Clinical outcomes of glansectomy with split-thickness skin graft reconstruction for localized penile cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Penectomy as the traditional surgical treatment of penile cancer has substantial adverse functional and psychological impact. Glansectomy with split-thickness skin graft (STSG) reconstruction aims to provide curative resection while maximizing functional outcomes and minimizing psychological harm. We describe our outcomes of glansectomy with STSG reconstruction for penile cancer in a Canadian setting. METHODS: We identified patients undergoing glansectomy with STSG genital reconstruction for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis from July 2006 to July 2019 at a single center. Patients undergoing glansectomy for reasons other than penile cancer were excluded. We collected clinical and pathological data, including patient demographics, 90-day complications, positive margin rate, local recurrence rate, disease-specific survival, and functional outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize our cohort and to examine outcomes. RESULTS: Twelve men met study criteria with a median age of 62 years. Seven patients had failed prior treatment. The 90-day complication rate (Clavien >2) was 0% and graft take was excellent in all cases. The positive margins rate was 16.7% (n=2). Local recurrence occurred in two patients (16.7%), one of whom underwent a repeat organ-sparing surgery for salvage, while the other underwent radical penectomy for high-risk pathological features. Disease-free survival at a median followup of 14 months was 91.7% (11/12). Standing voiding and erectile function, as well as satisfactory cosmesis, were preserved in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Glansectomy with STSG reconstruction is a safe and effective treatment for men with localized penile cancer with simultaneous preservation of cosmesis, as well as urinary and sexual function.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".