Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

OPINION

The case for nonsurgical therapy of nonmetastatic penile cancer

Nature Reviews Urology volume 15, pages 574–584 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the penis is almost always treated with surgical therapy at the primary site. However, almost all other SCC primary sites, such as anal, vulvar, uterine cervix, head and neck, and oesophagus, and their involved nodal basins, can be successfully treated with radiotherapy or combined chemotherapy and radiation, reserving surgery as a salvage option. Review of the penile cancer literature and examination of data from more common SCC primary sites make a case for complete organ preservation of the penis using definitive combined chemotherapy and radiation, reserving surgical therapies as salvage options.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Bubble plot illustrating the imbalance of selected prognostic factors and outcomes from published studies.
Fig. 2: Examples of patients with locally advanced penile malignancies successfully treated with combined chemoradiotherapy without surgical resection to the primary site.
Fig. 3: InPACT trial randomization diagram.

Figure reproduced from ref.91, Crook, J. Curr. Opin. Urol. 27(1), 62–67, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins Ltd https://journals.lww.com/co-urology/pages/default.aspx.

Similar content being viewed by others

Article 11 February 2021

Anita Thomas, Andrea Necchi, … Maarten Albersen

References

  1. Friedenwald, H. The prayer of Maimonides. Bull. Johns Hopkins Hospital 18, 260–261 (1917).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kieffer, J. M. et al. Quality of life for patients treated for penile cancer. J. Urol. 192, 1105–1110 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Opjordsmoen, S. & Fossa, S. D. Quality of life in patients treated for penile cancer. A follow-up study. Br. J. Urol. 74, 652–657 (1994).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Schover, L. R., von Eschenbach, A. C., Smith, D. B. & Gonzalez, J. Sexual rehabilitation of urologic cancer patients: a practical approach. CA Cancer J. Clin. 34, 66–74 (1984).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Witty, K. et al. The impact of surgical treatment for penile cancer — patients’ perspectives. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 17, 661–667 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cady, B. Basic principles in surgical oncology. Arch. Surg. 132, 338–346 (1997).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Burt, L. M., Shrieve, D. C. & Tward, J. D. Stage presentation, care patterns, and treatment outcomes for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 88, 94–100 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gotsadze, D., Matveev, B., Zak, B. & Mamaladze, V. Is conservative organ-sparing treatment of penile carcinoma justified? Eur. Urol. 38, 306–312 (2000).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lont, A. P., Gallee, M. P., Meinhardt, W., van Tinteren, H. & Horenblas, S. Penis conserving treatment for T1 and T2 penile carcinoma: clinical implications of a local recurrence. J. Urol. 176, 575–580; discussion 580 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Mistry, T., Jones, R. W., Dannatt, E., Prasad, K. K. & Stockdale, A. D. A. 10-year retrospective audit of penile cancer management in the UK. BJU Int. 100, 1277–1281 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ozsahin, M. et al. Treatment of penile carcinoma: to cut or not to cut? Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 66, 674–679 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tang, D. H. et al. Adjuvant pelvic radiation is associated with improved survival and decreased disease recurrence in pelvic node-positive penile cancer after lymph node dissection: a multi-institutional study. Urol. Oncol. 35, 605.e17–605.e23 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zouhair, A. et al. Radiation therapy alone or combined surgery and radiation therapy in squamous-cell carcinoma of the penis? Eur. J. Cancer 37, 198–203 (2001).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Cordoba, A. et al. Low-dose brachytherapy for early stage penile cancer: a 20-year single-institution study (73 patients). Radiat. Oncol. 11, 96 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Crook, J., Ma, C. & Grimard, L. Radiation therapy in the management of the primary penile tumor: an update. World J. Urol. 27, 189–196 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. de Crevoisier, R. et al. Long-term results of brachytherapy for carcinoma of the penis confined to the glans (N− or NX). Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 74, 1150–1156 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Delannes, M., Malavaud, B., Douchez, J., Bonnet, J. & Daly, N. J. Iridium-192 interstitial therapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 24, 479–483 (1992).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Escande, A. et al. Brachytherapy for conservative treatment of invasive penile carcinoma: prognostic factors and long-term analysis of outcome. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 99, 563–570 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kiltie, A. E., Elwell, C., Close, H. J. & Ash, D. V. Iridium-192 implantation for node-negative carcinoma of the penis: the Cookridge Hospital experience. Clin. Oncol. (R. Coll. Radiol) 12, 25–31 (2000).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Mazeron, J. J. et al. Interstitial radiation therapy for carcinoma of the penis using iridium 192 wires: the Henri Mondor experience 1970–1979. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 10, 1891–1895 (1984).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. McLean, M. et al. The results of primary radiation therapy in the management of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 25, 623–628 (1993).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Rozan, R. et al. Interstitial brachytherapy for penile carcinoma: a multicentric survey (259 patients). Radiother. Oncol. 36, 83–93 (1995).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Crook, J. M., Jezioranski, J., Grimard, L., Esche, B. & Pond, G. Penile brachytherapy: results for 49 patients. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 62, 460–467 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Philippou, P. et al. Conservative surgery for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: resection margins and long-term oncological control. J. Urol. 188, 803–808 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pietrzak, P., Corbishley, C. & Watkin, N. Organ-sparing surgery for invasive penile cancer: early follow-up data. BJU Int. 94, 1253–1257 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ubrig, B., Waldner, M., Fallahi, M. & Roth, S. Preputial flap for primary closure after excision of tumors on the glans penis. Urology 58, 274–276 (2001).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. van Bezooijen, B. P., Horenblas, S., Meinhardt, W. & Newling, D. W. Laser therapy for carcinoma in situ of the penis. J. Urol. 166, 1670–1671 (2001).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Amin, M. B. et al. (eds) AJCC Cancer Staging Manual 8th edn (Springer, 2016).

