Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
To compare the oncological safety of treating patients with penile cancer with conservative techniques developed to preserve function, cosmesis and psychological well-being with more radical ablative strategies. We conducted an extensive review of the literature of penile-preserving and ablative techniques and report on the oncological as well as functional outcomes. There were no randomised studies comparing penile-preserving and ablative techniques. Most studies consisted of retrospective cohorts. The quality of evidence was level 3 at best. Cancer-specific survival is similar in penile-preserving and ablative approaches for low-stage disease. Penile preservation is better for functional and cosmetic outcomes and should be offered as a primary treatment method in men with low-stage penile cancer.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hegarty et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: