Impactos Psicológicos e na Qualidade de Vida de Pacientes com Câncer de Pênis: Revisão Sistemática da Literatura
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32635/2176-9745.RBC.2025v71n3.4823Palavras-chave:
Bem-Estar Psicológico , Estresse Psicológico , Qualidade de Vida , Neoplasias PenianasResumo
Introdução: O câncer de pênis (CdP) possui origem multifatorial, sendo os principais fatores de risco: má higiene do órgão, inflamações crônicas, infecções e tabagismo. Após o diagnóstico, o tratamento se baseia na remoção cirúrgica do tumor, que provoca mudanças significativas, principalmente nas esferas sexual e urinária, com severas repercussões psicoemocionais. Assim, a abordagem terapêutica eficiente é essencial para a preservação psicológica e da qualidade de vida (QV) dos indivíduos. Objetivo: Verificar os impactos psicológicos e na QV de indivíduos com CdP. Método: Revisão sistemática da literatura, com o seguimento das recomendações do protocolo PRISMA. Foram coletados dados nas bases de dados on-line PubMed, BVS, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science e SciELO, com a inclusão de artigos publicados entre 2013 e 2023. Para avaliação da qualidade metodológica, foi aplicada a escala crítica do Joanna Briggs Institute. Resultados: Foram incluídos 15 artigos para análise qualitativa, nos quais as funções sexual e urinária configuram-se como aspectos importantes na vivência de pacientes com CdP e sua deterioração, comum após intervenções cirúrgicas, leva a maiores índices de estresse e depressão. Contudo, o suporte familiar demonstra amenizar os distúrbios psicológicos. Procedimentos poupadores de pênis também promovem maior satisfação, assim como menores prejuízos às funções do órgão, preservando a saúde psíquica. Conclusão: Portanto, conclui-se que o CdP causa impactos negativos na QV e no bem-estar mental e emocional dos pacientes, os quais são amenizados com a realização de procedimentos menos invasivos. Independentemente, indivíduos com CdP devem ter acompanhamento psicológico extensivo durante e após o seu tratamento.
Downloads
Referências
Cubero DIG, Sette CVM, Piscopo BCP, et al. Epidemiological profile of Brazilian oncological patients seen by a reference oncology center of the public health system and who migrate in search of adequate health care. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2018;64(9):814-8. doi: https://www.doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.64.09.814 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.64.09.814
Chaux A, Netto GJ, Rodríguez IM, et al. Epidemiologic profile, sexual history, pathologic features, and human papillomavirus status of 103 patients with penile carcinoma. World J Urol. 2013;31(4):861-7. doi: https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0802-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0802-0
Kidd LC, Chaing S, Chipollini J, et al. Relationship between human papillomavirus and penile cancer-implications for prevention and treatment. Transl Androl Urol. Out 2017;6(5):791-802. doi: https://www.doi.org/10.21037/tau.2017.06.27 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2017.06.27
Siegel RL, Giaquinto AN, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2024. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74(1):12-49. doi: https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21820 Erratum in: CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74(2):203. doi: https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21830 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21820
Mourão TC, Beraldi AA, Fernandes GA, et al. Penile cancer mortality in Brazil: are we making progress? JCO glob oncol. 2024;(10):10:e2300303. doi: https://www.doi.org/10.1200/GO.23.00303 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/GO.23.00303
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 Urology. 2009;9(8):1-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2490-9-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2490-9-8
R Monteiro LL, Skowronski R, Brimo F, et al. Erectile function after partial penectomy for penile cancer. International Braz J Urol. 2021;47(3):515-22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2019.0119 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2019.0119
Hakenberg OW, Compérat EM, Minhas S, et al. EAU Guidelines on penile cancer: 2014 update. Euro Urol. 2015;67(1):142-50. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.017
Mendes KDS, Silveira RCCP, Galvão CM. Revisão integrativa: método de pesquisa para a incorporação de evidências na saúde e na enfermagem. Texto & contexto - enferm. 2008;17(4):758-64. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-07072008000400018 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-07072008000400018
University of York. University of York. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. New York: University of York; 2019. PROSPERO - International prospective register of systematic reviews. 2023. [acesso 2023 ago 31]. Disponível em: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Principais itens para relatar revisões sistemáticas e meta-análises: a recomendação PRISMA. Epidemiol Serv Saúde. 2015;24(2):335-42. doi: https://doi.org/10.5123/S1679-49742015000200017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5123/S1679-49742015000200017
