Local therapy for penile cancer provides robust survival and can preserve the penis functionally and cosmetically. Interventions must target the appropriate clinical stage. We reviewed studies regarding the primary therapy in penile cancer, from topical therapy to radical penectomy, and reconstructive techniques. Topical therapy (5-FU or Imiquimod) provides a robust oncologic response in patients with Ta or Tis disease. Multiple laser therapies are available for localized patients and those with low-grade T1 disease. There is a non-trivial risk of progression and nodal metastases in poorly selected patients. Wide local excision provides an oncologically sound option in patient with up to T1 disease; less evidence exists for Mohs microsurgery in the setting of penile cancer. Increasingly aggressive approaches include glansectomy and partial/radical penectomy, which provide 5- and 10-year cancer-specific survival rates of over 80%. Meticulous reconstruction is necessary for the durable function of the remaining penis. Preservation of voiding and sexual function occurs via penile skin grafting, glans resurfacing, creation of a functional penile stump, and phalloplasty with a penile implant. Perineal urethrostomy provides an alternative in pathology demanding extensive partial or radical penectomy, and a durable option for seated voiding. Clinical suspicion and timely diagnosis are paramount in terms of management as less-invasive options for earlier-stage disease develop.

Hereby, we present a rare case of malignant transformation in a long-standing case of pseudoepitheliomatous keratotic and micaceous balanitis (PKMB), which typically affects older men. PKMB presents as whitish or silvery keratotic plaques on the glans and can remain stable for years, leading to potential confusion regarding its progression. The patient in this case experienced urinary obstruction due to tumorous ingrowth, prompting an investigation. Despite previous treatments, including fluorouracil (5-FU) and cryoablation, the lesion persisted, eventually growing in size and becoming malodorous. Initial biopsy showed PKMB without malignancy, but subsequent deeper biopsy revealed verrucous carcinoma. The patient underwent glansectomy and reconstruction with a full-thickness skin graft, achieving a disease-free state postoperatively. The paper underscores the importance of thorough investigation for malignancy in PKMB cases, the possibility of deeper malignancy missed by superficial biopsy, and the need for early diagnosis to enable organ-sparing treatments.

BACKGROUND: Penile shaft sparing (PSS) surgery for localised penile cancer (PeCa) aims to balance oncological and functional outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To summarise the published evidence on different PSS approaches.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. The systematic search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases up to February 14, 2023. The inclusion criteria encompassed retrospective or prospective studies including patients ≥18 yr of age with localised PeCa treated with different PSS approaches, classified as laser ablation, circumcision, wide local excision, glansectomy with or without split skin graft, glans resurfacing, and mixed technique excision. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A quantitative synthesis was not performed due to anticipated data heterogeneity and a lack of comparative studies.
RESULTS: Out of 4343 articles identified, 47 met our inclusion criteria, including 10 847 patients. The year of publication ranged between 1983 and 2021. Nine studies were prospective case series, while the remaining studies were retrospective. No comparative studies were identified. Most of the cases included in these studies were Ta and T1. The oncological outcomes were good for all the approaches, with cancer-specific mortality ranging between 0% and 18%. Sexual and cosmetic outcomes, despite being under-reported, were good for all the approaches, with almost all patients being satisfied with their quality of life after surgery. The Newcastle and Ottawa scale revealed a high or severely high risk of bias in all the included studies.
CONCLUSIONS: PSS approaches were safe and had good functional outcomes, considering however the overall low quality of the studies on this issue.
RESULTS: The perioperative, function, and oncological outcomes of penile shaft sparing approaches are good. However, high-quality studies are needed to determine whether these approaches benefit patients with localised penile cancer.