  29. Ficarra, V. et al. Nomogram predictive of pathological inguinal lymph node involvement in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. J. Urol. 175, 1700–1705 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Haas, G. P. et al. Cisplatin, methotrexate and bleomycin for the treatment of carcinoma of the penis: a Southwest Oncology Group study. J. Urol. 161, 1823–1825 (1999).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Necchi, A. et al. First-line therapy with dacomitinib, an orally available pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor, for locally advanced or metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma: results of an open-label, single-arm, single-centre, phase 2 study. BJU Int. 121, 348–356 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Pagliaro, L. C. et al. Neoadjuvant paclitaxel, ifosfamide, and cisplatin chemotherapy for metastatic penile cancer: a phase II study. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 3851–3857 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Sharma, P. et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy is associated with improved overall survival in pelvic node-positive penile cancer after lymph node dissection: a multi-institutional study. Urol. Oncol. 33, 496.e17–496.e23 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Franks, K. N. et al. Radiotherapy for node positive penile cancer: experience of the Leeds teaching hospitals. J. Urol. 186, 524–529 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Necchi, A. et al. Clinical outcomes of perioperative chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced penile squamous-cell carcinoma: results of a multicenter analysis. Clin. Genitourinary Cancer 15, 548–555.e3 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Edsmyr, F., Andersson, L. & Esposti, P. L. Combined bleomycin and radiation therapy in carcinoma of the penis. Cancer 56, 1257–1263 (1985).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Maiche, A. G. Combined bleomycin and radiation treatment of penile carcinoma. Acta Oncol. 28, 548–549 (1989).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Modig, H., Duchek, M. & Sjodin, J. G. Carcinoma of the penis. Treatment by surgery or combined bleomycin and radiation therapy. Acta Oncol. 32, 653–655 (1993).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Pond, G. R. et al. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy for men with locally advanced penile squamous cell carcinoma. Clin. Genitourin Cancer 12, 440–446 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Neave, F., Neal, A. J., Hoskin, P. J. & Hope-Stone, H. F. Carcinoma of the penis: a retrospective review of treatment with iridium mould and external beam irradiation. Clin. Oncol. (R. Coll. Radiol) 5, 207–210 (1993).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Sarin, R., Norman, A. R., Steel, G. G. & Horwich, A. Treatment results and prognostic factors in 101 men treated for squamous carcinoma of the penis. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 38, 713–722 (1997).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Brown, M. D., Zachary, C. B., Grekin, R. C. & Swanson, N. A. Penile tumors: their management by Mohs micrographic surgery. J. Dermatol. Surg. Oncol. 13, 1163–1167 (1987).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Shindel, A. W. et al. Mohs micrographic surgery for penile cancer: management and long-term followup. J. Urol. 178, 1980–1985 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Bandieramonte, G. et al. Peniscopically controlled CO2 laser excision for conservative treatment of in situ and T1 penile carcinoma: report on 224 patients. Eur. Urol. 54, 875–882 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Frimberger, D. et al. Penile carcinoma. Is Nd:YAG laser therapy radical enough? J. Urol. 168, 2418–2421; discussion 2421 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Meijer, R. P., Boon, T. A., van Venrooij, G. E. & Wijburg, C. J. Long-term follow-up after laser therapy for penile carcinoma. Urology 69, 759–762 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Schlenker, B. et al. Organ-preserving neodymium-yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser therapy for penile carcinoma: a long-term follow-up. BJU Int. 106, 786–790 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Tietjen, D. N. & Malek, R. S. Laser therapy of squamous cell dysplasia and carcinoma of the penis. Urology 52, 559–565 (1998).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Windahl, T. & Andersson, S. O. Combined laser treatment for penile carcinoma: results after long-term followup. J. Urol. 169, 2118–2121 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Bissada, N. K. et al. Multi-institutional long-term experience with conservative surgery for invasive penile carcinoma. J. Urol. 169, 500–502 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Leijte, J. A., Kirrander, P., Antonini, N., Windahl, T. & Horenblas, S. Recurrence patterns of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: recommendations for follow-up based on a two-centre analysis of 700 patients. Eur. Urol. 54, 161–168 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. McDaniel, A. S. et al. Genomic profiling of penile squamous cell carcinoma reveals new opportunities for targeted therapy. Cancer Res. 75, 5219–5227 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Cubilla., L. A. et al. The World Health Organisation 2016 classification of penile carcinomas: a review and update from the International Society of Urological Pathology expert-driven recommendations. Histopathology 72, 893–904 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Ali, S. M. et al. Comprehensive genomic profiling of advanced penile carcinoma suggests a high frequency of clinically relevant genomic alterations. Oncologist 21, 33–39 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Chung, J. H. et al. Comprehensive genomic profiling of anal squamous cell carcinoma reveals distinct genomically defined classes. Ann. Oncol. 