Sexual Outcomes after Conservative Management for Patients with Localized Penile Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".