Men with localized invasive penile cancer (PC) can be treated with organ-sparing treatments with different functional and aesthetical outcomes. Thus, the aim of this study is to investigate sexual outcomes in patients with PC confined to the glans that underwent wide local excision (WLE) vs. glansectomy with urethral glanduloplasty.
Complete data from 60 patients with PC were analyzed at our institution from 2017 to 2022. Patients were asked for personal habits and clinical features. PC was assessed with a clinical visit and imaging techniques. At the outpatient follow-up visit or phone call, all patients compiled the Changes in Sexual Function Questionnaire (CSFQ) and the International Index of Erectile Function in its short 5-item form (IIEF-5). Erectile function (EF) impairment was categorized using Cappelleri\'s criteria.
Overall, 34 patients with PC confined to the glans (c ≤ T2N0) were included. Of those, 12 underwent WLE and 22 underwent glansectomy with urethral glanduloplasty. Using multivariable logistic regression, glansectomy (OR: 3.49) and diabetes (OR: 2.33) were associated with erectile disfunction (IEEF < 22). Meanwhile, using multivariable linear regression analysis, younger patients (Coeff: -2.41) and those that underwent glansectomy (Coeff: -7.5) had a higher risk of sexual function impairment, according to the CSFQ.
Patients with PC ≤ T2N0 that underwent WLE have better outcomes in terms of sexual functioning than the patients who underwent glansectomy and uretheral gladuloplasty. Further research is needed to clarify the outcomes of penile-sparing surgery, to inform patients in pre-surgical counseling more comprehensively, and to meet their post-operative expectations more effectively.

We tested the feasibility and oncological outcomes after penile-sparing surgery (PSS) for local recurrent penile cancer after a previous glansectomy/partial penectomy. We retrospectively analysed 13 patients (1997-2022) with local recurrence of penile cancer after a previous glansectomy or partial penectomy. All patients underwent PSS: circumcision, excision, or laser ablation. First, technical feasibility, treatment setting, and complications (Clavien-Dindo) were recorded. Second, Kaplan-Meier plots depicted overall and local recurrences over time. Overall, 11 (84.5%) vs. 2 (15.5%) patients were previously treated with glansectomy vs. partial penectomy. The median (IQR) time to disease recurrence was 56 (13-88) months. Six (46%) vs. two (15.5%) vs. five (38.5%) patients were treated with, respectively, local excision vs. local excision + circumcision vs. laser ablation. All procedures, except one, were performed in an outpatient setting. Only one Clavien-Dindo 2 complication was recorded. The median follow-up time was 41 months. Overall, three (23%) vs. four (30.5%) patients experienced local vs. overall recurrence, respectively. All local recurrences were safely treated with salvage surgery. In conclusion, we reported the results of a preliminary analysis testing safety, feasibility, and early oncological outcomes of PSS procedures for patients with local recurrence after previous glansectomy or partial penectomy. Stronger oncological outcomes should be tested in other series to optimise patient selection.

UNASSIGNED: Penile cancer (PeCa) is a rare disease with a global incidence of 36 068 new cases in 2020. This accounts for 0.4% of all male malignancies. The surgical management of PeCa depends on the location of the tumour and depth of invasion. Here, we review the oncological and functional outcomes of penile-preserving surgery (PPS).
UNASSIGNED: A PubMed search until July 2021 on PPS for PeCa was conducted; a narrative review on different penile-sparing approaches and outcomes was performed.
UNASSIGNED: PPS is now the standard of care in specialist centres for distal tumours not involving the corpus cavernosa. Laser therapy, glans resurfacing, and wide local excision are options for superficial lesions, whilst glansectomy is required for lesions invading into the corpus spongiosum.
UNASSIGNED: PPS aims to preserve urinary and sexual function without compromising oncological outcomes.

