Erectile function after partial penectomy for penile cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the erectile function in patients who underwent partial penectomy and identify factors associated with penile functional status. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified patients who underwent partial penectomy due to penile cancer between 2009 and 2014. Clinical and pathological characteristics included patient age at the time of diagnosis, obesity, hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, smoking, metabolic syndrome, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status, penile shaft length, tumor size, primary tumor stage (pT), clinical nodal status, and local recurrence. Erectile function was assessed prospectively with the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) at least 3 months after partial penectomy. RESULTS: A total of 81 patients met analysis criteria. At the diagnosis, the median age was 62 years (range from 30 to 88). Median follow-up was 17 months (IQR 7-36). Of total patients, 37 (45%) had T2 or higher disease. Clinically positive nodes were present in 16 (20%) patients and seven (8.6%) developed local recurrence. Fifty patients (62%) had erectile dysfunction (ED) after partial penectomy, 30% had moderate or severe erectile dysfunction scores. Patients with ED versus without ED were similar in baseline characteristics except for age, penile shaft length, and presence of inguinal adenopathy (p <0.05). Multivariate analysis using logistic regression confirmed that older patients, shorter penile shaft length, and clinically positive lymph node were significantly associated with ED. CONCLUSION: Partial penectomy due to penile cancer provides adequate local control of the disease, however, proper counselling is important especially in relation to ED consequences. Preservation of penile length yields to more optimal erectile recovery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".