaging in the local staging of penile cancer.
Eur Urol 2007;51:1313–8, discussion 1318–9.
[23] Krishna RP, Sistla SC, Smile R, Krishnan R. Sonography: an under-
utilized diagnostic tool in the assessment of metastatic groin nodes.
J Clin Ultrasound 2008;36:212–7.
[24] Leijte JA, Graafland NM, Valdes Olmos RA, van Boven HH, Hoefnagel
CA, Horenblas S. Prospective evaluation of hybrid 18F-fluorodeox-
yglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in
staging clinically node-negative patients with penile carcinoma.
BJU Int 2009;104:640–4.
[25] Schlenker B, Scher B, Tiling R, et al. Detection of inguinal lymph
node involvement in penile squamous cell carcinoma by 18F-
fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT: a prospective single-center study. Urol
Oncol 2012;30:55–9.
[26] Graafland NM, Lam W, Leijte JA, et al. Prognostic factors for occult
inguinal lymph node involvement in penile carcinoma and as-
sessment of the high-risk EAU subgroup: a two-institution anal-
ysis of 342 clinically node-negative patients. Eur Urol 2010;58:
742–7.
[27] Alkatout I, Naumann CM, Hedderich J, et al. Squamous cell carci-
noma of the penis: predicting nodal metastases by histologic grade,
pattern of invasion and clinical examination. Urol Oncol 2011;29:
774–81.
[28] Ornellas AA, Seixas AL, Marota A, Wisnescky A, Campos F, de
Moraes JR. Surgical treatment of invasive squamous cell carcinoma
of the penis: retrospective analysis of 350 cases. J Urol 1994;151:
1244–9.
[29] Zhu Y, Zhang SL, Ye DW, Yao XD, Jiang ZX, Zhou XY. Predicting pelvic
lymph node metastases in penile cancer patients: a comparison of
computed tomography, Cloquet’s node, and disease burden of
inguinal lymph nodes. Onkologie 2008;31:37–41.
[30] Graafland NM, Leijte JA, Valdes Olmos RA, Hoefnagel CA, Teertstra
HJ, Horenblas S. Scanning with 18F-FDG-PET/CT for detection of
pelvic nodal involvement in inguinal node-positive penile carcino-
ma. Eur Urol 2009;56:339–45.
[31] Zhu Y, Ye DW, Yao XD, et al. The value of squamous cell carcinoma
antigen in the prognostic evaluation, treatment monitoring and
followup of patients with penile cancer. J Urol 2008;180:2019–23.
[32] Leijte JA, Kirrander P, Antonini N, Windahl T, Horenblas S. Recurrence
patterns of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: recommendations
for follow-up based on a two-centre analysis of 700 patients. Eur Urol
2008;54:161–8.
[33] Alnajjar HM, Lam W, Bolgeri M, Rees RW, Perry MJ, Watkin NA.
Treatment of carcinoma in situ of the glans penis with topical
chemotherapy agents. Eur Urol 2012;62:923–8.
[34] Shabbir M, Muneer A, Kalsi J, et al. Glans resurfacing for the
treatment of carcinoma in situ of the penis: surgical technique
and outcomes. Eur Urol 2011;59:142–7.
 EUROPEAN UROLOGY 67 (2015) 142–150
[35] Philippou P, Shabbir M, Malone P, et al. Conservative surgery for
squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: resection margins and long-
term oncological control. J Urol 2012;188:803–8.
[36] Ornellas AA, Kinchin EW, Nobrega BL, Wisnescky A, Koifman N,
Quirino R. Surgical treatment of invasive squamous cell carcinoma
of the penis: Brazilian National Cancer Institute long-term experi-
ence. J Surg Oncol 2008;97:487–95.
[37] Meijer RP, Boon TA, van Venrooij GE, Wijburg CJ. Long-term follow-up
after laser therapy for penile carcinoma. Urology 2007;69:759–62.
[38] 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.
[39] Hadway P, Corbishley CM, Watkin NA. Total glans resurfacing for
premalignant lesions of the penis: initial outcome data. BJU Int
2006;98:532–6.
[40] Ayres B, Lam W, Al-Najjar H, Corbishley C, Perry M, Watkin N. Glans
resurfacing – a new penile preserving option for superficially
invasive penile cancer. Presented at: European Association of Urol-
ogy annual congress; March 21, 2011; Vienna, Austria.
[41] Li J, Zhu Y, Zhang SL, et al. Organ-sparing surgery for penile cancer:
complications and outcomes. Urology 2011;78:1121–4.
[42] Crook J, Jezioranski J, Cygler JE. Penile brachytherapy: technical
aspects and postimplant issues. Brachytherapy 2010;9:151–8.
