Case Reports in Medicine

Case Reports in Medicine / 2020 / Article

Case Report | Open Access

Volume 2020 |Article ID 6976254 |

Adel Alrabadi, Sohaib Alhamss, Yasmeen Z. Qwaider, Saddam Al Demour, "A Huge Penile Fibroepithelial Polyp Treated with Partial Penectomy: A Case Report and Review of the Literature", Case Reports in Medicine, vol. 2020, Article ID 6976254, 6 pages, 2020.

A Huge Penile Fibroepithelial Polyp Treated with Partial Penectomy: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

Academic Editor: Gerd J. Ridder
Received15 Jul 2020
Revised28 Aug 2020
Accepted31 Aug 2020
Published08 Sep 2020


Fibroepithelial polyps are benign tumors of mesodermal origin that usually arise on the surface of the skin and to a lesser extent in the urinary tract; however, their presence on the penis is extremely unusual. We report the case of a 73-year-old male with an extremely large broad-based penile fibroepithelial polyp (FEP) involving the penile shaft and glans penis associated with chronic condom catheter use and that was treated with partial penectomy. A review of the literature is included to highlight the rarity of this case. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest mass of its kind to be reported on the penis.

1. Introduction

Fibroepithelial polyps (FEPs) are benign neoplasms that are mesodermal in origin. Histologically, they have a characteristic squamous epithelial surface with an underlying fibrovascular stroma, and definitive histology is needed to rule out malignancy [1]. We hereby present a case of a huge FEP on the glans penis associated with long-term condom catheter use.

2. Case Report

A 73-year-old male patient presented to our clinic complaining of a painless penile mass which has appeared 4 years ago and gradually been increasing in size. The patient has been known to have urinary urge incontinence for the last 17 years following spinal surgery. Since then, the patient has been using a condom catheter.

As the growth of the mass accelerated over the last 4 months, it became harder for the patient to have good hygiene and the condom could not fit anymore for the huge mass, and so he started to design special plastic bags for that purpose. In addition, the mass itself was becoming a source of a very bad odor. The patient has been complaining of erectile dysfunction, stool incontinence, and bilateral lower limb weakness since the time of spine surgery. The patient has a good urinary stream and has neither dysuria nor hematuria. He reported neither the presence of similar skin lesions, previous penile surgeries (apart from circumcision during childhood), nor a history of recent travels. The patient denied using penile constrictive rings or vacuum devices. There was no history of trauma. He was not taking medication.

On examination, the patient was having a huge (15 × 10 × 8 cm), nontender, “grape-like” penile firm mass originating from the ventral aspect of the penile shaft and glans penis (Figures 1 and 2). The lesion had a very broad base with no stalk. An extremely bad odor was originating from the mass. There was no ulcer and no discharge. The meatal opening, scrotal skin, and both testicles were all normal. The inguinal lymph nodes were not palpable. No other similar skin lesions were found.

Upon presentation, the serum creatinine level was 2.3 mg/dl. Urine analysis and culture showed the presence of urinary tract infection. The nonenhanced urinary tract computed tomography scan showed bilateral mild hydroureteronephrosis down to the urinary bladder. Ultrasonography showed a postvoid residual volume of 350 cc. 18-French Foley’s catheter was inserted easily and kept in situ. The patient was admitted to the hospital and managed with intravenous fluids and antibiotics. His creatinine became 1.18 mg/dl.

Cystourethroscopy was performed and showed a normal-looking urethra, enlarged prostate, and severe trabeculations of the urinary bladder. At the same time, an incisional biopsy was performed which showed a benign fibroepithelial polyp with no evidence of malignancy. The situation was discussed with the patient and his family. Partial penectomy with excision of the whole mass was performed under general anesthesia. As the lesion was having a very broad base, it was not possible to excise the mass with preserving the penis. The postoperative course was uneventful. Follow-up for two years showed no recurrence.

The final histopathology of the specimen confirmed the previous diagnosis of a benign fibroepithelial polyp with no evidence of malignancy. It showed a hypocellular collagenized, edematous, and vascular stroma. The stroma contained patchy perivascular lymphocytic aggregates. Furthermore, few smooth muscle cell strands were noted. The surface was covered by benign acanthotic stratified squamous epithelium (Figures 3 and 4). Stromal cells were positive for CD34 staining (Figure 5).

3. Discussion

We have performed a review of the English-written literature using PubMed and Scopus looking for these terms: “fibroepithelial polyp” and “penile fibroepithelial polyp”. The references were reviewed from the available papers and studied. At the end, 25 papers were selected.

To the best of our knowledge, the literature describes only 25 cases of FEPs on the surface of the penis. The age reported in the studies ranged from 25 to 97 years, with the exception of 5 cases reported in children. Eleven of the adult cases, which constitute the majority, reported the long-term use of a condom catheter. 8 adult cases denied the use of the condom catheter. The remaining adult cases practiced male genital hanging kung fu [2]. Other possible causes for the rise of these polyps could be phimosis [1, 3] or the use of a cotton cloth for urinary incontinence [4].

It should also be noted that 17 of the cases occurred on the glans penis, making it the most common site. Other sites of manifestation were either on the frenulum, ventral surface of the penis, or penoscrotal junction (Table 1).

AuthorsAgeSiteSizeDurationCondom catheter useTreatmentFollow-upRecurrenceMalignancy

Yildirim et al. [5]4Glans7 × 6 mmNANoLocal excision + circumcisionNANANo
Fetsch et al. [6]25Glans2.5 cmYearsYesLocal excision13 years 8 monthsLocal recurrence <1 year. No evidence of disease at 12 years 8 monthsNo
Fetsch et al. [6]29Glans3.4 cm6 monthsYesLocal excision24 yearsNo recurrenceNo
Fetsch et al. [6]32Glans2.5 cm6 monthsYesLocal excision1 monthNo dataNo
Fetsch et al. [6]40Glans2 cm10 yearsYesLocal excision8 years 10 monthsNo recurrenceNo
Fetsch et al. [6]45NA3.5 cmNANALocal excisionLost to follow-upNANo
Fetsch et al. [6]52Glans7.51 yearNo, paraphimosisLocal excision6 years 2 monthsNoNo
Fetsch et al. [6]58Glans and prepuce2.5 cmNAYesLocal excision3 years 10 monthsLocal recurrence at 3 years 7 months. No evidence of disease at 3 months (recurrence 2 lesions: 0.9 cm and 3 cm)No
Emir et al. [7]97Distal ventral skin of the penis5 × 3 cmLess than 2 yearsNoLocal excisionNANANA
Al Awadhi et al. [8]43Ventral aspect of penis4 cm1 yearYes (14 years)Local excisional biopsyNANANo
Tsai et al. [2]50Glans6.5 × 5 cm5 yearsNo (male genitalia hanging kung fu)Local excisionNANANo
Turgut et al. [9]59Ventral aspect of penis6 × 4.5 cm10 yearsYesWide local excision and anticholinergic agent therapy was begun1 yearNo recurrenceNo
Kampanatais et al. [1]78Glans4.5NANo (phimosis)Local excision + circumcision6 monthsNoYes (SCC)
Pena et al. [10]63Glans3 × 2.5 × 2 cmNANoLocal excision6 monthsNoNo
Hyun et al. [11]18 monthsPenoscrotal junction2.9 cm18 monthsNoLocal excisionNANANo
Banerji et al. [12]42Ventral aspect of the penis8 × 5 cm10 yearsYesLocal excisionNANANo
Kim et al. [13]45Glans6 × 3 × 3 cmNAYesLocal excision12 monthsNoNo
Mason et al. [3]36Glans (frenulum)1.1 × 1.4 × 2.6 cm1 yearYesLocal excision7 monthsNoNo
Kampanatais et al. [1]35Glans7 cm15 monthsNoLocal excision60 monthsNoNo
Rodriguez Collar et al [14]39FrenulumNA5 monthsNoLocal excision + circumcision12 monthsNoNo
Yan et al. [15]62Glans extending to frenulum7 × 5 × 3 cm11 yearsNoLocal excision + circumcisionNANoNo
Goyal et al. [4]38Glans3.5 × 3 × 2 cm6 monthsNo, cotton clothLocal excision6 monthsNoNo
Sencan et al. [16]6 monthsGlans6 × 7 mm4 monthsNoLocal excision1 yearNoNo
Prashant et al. [17]3Glans5 mm × 6 mmNANoLocal excision1 yearNoNo
Prashant et al. [17]4GlansNANANoLocal excisionNANoNo

The overall prognosis of penile FEPs is good, with only 1 of the 25 cases transforming into squamous cell carcinoma [1]. Also, recurrence of the mass was rare with only 2 cases reappearing in less than 3 years (Table 1).

FEPs are benign tumors that arise from the mesoderm [18]. They mostly occur on the surface of the skin, specifically the axillae, neck, and eyelids [7]. In the urinary tract, they are mostly seen in the ureter, renal pelvis, and rarely in the posterior urethra or bladder [17] while their appearance on the penis is a rarity.

The etiology of penile FEPs is generally unknown but has been strongly linked to chronic, improper use of condom catheters [12]. It was hypothesized that pressure from condom catheters results in a reactive process and a decrease in vascular and lymphatic drainage [2, 4]. This theory may also explain the development of the FEP in Tsai et al.’s case report on a patient who practiced pressure-producing male genital hanging kung fu [2]. However, it does not explain the development of similar masses in children and in adults who used noncondom catheter.

Potentially, these FEPs could arise from the irritation of the glans [4], not only by direct pressure but by contact irritation through poor hygiene or cotton cloths.

In relation to the histopathology, all pathology reports from the previously reported cases similarly stated the characteristic fibrovascular edematous stroma covered by keratinized squamous epithelium [117]. Also, several authors stated the presence of mast cells [3, 13] and lymphocytes [3, 10, 12]. Our pathological findings were in conjunction with the findings of the literature.

In this reported case, the chronic use of a condom catheter by the patient might have predisposed to the development of the giant mass. It is important to note that the poor quality of hygiene the patient maintained might have played a significant role as well.

It is worth mentioning that upon the revision of the related literature, the current case we present has the largest mass recorded and at a maximum diameter of 15 cm. Partial penectomy was indicated in the case of our patient due to the replacement of the penile shaft and surrounding skin with the mass. Local complete excision of the mass with preserving the penis was impossible for us. We believe this procedure has never been performed in the case of a penile FEP according to the published data.

Finally, the postoperative course of the patient was uneventful; hence, we conclude that wide local excision and partial penectomy can be a good and satisfactory treatment option in the case of large polyps such as this. Additionally, our patient might solidify the theory that chronic, improper use of a condom catheter may predispose to the development of penile FEP. The role of hygiene should be noted as well and mentioned to all patients using condom catheters.

4. Review of the Literature

4.1. Methods

We underwent a review of the English-written literature using PubMed looking for the term: “penile fibroepithelial polyp”. Besides, we reviewed the references of the available articles.

4.2. Results

About 25 cases of a penile fibroepithelial polyp were reported in the literature (Table 1).

Data Availability

The data used to support the study are included within the article.

Ethical Approval

The study complies with the guidelines for human studies and was conducted in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki.

The subject has given his written informed consent to publish his case including publication of images.