27, 1336–1341 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Elvin, J. A. et al. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of cervical squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) to identifiy targeted therapy options. J. Clin. Oncol. 33, 5602–5602 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Ojesina, A. I. et al. Landscape of genomic alterations in cervical carcinomas. Nature 506, 371–375 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Chaux, A., Velazquez, E. F., Barreto, J. E., Ayala, E. & Cubilla, A. L. New pathologic entities in penile carcinomas: an update of the 2004 World Health Organization Classification. Semin. Diagn. Pathol. 29, 59–66 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Wolf, G. T. et al. Induction chemotherapy plus radiation compared with surgery plus radiation in patients with advanced laryngeal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 324, 1685–1690 (1991).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Whitney, C. W. et al. Randomized comparison of fluorouracil plus cisplatin versus hydroxyurea as an adjunct to radiation therapy in stage IIB-IVA carcinoma of the cervix with negative para-aortic lymph nodes: a Gynecologic Oncology Group and Southwest Oncology Group study. J. Clin. Oncol. 17, 1339–1348 (1999).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Eifel, P. J. et al. Pelvic irradiation with concurrent chemotherapy versus pelvic and para-aortic irradiation for high-risk cervical cancer: an update of radiation therapy oncology group trial (RTOG) 90–01. J. Clin. Oncol. 22, 872–880 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Rose, P. G. et al. Concurrent cisplatin-based radiotherapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 340, 1144–1153 (1999).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Peters, W. A. 3rd et al. Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. J. Clin. Oncol. 18, 1606–1613 (2000).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Keys, H. M. et al. Cisplatin, radiation, and adjuvant hysterectomy compared with radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy for bulky stage IB cervical carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 340, 1154–1161 (1999).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Josefson, D. Adding chemotherapy improves survival in cervical cancer. BMJ 318, 623–623 (1999).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Chemoradiotherapy for Cervical Cancer Meta-analysis Collaboration. Reducing uncertainties about the effects of chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer: individual patient data meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 1, CD008285 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Adelstein, D. J. et al. An intergroup phase III comparison of standard radiation therapy and two schedules of concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresectable squamous cell head and neck cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 21, 92–98 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Calais, G. et al. Randomized trial of radiation therapy versus concomitant chemotherapy and radiation therapy for advanced-stage oropharynx carcinoma. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 91, 2081–2086 (1999).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Tobias, J. S. et al. Chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer: 10-year follow-up of the UK Head and Neck (UKHAN1) trial. Lancet. Oncol. 11, 66–74 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Zakotnik, B. et al. Patterns of failure in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer treated postoperatively with irradiation or concomitant irradiation with mitomycin C and bleomycin. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 67, 685–690 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Kunos, C., Simpkins, F., Gibbons, H., Tian, C. & Homesley, H. Radiation therapy compared with pelvic node resection for node-positive vulvar cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetr. Gynecol. 114, 537–546 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Nigro, N. D., Vaitkevicius, V. K. & Considine, B. Jr. Combined therapy for cancer of the anal canal: a preliminary report. Dis. Colon Rectum 17, 354–356 (1974).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Nigro, N. D. An evaluation of combined therapy for squamous cell cancer of the anal canal. Dis. Colon Rectum 27, 763–766 (1984).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Bartelink, H. et al. Concomitant radiotherapy and chemotherapy is superior to radiotherapy alone in the treatment of locally advanced anal cancer: results of a phase III randomized trial of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Radiotherapy and Gastrointestinal Cooperative Groups. J. Clin. Oncol. 15, 2040–2049 (1997).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Northover, J. et al. Chemoradiation for the treatment of epidermoid anal cancer: 13-year follow-up of the first randomised UKCCCR Anal Cancer Trial (ACT I). Br. J. Cancer 102, 1123–1128 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Ajani, J. A. et al. Fluorouracil, mitomycin, and radiotherapy vs fluorouracil, cisplatin, and radiotherapy for carcinoma of the anal canal: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 299, 1914–1921 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. James, R. D. et al. Mitomycin or cisplatin chemoradiation with or without maintenance chemotherapy for treatment of squamous-cell carcinoma of the anus (ACT II): a randomised, phase 3, open-label, 2×2 factorial trial. Lancet. Oncol. 14, 516–524 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Anal Carcinoma. NCCN https://www.tri-kobe.org/nccn/guideline/colorectal/english/anal.pdf (2017).