[43] de Crevoisier R, Slimane K, Sanfilippo N, et al. Long-term results of
brachytherapy for carcinoma of the penis confined to the glans
(N- or NX). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;74:1150–6.
[44] Crook JM, Haie-Meder C, Demanes DJ, Mazeron JJ, Martinez AA,
Rivard MJ. American Brachytherapy Society-Groupe Europeen de
Curietherapie-European Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology
(ABS-GEC-ESTRO) consensus statement for penile brachytherapy.
Brachytherapy 2013;12:191–8.
[45] Azrif M, Logue JP, Swindell R, Cowan RA, Wylie JP, Livsey JE.
External-beam radiotherapy in T1-2 N0 penile carcinoma. Clin
Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2006;18:320–5.
[46] Daseler EH, Anson BJ, Reimann AF. Radical excision of the inguinal
and iliac lymph glands; a study based upon 450 anatomical dis-
sections and upon supportive clinical observations. Surg Gynecol
Obstet 1948;87:679–94.
[47] Leijte JA, Valdes Olmos RA, Nieweg OE, Horenblas S. Anatomical
mapping of lymphatic drainage in penile carcinoma with SPECT-CT:
implications for the extent of inguinal lymph node dissection. Eur
Urol 2008;54:885–90.
[48] Kirrander P, Andren O, Windahl T. Dynamic sentinel node biopsy in
penile cancer: initial experiences at a Swedish referral centre. BJU
Int 2013;111:E48–53.
[49] Kulkarni JN, Kamat MR. Prophylactic bilateral groin node dissection
versus prophylactic radiotherapy and surveillance in patients with
N0 and N1-2A carcinoma of the penis. Eur Urol 1994;26:123–8.
[50] Djajadiningrat RS, Teertstra HJ, Van Rhijn BW, et al. Value of
dynamic sentinel node biopsy, ultrasound and fine needle aspira-
tion in the detection of metastatic lymph nodes in penile cancer
[abstract 394]. Eur Urol Suppl 2013;12:e394–5.
[51] Hughes BE, Leijte JA, Kroon BK, et al. Lymph node metastasis in
intermediate-risk penile squamous cell cancer: a two-centre expe-
rience. Eur Urol 2010;57:688–92.
[52] Leijte JA, Hughes B, Graafland NM, et al. Two-center evaluation of
dynamic sentinel node biopsy for squamous cell carcinoma of the
penis. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:3325–9.
[53] Lam W, Alnajjar HM, La-Touche S, et al. Dynamic sentinel lymph
node biopsy in patients with invasive squamous cell carcinoma
of the penis: a prospective study of the long-term outcome of
500 inguinal basins assessed at a single institution. Eur Urol 2013;
63:657–63.
149
[54] Rosevear HM, Williams H, Collins M, Lightfoot AJ, Coleman T, Brown
18
JA. Utility of F-FDG PET/CT in identifying penile squamous cell
carcinoma metastatic lymph nodes. Urol Oncol 2012;30:723–6.
[55] Koifman L, Hampl D, Koifman N, Vides AJ, Ornellas AA. Radical open
inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile carcinoma: surgical tech-
nique, early complications and late outcomes. J Urol 2013;190:
2086–92.
[56] Yao K, Tu H, Li YH, et al. Modified technique of radical inguinal
lymphadenectomy for penile carcinoma: morbidity and outcome.
J Urol 2010;184:546–52.
[57] Lughezzani G, Catanzaro M, Torelli T, et al. The relationship be-
tween lymph node ratio and cancer-specific survival in a contem-
porary series of patients with penile cancer and lymph node
metastases. BJU Int. In press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bju.12510
[58] Thuret R, Sun M, Lughezzani G, et al. A contemporary population-
based assessment of the rate of lymph node dissection for penile
carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2011;18:439–46.
[59] La-Touche S, Ayres B, Lam W, Alnajjar HM, Perry M, Watkin N. Trial
of ligation versus coagulation of lymphatics in dynamic inguinal
sentinel lymph node biopsy for staging of squamous cell carcinoma
of the penis. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2012;94:344–6.
[60] Tauber R, Schmid S, Horn T, et al. Inguinal lymph node dissection:
epidermal vacuum therapy for prevention of wound complications.
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2013;66:390–6.
[61] Pahwa HS, Misra S, Kumar A, Kumar V, Agarwal A, Srivastava R.
Video Endoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy (VEIL)–a prospec-
tive critical perioperative assessment of feasibility and morbidity
with points of technique in penile carcinoma. World J Surg Oncol
2013;11:42.