Conflicts of Interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. S. Kampantais, V. Gourvas, S. Lymperi, C. Toutziaris, and S. Ioannidis, “Malignant degeneration within a fibroepithelial polyp of the glans penis: A case report and literature review,” Clinical Genitourinary Cancer, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 63–65, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. T.-F. Tsai, C.-S. Hung, and C.-H. Hsiao, “Fibroepithelial polyp of glans penis in a man who practiced genital hanging kung fu,” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. S35–S37, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. S. E. Mason, P. DeVilliers, and A. A. Andea, “Lymphedematous fibroepithelial polyps of the penis associated with long-term condom catheter use: Case report and review of the literature,” Journal of Cutaneous Pathology, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 906–909, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. S. Goyal, K. Kashyap, S. Narang, and A. Trikha, “Fibroepithelial polyp of the glans penis,” International Medical Journal of Sifa University, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 24, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. I. Yildirim, C. Irkilata, F. Sümer, E. Aydur, A. Özcan, and M. Dayanc, “Fibroepithelial polyp originating from the glans penis in a child,” International Journal of Urology, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 187-188, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. J. F. Fetsch, C. J. Davis, J. R. Hallman, L. S. Chung, G. P. Lupton, and I. A. Sesterhenn, “Lymphedematous fibroepithelial polyps of the glans penis and prepuce: A clinicopathologic study of 7 cases demonstrating a strong association with chronic condom catheter use,” Human Pathology, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 190–195, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. L. Emir, H. Ak, A. Karabulut, E. Özer, and D. Erol, “A huge unusual mass on the penile skin: Acrochordon,” International Urology and Nephrology, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 563–565, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. N. M. Al-Awadhi, N. Al-Brahim, M. S. Ahmad, and E. Yordanov, “Giant fibroepithelial polyp of the penis associated with long-term use of condom catheter. Case report and literature review,” The Canadian Journal of Urology, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 3659–3659, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  9. M. Turgut, A. Yenilmez, C. Can, K. Bildirici, A. Erkul, and Y. Özyürek, “Fibroepithelial polyp of glans penis,” Urology, vol. 65, no. 3, p. 593, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. K. B. G. Peña and D. D. Parada, “Lymphedematous fibroepithelial polyp of the glans penis non-associated with condom catheter use. Letter to the editor,” APMIS, vol. 116, no. 3, pp. 215–218, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. C. H. Hyun, H. T. Kim, M. J. Kim, and K. H. Moon, “Congenital fibroepithelial polyp of the penoscrotal junction,” Korean Journal of Urology, vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 961–964, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. J. S. Banerji, S. Shah, and N. S. Kekre, “Fibroepithelial polyp of the prepuce: A rare complication of long-term condom catheter usage,” Indian Journal of Urology, vol. 24, no. 2, p. 263, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. Y. D. Kim, M. H. Lee, J. M. Kim, Y. H. Kim, and E. S. Koh, “Giant fibroepithelial polyp of the glans penis,” Korean Journal of Urology, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 619–621, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. T. C. Rodríguez, B. E. Valdés, L. M. López, and R. H. Soranyer, “Penile fibroepithelial polyp. Case report,” Archivos espanoles de urologia, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 309–312, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  15. H. Yan, A. Treacy, G. Yousef, and R. Stewart, “Giant fibroepithelial polyp of the glans penis not associated with condom-catheter use: A case report and literature review,” Canadian Urological Association Journal, vol. 7, no. 9-10, p. 621, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. A. Sencan, A. Sencan, C. Gunsar, H. Cayirli, and N. Nese, “A rare cause of glans penis masses in childhood: Fibroepithelial polyp,” Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 42, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. P. S. Prashant, G. Abhaya, R. Gupta, K. L. Paras, K. Geeta, and V. Dikshit, “Fibroepithelial polyp of the glans penis in two children, a rare cause of penile mass: A case report,” Pediatric Urology Case Reports, vol. 3, no. 4, p. 89, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. T. R. Williams, B. J. Wagner, W. R. Corse, and J. C. Vestevich, “Fibroepithelial polyps of the urinary tract,” Abdominal Imaging, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 217–221, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2020 Adel Alrabadi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.