  79. Henderson, M. A. et al. Adjuvant lymph-node field radiotherapy versus observation only in patients with melanoma at high risk of further lymph-node field relapse after lymphadenectomy (ANZMTG 01.02/TROG 02.01): 6-year follow-up of a phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 16, 1049–1060 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Lopes, A. et al. Prognostic factors in carcinoma of the penis: multivariate analysis of 145 patients treated with amputation and lymphadenectomy. J. Urol. 156, 1637–1642 (1996).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Penile Cancer. NCCN https://www.tri-kobe.org/nccn/guideline/urological/english/penile.pdf (2016).

  82. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Vulvar Cancer. NCCN https://www.tri-kobe.org/nccn/guideline/gynecological/english/vulvar.pdf (2016).

  83. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Head and Neck Cancers. NCCN https://oralcancerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/head-and-neck.pdf (2016).

  84. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Esophageal and Esophagogastric Cancer. NCCN http://tsqb.hnszlyy.com/ueditor/upload/NCCN%20Guidelines%20esophageal%20cancer%20(2017%20V1)_2017112723507.pdf (2017).

  85. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. NCCN https://www.tri-kobe.org/nccn/guideline/lung/english/non_small.pdf (2015).

  86. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Cervical cancer. NCCN https://www.tri-kobe.org/nccn/guideline/gynecological/english/cervical.pdf (2016).

  87. Hakenberg, O. W. et al. EAU guidelines on penile cancer: 2014 update. Eur. Urol. 67, 142–150 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. O’Neil, B., Brant, W. O., Slack, S. D., Tward, J. D. & Myers, J. B. Penile cancer: contemporary considerations in management of local disease. Curr. Urol. 5, 62–71 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Chhabra, A. et al. Neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiation for curative treatment of penile squamous cell carcinoma. Case Rep. Oncol. Med. 2014, 4 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  90. Lapierre, A., Riou, O., Flechon, A., Mottet, N. & Azria, D. Advanced penile cancer with iliac lymph node involvement treated with radiation and concurrent gemcitabine. Cancer Radiother. 21, 134–137 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Crook, J. Radiotherapy approaches for locally advanced penile cancer: neoadjuvant and adjuvant. Curr. Opin. Urol. 27, 62–67 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Stacey, D., Samant, R. & Bennett, C. Decision making in oncology: a review of patient decision aids to support patient participation. CA Cancer J. Clin. 58, 293–304 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Street, R. L., Elwyn, G. & Epstein, R. M. Patient preferences and healthcare outcomes: an ecological perspective. Expert Rev. Pharmacoeconom. Outcomes Res. 12, 167–180 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Zucca, A., Sanson-Fisher, R., Waller, A. & Carey, M. Patient-centred care: making cancer treatment centres accountable. Supportive Care Cancer 22, 1989–1997 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century (National Academies Press, Washington, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  96. Gerteis, M., Edgman-Levitan, S., Daley, J. & Delbanco, T. L. (eds). Through the Patient’s Eyes: Understanding and Promoting Patient-Centered Care. (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Jonathan Tward

Authors
  1. Jonathan Tward
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Tward.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tward, J. The case for nonsurgical therapy of nonmetastatic penile cancer. Nat Rev Urol 15, 574–584 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-018-0040-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-018-0040-y

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing