Background: Artificial intelligence chatbots are increasingly used by patients to obtain health information, including for prostate cancer. While these platforms offer accessible and conversational responses, concerns remain regarding the quality, usability, and clinical relevance of AI-generated content. This study comparatively evaluated patient-directed prostate cancer information generated by commonly used AI chatbots. Methods: Standardised prostate cancer-related prompts were developed using Google Trends and authoritative healthcare resources. Identical queries were submitted to five publicly accessible AI chatbots: ChatGPT 5.2, Google Gemini, Claude AI, Microsoft Copilot, and Perplexity. Responses were independently assessed by two blinded reviewers using the DISCERN instrument for information quality and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for printable materials (PEMAT-P) for understandability and actionability. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Readability was evaluated using the Flesch–Kincaid Reading Ease score. Descriptive statistics were used for comparative and pooled analyses. Results: Overall information quality was moderate, with a pooled median (interquartile range [IQR]) DISCERN score of 56.5 (53.0–61.0). Higher mean DISCERN scores were observed for ChatGPT 5.2 and Microsoft Copilot, whereas lower scores were observed for Claude and Perplexity. PEMAT-P understandability was consistently high across platforms, with a pooled median (IQR) score of 91.7% (83.3–91.7%). In contrast, PEMAT-P actionability was uniformly poor, with a pooled median (IQR) score of 0% (0–0%). Readability analysis demonstrated moderate complexity, with a pooled median (IQR) Flesch–Kincaid Reading Ease score of 50.4 (49.2–52.5) and a median word count of 666 (657–1022). Inter-rater reliability was good for PEMAT understandability (ICC 0.841) and moderate for DISCERN (ICC 0.712). Conclusions: AI chatbots provide highly understandable but only moderately high-quality patient-directed prostate cancer information, with a consistent lack of actionable guidance. Although variation in content quality was observed across platforms, significant limitations remain in evidence transparency and practical patient support. Future development should prioritise integration of evidence-based resources and actionable decision-support tools to enhance the role of AI chatbots in prostate cancer education.

Background/Objectives: Penile squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is a rare but aggressive malignancy in which survival declines sharply once regional lymph nodes are involved. Neoadjuvant therapy is recommended for clinically node-positive disease to improve resectability and address micro-metastatic spread; however, the supporting evidence remains limited. We systematically reviewed contemporary data on neoadjuvant strategies for penile SCC, including cytotoxic chemotherapy, radiotherapy, immunotherapy, and molecularly targeted agents. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and CENTRAL was conducted from inception to January 2026 in accordance with MECIR guidance. Eligible studies included patients with histologically confirmed penile cancer treated with neoadjuvant intent prior to curative surgery. Primary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), pathological complete response (pCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Data were synthesised narratively by treatment modality. Results: Forty-two studies met the inclusion criteria (32 chemotherapy, five radiotherapy, five immunotherapy, three targeted therapy). The evidence base was dominated by retrospective cohorts with limited prospective phase II data and no completed randomised trials. Across chemotherapy studies, the median reported ORR was 50% (range 29–90%), with pCR/ypN0 rates ranging 10–25%. Median reported PFS and OS were approximately 11 and 18 months, respectively, with durable survival concentrated among responders undergoing complete surgical consolidation. Radiotherapy data were sparse and heterogeneous. Early-phase immunotherapy combinations reported higher short-term response and pCR signals than historical chemotherapy, though the results were based on small single-arm cohorts. Molecularly targeted systemic monotherapy demonstrated modest activity. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant taxane–platinum-based chemotherapy remains the guideline-supported standard for cN2-3 penile SCC, supported by phase II and retrospective data but limited by methodological heterogeneity and absence of randomised evidence. Emerging combination immunotherapy strategies show promising efficacy signals and warrant prospective validation within biomarker-informed trial frameworks.