Dantas HLL, Costa CRB, Costa LMC, et al. Como elaborar uma revisão integrativa: sistematização do método científico. Rev Recien. 2022 Mar 13;12(37):334-45. doi: https://doi.org/10.24276/rrecien2022.12.37.334-345 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24276/rrecien2022.12.37.334-345
Cabral MVA, Araújo JAC, Sousa AM, et al. Análise dos aspectos gerais e as etapas da revisão de literatura integrativa para profissionais da saúde. Braz J Implant Health Sci. 2023;5(4):2-1469. doi: https://doi.org/10.36557/2674-8169.2023v5n4p2-1459-1469 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36557/2674-8169.2023v5n4p1459-1469
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z. et al. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(210). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
Joanna Briggs Institute. JBI levels of evidence [Internet]. Australia: Joanna Briggs Institute; 2013 out [acesso2018 Nov 1]. Disponível em: https://jbi.global/sites/default/files/2019-05/JBI-Levels-of-evidence_2014_0.pdf
Draeger DL, Sievert KD, Hakenberg OW. Cross-sectional patient-reported outcome measuring of health-related quality of life with establishment of cancer- and treatment-specific functional and symptom scales in patients with penile cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2018;16(6):e1215-20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2018.07.029 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2018.07.029
Jakobsen JK, Sørensen CM, Krarup KP, et al. Life satisfaction of patients with penile cancer. Dan Med J. 2021;69(1):A05210397.
Wan X, Zheng D, Liu C, et al. A Comparative study of two types of organ-sparing surgeries for early stage penile cancer: wide local excision vs partial penectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44(9):1425-31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2018.03.021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2018.03.021
Chavarriaga J, Becerra L, Camacho D, et al. Inverted urethral flap reconstruction after partial penectomy: long-term oncological and functional outcomes. Urol Oncol. 2022;40(4):169.e13-20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.02.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.02.006
Cilio S, Tufano A, Pezone G, et al. Sexual outcomes after conservative management for patients with localized penile cancer. Curr Oncol. 2023;30(12):10501-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30120765 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30120765
Croghan SM, Compton N, Daniels AE, et al. Phallus preservation in penile cancer surgery: patient-reported aesthetic & functional outcomes. Urology. 2021;152:60-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.02.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.02.011
Firmansyah F, Fauriski FP, Ginanda PS, et al. Evaluation of health-related quality of life in patients receiving treatment for penile cancer: a single-center cross- sectional study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2023;24(4):1367-71. doi: https://doi.org/10.31557/APJCP.2023.24.4.1367 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31557/APJCP.2023.24.4.1367
Gambachidze D, Lebacle C, Maroun P, et al. Long-term evaluation of urinary, sexual, and quality of life outcomes after brachytherapy for penile carcinoma. Brachytherapy. 2018;17(1):221-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2017.09.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2017.09.006
Harju E, Pakarainen T, Vasarainen H, et al. Health-related quality of life, self-esteem and sexual functioning among patients operated for penile cancer – a cross-sectional study. J Sex Med. 2021;18(9):1524-31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.06.015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.06.015
Kieffer JM, Djajadiningrat RS, Erik M, et al. Quality of life for patients treated for penile cancer. 2014;192(4):1105-10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.04.014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.04.014
Pérez J, Chavarriaga J, Ortiz A, et al. Oncological and functional outcomes after organ-sparing plastic reconstructive surgery for penile cancer. Urology. 2020;142:165.e1. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.03.058 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.03.058
Santos‐Lopes S, Ferreira C, Morais A, et al. Impacto da terapêutica conservadora de órgão do carcinoma do pénis na função sexual e erétil. Revista internacional de andrología. 2018;16(1):1-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.06.015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.androl.2017.01.001
Sosnowski R, Wolski JK, Kulpa M, et al. Assessment of quality of life in patients surgically treated for penile cancer: impact of aggressiveness in surgery. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2017;31:1-5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2017.08.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2017.08.011