UNASSIGNED: Classical teaching of a 2 cm macroscopic surgical margin for surgical treatment of primary penile cancer is overly aggressive. Contemporary evidence suggests narrow but clear margins have similar survival outcomes for localized disease. This study aims to determine the oncological outcome of using a risk-adapted algorithm to selection of macroscopic surgical margin based on biopsy grade of disease: 5 mm margin for grade 1, 10 mm margin for grade 2, and 20 mm margin for grade 3.
UNASSIGNED: This is a retrospective case series of patients who underwent penile-sparing surgery for biopsy-proven penile SCC by a single surgeon from May 2010 through to January 2019. Clinicopathological data were extracted from medical records. Primary outcome was the positive margin rate. Secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), and local recurrence-free survival (RFS). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to determine survival outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 21 patients were included in this study. The median age was 65. Pre-operative biopsy grade was grade 1 in 19.1% of patients, grade 2 in 47.6%, and grade 3 in 33.3%. The median size of tumor on examination was 20 mm. Using a grade-stratified algorithm for macroscopic surgical margin, only one patient (4.8%) had a positive margin. This patient had G1T3 disease and proceeded to have a total penectomy for oncological clearance. The median margin clearance was 7 mm. The 12-month OS, CSS, MFS, and local RFS were 94.6%, 94.6%, 81.0%, and 92.3%, respectively.
UNASSIGNED: This study suggests that using a grade-stratified approach to aim for a narrower macroscopic surgical margin does not appear to significantly alter the oncological outcome, with a negative margin rate of 95.2% in our this series. This enables more men to be eligible for organ preserving surgery and thereby improve their quality of life in the urinary function and sexual function domain. Larger prospective studies are warranted to confirm these findings.

Penile cancer (PeCa) is a rare disease, with a global incidence of 36068 new cases reported in the 2020 GLOBOCAN database. Narrower excision margins are now acceptable without compromising survival. Glansectomy is commonly performed for invasive PeCa confined to the glans penis. The majority of data on glansectomy are from small single-centre series. We provide a contemporary update on the outcomes of glansectomy via a systematic review of glansectomy for PeCa. Overall, 20 studies were included in the analysis. The local recurrence rate was 2.6-16.7%. The incidence of salvage penectomy for positive margins and/or recurrence was 1.2-8.3%. The disease-specific survival rate was 89-96.6%. A split-thickness skin graft was commonly used to reconstruct a neoglans and the graft loss rate was 1.5-23.5%. The incidence of meatal stenosis was 2.8-14.3%. Good cosmetic outcomes and normal erections were reported in 95-100% and 50-100% of cases, respectively. Glansectomy provides acceptable oncological control without significantly compromising functional outcomes. PATIENT SUMMARY: Penile cancer invading into the head of the penis can be surgically treated with a procedure called glansectomy that has good cancer control and cosmetic outcomes. In addition, penile length can be preserved, which allows men to urinate standing up and to achieve penetrative sexual intercourse.

Penile intraepithelial neoplasia (PeIN) is a rare skin condition with potential to progress to invasive penile cancer. We performed a systematic review of treatment options and outcomes for PeIN. Topical agents showed response and recurrence rates of 40-100% and 20% for imiquimod, and 48-74% and 11% for 5-fluorouracil, respectively. Discontinuation of topical agents because of side effects was observed in 12% of cases. Response rates for laser therapies were 52-100%, with recurrence in 7-48% of cases and a change in penile sensitivity in 50%. Circumcision cleared preputial PeIN. Rates of recurrence after surgical treatment of glans PeIN were 25% for wide local excision, 4% for Mohs surgery, 5% for total glans resurfacing, and 10% for glansectomy. There are limited data on factors predictive of treatment response and on sequencing of treatment options. PATIENT SUMMARY: Several treatment options are available for men with precancerous lesions of the foreskin or glans. Close follow-up is necessary as lesions can recur or progress to invasive penile cancer.

With the passage of time, there has been a major paradigm shift in the surgical management of penile cancer from radical to organ preserving penile surgical techniques, with closer surgical margins which offer good oncological, cosmetic and functional outcomes with improved physical and psychosexual well-being. This article aims to provide an update of the current organ preserving surgical strategies for penile cancer.