[62] Graafland NM, van Boven HH, van Werkhoven E, Moonen LM,
Horenblas S. Prognostic significance of extranodal extension in
patients with pathological node positive penile carcinoma. J Urol
2010;184:1347–53.
[63] Pizzocaro G, Piva L. Adjuvant and neoadjuvant vincristine, bleo-
mycin, and methotrexate for inguinal metastases from squamous
cell carcinoma of the penis. Acta Oncol 1988;27:823–4.
[64] Bermejo C, Busby JE, Spiess PE, Heller L, Pagliaro LC, Pettaway CA.
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by aggressive surgical con-
solidation for metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma. J Urol
2007;177:1335–8.
[65] Pizzocaro G, Nicolai N, Milani A. Taxanes in combination with
cisplatin and fluorouracil for advanced penile cancer: preliminary
results. Eur Urol 2009;55:546–51.
[66] Graafland NM, Moonen LM, van Boven HH, van Werkhoven E, Kerst
JM, Horenblas S. Inguinal recurrence following therapeutic
lymphadenectomy for node positive penile carcinoma: outcome
and implications for management. J Urol 2011;185:888–93.
[67] Burt LM, Shrieve DC, Tward JD. Stage presentation, care patterns,
and treatment outcomes for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014;88:94–100.
[68] Noronha V, Patil V, Ostwal V, Tongaonkar H, Bakshi G, Prabhash K.
Role of paclitaxel and platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy in
high-risk penile cancer. Urol Ann 2012;4:150–3.
[69] Pagliaro LC, Williams DL, Daliani D, et al. Neoadjuvant paclitaxel,
ifosfamide, and cisplatin chemotherapy for metastatic penile can-
cer: a phase II study. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:3851–7.
[70] Pond GR, Di Lorenzo G, Necchi A, et al. Prognostic risk stratification
derived from individual patient level data for men with advanced
penile squamous cell carcinoma receiving first-line systemic ther-
apy. Urol Oncol 2014;32:501–8.
[71] Hakenberg OW, Nippgen JB, Froehner M, Zastrow S, Wirth MP.
Cisplatin, methotrexate and bleomycin for treating advanced pe-
nile carcinoma. BJU Int 2006;98:1225–7.
150 EUROPEAN UROLOGY 67 (2015) 142–150
[72] Haas GP, Blumenstein BA, Gagliano RG, et al. Cisplatin, methotrex-
ate and bleomycin for the treatment of carcinoma of the penis: a
Southwest Oncology Group study. J Urol 1999;161:1823–5.
[73] Nicholson S, Hall E, Harland SJ, et al. Phase II trial of docetaxel,
cisplatin and 5FU chemotherapy in locally advanced and meta-
static penis cancer (CRUK/09/001). Brit J Cancer 2013;109:
2554–9.
[74] Di Lorenzo G, Buonerba C, Federico P, et al. Cisplatin and 5-fluoro-
uracil in inoperable, stage IV squamous cell carcinoma of the penis.
BJU Int 2012;110:E661–6.
[75] Gou HF, Li X, Qiu M, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-
RAS signaling pathway in penile squamous cell carcinoma. PloS
ONE 2013;8:e62175.
[76] Zhu Y, Li H, Yao XD, et al. Feasibility and activity of sorafenib and
sunitinib in advanced penile cancer: a preliminary report. Urol Int
2010;85:334–40.
[77] Necchi A, Nicolai N, Colecchia M, et al. Proof of activity of anti-
epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted therapy for relapsed
squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:
e650–2.
[78] Carthon BC, Ng CS, Pettaway CA, Pagliaro LC. Epidermal growth
factor receptor-targeted therapy in locally advanced or metastatic
squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. BJU Int 2014;113:871–7.
[79] Garaffa G, Raheem AA, Christopher NA, Ralph DJ. Total phallic
reconstruction after penile amputation for carcinoma. BJU Int
2009;104:852–6.
[80] Djajadiningrat RS, Teertstra HJ, van Werkhoven E, van Boven HH,
Horenblas S. Ultrasound examination and fine needle aspiration
cytology-useful for followup of the regional nodes in penile cancer?
J Urol 2014;191:652–5.
[81] Romero FR, Romero KR, Mattos MA, Garcia CR, Fernandes RdeC,
Perez MD. Sexual function after partial penectomy for penile
cancer. Urology 2005;66:1292–5.
[82] D’Ancona CA, Botega NJ, De Moraes C, Lavoura Jr NS, Santos JK, Ro-
drigues Netto Jr N. Quality of life after partial penectomy for penile
carcinoma. Urology 1997;50:593–6.