Sexual Function After Laser Therapy for Penile Cancer: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Penile cancer is rare but rising in incidence. Any optimal treatment must balance oncologic control with preservation of sexual and urinary function. OBJECTIVES: ), neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG), and thulium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Tm:YAG) laser therapies for penile cancer. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020. We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, ClinicalTrials.gov, and conference proceedings from January 2000 to 5 February 2025 for observational studies reporting sexual function after laser therapy. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and certainty of evidence with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: Eleven studies comprising 593 patients were included, mostly carcinoma in situ or T1. Local recurrence occurred in 6-19% of patients with Tis/T1 and 17-42% in ≥T2. Across laser types, 59-72% of patients retained erectile function, 50-100% reported sexual satisfaction, and 80-100% reported satisfaction with the cosmetic outcomes, with some degree of variation. Reports on libido and orgasm were heterogeneous and generally unvalidated. General patient satisfaction was high but often assessed using non-validated instruments. CONCLUSIONS: Laser therapy is a reasonable penile-sparing option for Tis/T1 disease, but mandates strict surveillance. Data are insufficient to support its use for ≥T2 tumors. Laser therapy generally preserves sexual function, but heterogeneous and non-standardized reporting limits firm conclusions. Prospective studies with standardized patient-reported outcome measures are needed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".