Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Psychosoziale Auswirkungen bei Patienten mit Peniskarzinom

Ein systematischer Überblick

Psychosocial effects in patients with penile cancer

A systematic review

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Urologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Die psychische Belastung von Männern mit Peniskarzinom ergibt sich aus der Krebsdiagnose an sich und den Behandlungsfolgen. Darüber hinaus kommt es zu einer krebsspezifischen Belastung. Bei lokalisierten Tumorstadien und bei begrenzter regionärer Lymphknotenmetastasierung besteht die Chance, geheilt zu werden, erfordert jedoch eine Operation und häufig eine adjuvante Chemotherapie. Dieser Artikel gibt einen systematischen Überblick über die vorhandene Literatur.

Material und Methode

Es wurde eine kritische Datenbankrecherche via MEDLINE in Ovid von 1946 bis 11/2017, im Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) und im Web of Science von 1900 bis 2017 durchgeführt. Die elektronische Suche wurde durch Suche in World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal und ClinicalTrials.gov ergänzt. Die Referenzlisten der inkludierten Studien wurden manuell nach zusätzlichen Referenzen durchsucht.

Ergebnisse

Berücksichtigte Studien (n = 10) thematisierten die psychosozialen Auswirkungen einer Peniskarzinomerkrankung auf Lebensqualität und Sexualfunktion der Betroffenen. Aufgrund der Heterogenität der Studiendesigns war nur eine deskriptive Bewertung der Ergebnisse möglich. Defekte oder Verstümmelungen infolge von Peniskrebs verursachen bei vielen Patienten eine erhebliche psychische Belastung. Organerhaltende Interventionen haben einen positiven Einfluss auf Lebensqualität und Sexualfunktion.

Schlussfolgerung

Der Penis ist beim Mann Fokus der sexuellen Identität. Die Therapie des Peniskarzinoms verursacht den Patienten erheblichen Distress. Organerhaltende Therapien und rekonstruktive Operationen wirken sich positiv auf die Lebensqualität aus.

Abstract

Background

Psychological stress of patients with penile cancer arises from the cancer diagnosis itself and the treatment consequences. In addition, there is cancer-specific distress. There is the chance of cure in localized stages and in those with limited regional lymph node metastases but this requires surgery and often adjuvant chemotherapy. This systematic review gives a summary of the existing literature to date.

Materials and methods

A critical database search using Medline was made in Ovid from 1946 to 2017, in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and in the Web of Science from 1900 to 2017. This was complemented by a search of the World Health Organization’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The reference lists of the included studies were manually searched for additional references.

Results

Selected studies (n = 10) addressed the psychosocial effects of penile cancer treatment on quality of life and sexual function. Due to the heterogeneity of the study designs only a narrative description of the results was possible. Defects or mutilation due to penile cancer cause psychological distress in a significant number of patients. Organ-sparing interventions have a positive impact on quality of life and sexual function.

Conclusion

The external genitals are a focus of sexual identity. Mutilating treatment causes significant distress but organ-sparing treatment and reconstruction positively influence quality of life.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1

Literatur

  1. Parkin DM, Whelan SL, Ferlay J et al (2002) Cancer incidence in five continents, No. 155. IARC Scientic Publication, Lyon

    Google Scholar 

  2. Reynard J, Brewster S, Biers S (2013) Urological neoplasia: penile cancer – clinical management. In: Reynard L, Brewster S, Biers S (Hrsg) Oxford handbook of urology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, S 374–376

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Hakenberg OW, Compérat EM, Minhas S et al (2014) EAU guidelines on penile cancer: 2014 update. Eur Urol 67:142–150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Draeger DL, Protzel C, Hakenberg OW (2017) Identifying psychosocial distress and stressors using distress-screening instruments in patients with localized and advanced penile cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer 15(5):605–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA, Methods Group Methods Group (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62(10):e1–e34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Thomson Reuters EndNote. www.endnote.com

  8. Higgins JPT, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley Online Library, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  9. D’Ancona CA, Botega NJ, De Moraes C et al (1997) Quality of life after partial penectomy for penile carcinoma. Urology 50:593–596

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ficarra V, Righetti R, D’Amico A et al (2000) General state of health and psychological well being in patients after surgery for urological malignant neoplasms. Urol Int 65:130–134

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gambachidze D, Lebacle C, Maroun P et al (2017) Long-term evaluation of urinary, sexual, and quality of life outcomes after brachytherapy for penile carcinoma. Brachytherapy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2017.09.006

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gulino G, Sasso F, Falabella R et al (2007) Distal urethral reconstruction of the glans for penile carcinoma: results of a novel technique at 1‑year of follow-up. J Urol 178:941–944

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kieffer JM, Djajadiningrat RS, van Muilekom EA et al (2014) Quality of life for patients treated for penile cancer. J Urol 192(4):1105–1110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Opjordsmoen S, Waehre H, Aass N et al (1994) Sexuality in patients treated for penile cancer: patients’ experience and doctors’ judgement. Br J Urol 73:554–560

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine (CEBM) (2009) www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009

  16. Romero FR, Romero KR, Mattos MA et al (2005) Sexual function after partial penectomy for penile cancer. Urology 66:1292–1295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sosnowski R, Kulpa M, Kosowicz M et al (2016) Quality of life in penile carcinoma patients – post-total penectomy. Cent European J Urol 69(2):204–211

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Windahl T, Skeppner E, Andersson SO et al (2004) Sexual function and satisfaction in men after laser treatment for penile carcinoma. J Urol 172:648–651

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Sansalone S, Silvani M, Leonardi R et al (2017) Sexual outcomes after partial penectomy for penile cancer: results from a multi-institutional study. Asian J Androl 19(1):57–61

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gulino G, Sasso F, Palermo G et al (2013) Sexual outcomes after organ potency-sparing surgery and glans reconstruction in patients with penile carcinoma. Indian J Urol 29(2):119–123

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Klaassen Z, Jen RP, DiBianco JM, Reinstatler L, Li Q, Madi R, Lewis RW, Smith AM, Neal DE Jr., Moses KA, Terris MK (2015) Factors associated with suicide in patients with genitourinary malignancies. Cancer 121(11):1864–1872

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Simpson WG, Klaassen Z, Jen RP, Hughes WMTh, Neal DE Jr., Terris MK (2017) Analysis of suicide risk in patients with penile cancer and review of the literature. Clin Genitourin Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2017.09.011

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mortensen GL, Jakobsen JK (2013) Patient perspectives on quality of life after penile cancer. Dan Med J 60(7):A4655

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. SIGN tool for cohort studies and case control studies. www.sign.ac.uk/checklist-and-notes.html

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Schillingallee 35, 18057, Rostock, Deutschland

    D. L. Dräger M.A.,  S. Milerski,  K. D. Sievert &  O. W. Hakenberg

Authors
  1. D. L. Dräger M.A.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Milerski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. D. Sievert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. O. W. Hakenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. L. Dräger M.A..

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

D.L. Dräger, S. Milerski, K.D. Sievert und O.W. Hakenberg geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dräger, D.L., Milerski, S., Sievert, K.D. et al. Psychosoziale Auswirkungen bei Patienten mit Peniskarzinom. Urologe 57, 444–452 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-018-0603-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-018-0603-9

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation