Psychological Impacts and in Quality of Life of Patients with Penile Cancer: Systematic Literature Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32635/2176-9745.RBC.2025v71n3.4823Keywords:
Psychological Well-Being, Psychological Stress, Quality of Life, Penile NeoplasmsAbstract
Introduction: Penile cancer (PC) has a multifactorial origin, with the main risk factors being poor hygiene of the organ, chronic inflammation, infections, and smoking. After diagnosis, treatment is based on surgical removal of the tumor, which causes significant changes, mainly in the sexual and urinary spheres, with severe psycho-emotional repercussions. Thus, an efficient therapeutic approach to this pathology is essential for individuals’ psychological preservation and quality of life (QoL). Objective: To verify the psychological and QoL impacts on individuals with PC. Method: Systematic literature review, following the recommendations of the PRISMA protocol. Data was collected from PubMed, BVS, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and SciELO online databases, including articles published between 2013 and 2023. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical scale was applied to assess methodological quality. Results: Fifteen articles were included for qualitative analysis, in which sexual and urinary functions are considered important aspects in the experience of patients with PC and their deterioration, common after surgical interventions, leads to higher rates of stress and depression. However, family support has been shown to alleviate psychological disorders. Penis-sparing procedures also promote greater satisfaction, as well as less damage to the organ’s functions, preserving mental health. Conclusion: PC causes negative impacts on the QoL and mental and emotional well-being of patients, which are mitigated by performing less invasive procedures. Regardless, individuals with PC should receive extensive psychological monitoring during and after their treatment.
Downloads
References
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
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Os direitos morais e intelectuais dos artigos pertencem aos respectivos autores, que concedem à RBC o direito de publicação.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
