Haddad-Servín A, Sánchez-Aquino U, Véliz-Cabrera G, Viana-Álvarez G, López-Maguey R, Calvo-Vázquez I, Hernández-Méndez EA, Ortega-González M, Cortes-Raygoza P, Martínez-Salas A, Jiménez-García A, Reyna-Blanco I, Muruato-Araiza S, Santa María-Orozco J, Navarro-Ruega I, Torres-Zazueta JM, Martínez-Arroyo C, Fernández-Noyola G, Morales-Montor JG, Cantellano-Orozco M, Pacheco-Gahbler C

Language: English
References: 12
Page: 1-12
PDF size: 148.96 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Cancer of the penis accounts for less than 1% of all cancers affecting males. Nevertheless, it has a huge impact on the patients that present with it. Objective: To report on the quality of life, erectile function, and perception of self-esteem in patients that underwent partial phallectomy due to cancer of the penis.
Materials and methods: An analytic, cross-sectional study was conducted that included 10 postoperative partial phallectomy patients. They were evaluated through the EORTC-QLQ-30 questionnaire (validated for the Mexican population), the International Index of Erectile Function-Short Form (IIEF-5), and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (SES).
Results: The quality of life results, evaluated through the EORTC-QLQ-30 questionnaire, were lower than those for the general population in all 10 patients. In the IIEF-5 sexual activity evaluations, 5 of the 10 patients were sexually inactive, one patient had no deterioration of sexual activity, one patient had mild deterioration, and 3 patients had mild-to-moderate deterioration. Self-esteem, evaluated by the SES, was above average in 8 of the 10 patients, average in one patient, and below average in one patient.
Conclusion: The results of the present study, determined through different scales, indicated that partial phallectomy as treatment for cancer of the penis affected patient quality of life and had repercussions on sexual function. Nevertheless, the self-esteem of the patients, despite their condition, was not affected and was even above average.

REFERENCES

1. Clark PE, Spiess PE, Agarwal N, Biagioli MC, Eisenberger MA, Greenberg RE, et al. Penile Cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw;11(5):594- 615. Available in: https://jnccn.org/abstract/ journals/jnccn/11/5/article-p594.xml

2. Witty K, Branney P, Evans J, Bullen K, White A, Eardley I. The impact of surgical treatment for penile cancer -- patients’ perspectives. Eur J Oncol Nurs Off J Eur Oncol Nurs Soc;17:661- 7. Availablre in: http://eprints.leedsbeckett. ac.uk/249/

3. Archivo General. Hospital General Dr. Manuel Gea González;

4. Porzsolt F, Wölpl CP, Rist CE, Kosa R, Büchele G, Gaus W. Comparison of three instruments (QLQ-C30, SF-36, QWB-7) measuring health- related quality of life/quality of well-being. Psycho-Oncology. 1996;5(2):103-17.

5. Rosen RC, Cappelleri JC, Smith MD, Lipsky J, Pena BM. Development and evaluation of an abridged, 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) as a diagnostic tool for erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res. 1999;11(6):319.

6. Rosenberg M. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton university press; 2015.

7. Muneer A, Arya M, Horenblas S. Textbook of penile cancer. Springer; 2012.

8. D’ancona CAL, Botega NJ, De Moraes C, Lavoura Jr NDS, Santos JK, Netto Jr NR. Quality of life after partial penectomy for penile carcinoma. Urology. 1997;50(4):593-6.

9. Maddineni SB, Lau MM, Sangar VK. Identifying the needs of penile cancer sufferers: a systematic review of the quality of life, psychosexual and psychosocial literature in penile cancer. BMC Urol. 2009;9(1):8.

10. Opjordsmoen S, Fosså SD. Quality of life in patients treated for penile cancer. A follow-up study. Br J Urol. 1994;74(5):652-7.

11. Rodríguez Menéndez M, Peña Calvo J. Identidad de género y contexto escolar: una revisión de modelos. Rev Esp Investig Sociológicas REIS. 2005;112(1):165-94.

12. Kieffer JM, Djajadiningrat RS, van Muilekom EA, Graafland NM, Horenblas S, Aaronson NK. Quality of life for patients treated for penile cancer. J Urol. 2014;192(4):1105-10.