What are the documented case reports of penile gigantism and their publication years?
Executive summary
The peer-reviewed literature distinguishes true penile gigantism (rare, often congenital or hormonally driven) from acquired or pseudo‑megapenis conditions; recent systematic attention found only a handful of documented case reports in the modern era, with the most comprehensive contemporary review published in 2022 [1] [2]. Historical and descriptive reports — including classical anomalies such as diphallia noted as early as 1609 — exist in surgical and urology compilations, but modern case-series level documentation remains sparse and fragmented Megalopenis-in-congenital-lymphedema_fig12_269463848" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[3].
1. The modern survey: an explicit count and its date
A focused modern literature review reported in a 2022 surgical/urology paper retrieved seven previously published cases of marked penile girth enlargement from 1970 through 2021 and added the authors’ own case to make a total of eight reported instances in the contemporary literature; that review was published in February 2022 [1] [2].
2. Reviews and thematic treatments: where “megalopenis” has been collected
A 2017 review titled “Megalopenis” compiled clinical descriptions, diagnostic considerations, and differential diagnoses (including reversible androgenic causes and surgical options) and remains a cited, downloadable synthesis in the online literature [4]. That work discusses causes that can be reversible (iatrogenic androgen exposure, tumors producing androgens), and emphasizes ruling out secondary pathology such as neurofibroma or haemangioma [4].
3. Congenital versus acquired — and why publication years matter
Congenital anomalies that mimic penile gigantism — for example congenital megalourethra or penile lymphedema and true duplications such as diphallia — are well described in pediatric urology references and pictorial compilations; the first historically noted diphallia case is traced to 1609 in historical reviews cited in contemporary compilations [3] [5]. In contrast, acquired macropenis cases (the set counted in the 2022 review) have been reported only sporadically since about 1970, with the papers in that cluster spanning the 1970–2021 window identified by the authors [1] [2].
4. Hormonal gigantism and genital effects: related but not identical
Endocrinology literature on acromegaly and pituitary gigantism describes systemic GH/IGF‑1 effects and documented genital changes (testicular enlargement, alterations in sexual function), but explicit reports of dramatic penile length‑based gigantism tied to pituitary causes are rare or not clearly separable from other genital manifestations; contemporary endocrine reviews and case reports discuss genital changes in acromegaly but do not convert into a series of well‑dated penile‑gigantism case reports in the provided sources [6] [7] [8].
5. What the sources do — and do not — allow one to list precisely
The 2022 circumferential acquired macropenis paper is the clearest modern inventory: it documents that seven prior acquired‑girth cases exist in the published record (1970–2021) and presents the new 2022 case [1] [2]. The 2017 “Megalopenis” review is another contemporary source summarizing case material and differential diagnoses [4]. Historical descriptions of rare congenital anomalies, including diphallia first reported in 1609, are noted in surgical textbooks and figure compilations [3]. The provided material does not include a consolidated list of each individual case report with author names and exact publication years for the seven pre‑2022 acquired‑girth reports; therefore a complete itemized chronology (each case title and year) cannot be reproduced from the supplied sources alone [1] [2] [4] [3].
6. Bottom line for researchers seeking a year‑by‑year list
The best sources to consult next are the 2022 review (which cites the seven preexisting acquired‑girth reports spanning 1970–2021) and the 2017 megalopenis review for broader context; obtaining the precise years and citations for each individual prior case requires accessing the reference lists of those two papers or their source bibliographies, because the excerpts provided here do not enumerate each prior report’s publication year [1] [2] [4].