Sosnowski R, Wolski JK, Ziętalewicz U, et al. Assessment of selected quality of life domains in patients who have undergone conservative or radical surgical treatment for penile cancer: an observational study. Sex Health. 2019;16(1):32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1071/SH17119 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/SH17119
Suarez-Ibarrola R, Cortes-Telles A, Miernik A. Health-related quality of life and sexual function in patients treated for penile cancer. Urol Int. 2018;101(3):351-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000491827 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000491827
Vasconcelos P, Carrito ML, Quinta-Gomes AL, et al. Associations between sexual health and well-being: a systematic review. Bull World Health Organ. 2024;102(12):873-87. doi: https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.24.291565 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.24.291565
Yildirimer KS, Yentür B. Sexual health and psychological well-being: an examination of the interactions between sexual satisfaction, relationship dynamics, and mental health. Int J Soc Sci Humanit Res. 2024;7(10). doi: https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v7-i10-18 DOI: https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v7-i10-18
Witty K, Branney P, Evans J, et al. The impact of surgical treatment for penile cancer – Patients’ perspectives. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2013;17(5):661-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2013.06.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2013.06.004
Romero FR, Richter PSRK, Mattos MAE, et al. Sexual function after partial penectomy for penile cancer. Urology. 2005;66(6):1292-5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.06.081 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.06.081
Sansalone S, Silvani M, Leonardi R, et al. Sexual outcomes after partial penectomy for penile cancer: results from a multiinstitutional study. Asian J Androl. 2015;17(5). doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682X.168690 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682X.168690
Mao W, Zhang Z, Huang X, et al. Marital status and survival in patients with penile cancer. J Cancer. 2019;10(12):2661-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.32037 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.32037
Baekhøj Kortsen D, Predbjørn Krarup K, Jakobsen JK. DaPeCa-9 – cohabitation and socio-economic conditions predict penile cancer-specific survival in a national clinical study from Denmark. Scand J Urol. 2021;55(6):486-90. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2021.1879928 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2021.1879928
Arturo C, Neury JB, César M, et al. Quality of life after partial penectomy for penile carcinoma. Urology. 1997;50(4):593-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(97)00309-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00309-9
Simpson WG, Klaassen Z, Jen RP, et al. Analysis of suicide risk in patients with penile cancer and review of the literature. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2018;16(2):e257-61. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2017.09.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2017.09.011
Martínez AF, Cabrera LG, Medina ACA, et al. Caso clínico: atención integral de las necesidades paliativas en paciente nonagenario con cáncer de pene avanzado y herida tumoral. Med paliat. 2021;126-30. doi: https://doi.org/10.20986/medpal.2021.1192/2020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.20986/medpal.2021.1192/2020
Ghiringhelli MJP, López M. Anesthetic considerations and postoperative pain management in radical penectomy: case report. Rev colomb anestesiol. 2021;49(3):e602-2. doi: https://doi.org/10.5554/22562087.e964 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5554/22562087.e964
Elst L, Manon V, Brouwer O, et al. Challenges in organ-sparing surgery for penile cancer: what are the limits? Eur Urol Focus. 2023;9(2):241-3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2023.01.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2023.01.005
Musi G, Russo A, Conti A, et al. Thulium-yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Tm:YAG) laser treatment of penile cancer: oncological results, functional outcomes, and quality of life. World J Urol. 2018;36(2):265-70. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2144-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2144-z
Fang A, Ferguson J. Penile sparing techniques for penile cancer. Postgrad Med. 2020;132(sup4):42-51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00325481.2020.1822052 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00325481.2020.1822052
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Os direitos morais e intelectuais dos artigos pertencem aos respectivos autores, que concedem à RBC o direito de publicação.
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
