Unmet needs in sexual health in bladder cancer patients: a systematic review of the evidence.
Bladder cancer
Health-related quality of life
Mental wellbeing
Radical cystectomy
Sexual health
Journal
BMC urology
ISSN: 1471-2490
Titre abrégé: BMC Urol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968571
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Jun 2020
03 Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
18
02
2020
accepted:
22
05
2020
entrez:
5
6
2020
pubmed:
5
6
2020
medline:
5
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Bladder cancer (BC) treatment can have a detrimental effect on the sexual organs of patients and yet assessment of sexual health needs has been greatly overlooked for these patients compared to those who have undergone other cancer therapies. This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in July 2019. Studies were identified by conducting searches for Medline (using the PubMed interface), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Ovid Gateway (Embase and Ovid) using a list of defined search terms. 15 out of 37 studies included men only, 10 studies women only and 11 both sexes. Most participants were aged 50 to 65 years. Most studies (n = 34) focused on muscle invasive BC and only three on non-muscle invasive BC. Measurements of sexual dysfunction, including erection, ejaculation, firmness and desire, were the most commonly used measurements to report sexual health in men. In women, lubrification/dryness, desire, orgasm and dyspareunia were the most commonly reported. Twenty-one studies evaluated sexual dysfunction based on validated questionnaires, two with a non-validated questionnaire and through interviewing participants. While recognition of the importance of the inclusion of psychometric measurements to assess sexual health is growing, there is a lack of consistent measures to assess sexual health in BC. With the focus on QoL arising in cancer survivorship, further studies are needed to develop, standardize and implement use of sexual health questionnaires with appropriate psychometrics and social measures to evaluate QoL in BC patients. "PROSPERO does not currently accept registrations for scoping reviews, literature reviews or mapping reviews. PROSPERO is therefore unable to accept your application or provide a registration number. This decision should not stop you from submitting your project for publication to a journal."
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Bladder cancer (BC) treatment can have a detrimental effect on the sexual organs of patients and yet assessment of sexual health needs has been greatly overlooked for these patients compared to those who have undergone other cancer therapies.
METHODS
METHODS
This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in July 2019. Studies were identified by conducting searches for Medline (using the PubMed interface), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Ovid Gateway (Embase and Ovid) using a list of defined search terms.
RESULTS
RESULTS
15 out of 37 studies included men only, 10 studies women only and 11 both sexes. Most participants were aged 50 to 65 years. Most studies (n = 34) focused on muscle invasive BC and only three on non-muscle invasive BC. Measurements of sexual dysfunction, including erection, ejaculation, firmness and desire, were the most commonly used measurements to report sexual health in men. In women, lubrification/dryness, desire, orgasm and dyspareunia were the most commonly reported. Twenty-one studies evaluated sexual dysfunction based on validated questionnaires, two with a non-validated questionnaire and through interviewing participants.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
While recognition of the importance of the inclusion of psychometric measurements to assess sexual health is growing, there is a lack of consistent measures to assess sexual health in BC. With the focus on QoL arising in cancer survivorship, further studies are needed to develop, standardize and implement use of sexual health questionnaires with appropriate psychometrics and social measures to evaluate QoL in BC patients.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
"PROSPERO does not currently accept registrations for scoping reviews, literature reviews or mapping reviews. PROSPERO is therefore unable to accept your application or provide a registration number. This decision should not stop you from submitting your project for publication to a journal."
Identifiants
pubmed: 32493286
doi: 10.1186/s12894-020-00634-1
pii: 10.1186/s12894-020-00634-1
pmc: PMC7268732
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
64Références
Indian J Urol. 2016 Jan-Mar;32(1):65-70
pubmed: 26941498
Int J Urol. 2001 Apr;8(4):158-64
pubmed: 11260347
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2011 Nov;45(5):332-8
pubmed: 21689067
Curr Urol Rep. 2018 Nov 9;19(12):111
pubmed: 30414013
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018 Sep;44(9):1446-1452
pubmed: 29929902
Turk J Urol. 2018 Sep;44(5):393-398
pubmed: 29799404
J Urol. 2015 Jan;193(1):64-70
pubmed: 25066875
Radiother Oncol. 1998 Nov;49(2):157-61
pubmed: 10052881
J Urol. 2014 Jan;191(1):48-53
pubmed: 23911603
Cancer. 2006 Jun 1;106(11):2355-62
pubmed: 16649218
Urol Oncol. 2016 Dec;34(12):531.e7-531.e14
pubmed: 27449687
Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:1983428
pubmed: 28589133
Urology. 2006 Oct;68(4):778-83
pubmed: 17070352
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 Dec 1;96(5):1028-1036
pubmed: 27727064
J Urol. 2004 Dec;172(6 Pt 1):2353-7
pubmed: 15538266
J Egypt Natl Canc Inst. 2018 Sep;30(3):93-97
pubmed: 30145025
Int J Urol. 2007 Apr;14(4):294-8; discussion 299
pubmed: 17470156
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2018 Aug;35:92-101
pubmed: 30057091
Indian J Urol. 2015 Oct-Dec;31(4):289-96
pubmed: 26604439
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1998 May;32(3):187-93
pubmed: 9689697
Int Urol Nephrol. 2011 Sep;43(3):749-54
pubmed: 21053073
BJU Int. 2004 Aug;94(3):350-4
pubmed: 15291866
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013 Apr;39(4):358-64
pubmed: 23422323
J Clin Oncol. 1999 Sep;17(9):2882-8
pubmed: 10561366
J Sex Res. 2014;51(5):485-91
pubmed: 24826876
Urology. 2004 Oct;64(4):682-5; discussion 685-6
pubmed: 15491700
JAMA. 1995 Jan 11;273(2):129-35
pubmed: 7799493
J Urol. 1985 Sep;134(3):465-8
pubmed: 4032540
Actas Urol Esp. 2017 May;41(4):267-273
pubmed: 27769597
Scand J Urol. 2015 Dec;49(6):463-467
pubmed: 26087867
Scand J Caring Sci. 1991;5(3):129-34
pubmed: 1775800
Support Care Cancer. 2014 Jan;22(1):189-200
pubmed: 24026979
Urology. 2005 Feb;65(2):290-4
pubmed: 15708040
Res Involv Engagem. 2018 Jul 19;4:25
pubmed: 30038798
J Sex Med. 2010 Jan;7(1 Pt 2):374-88
pubmed: 20092445
J Urol. 1986 Nov;136(5):1015-7
pubmed: 3773059
Cent European J Urol. 2015;68(2):141-5
pubmed: 26251729
Nat Rev Urol. 2014 Aug;11(8):445-53
pubmed: 24980191
Urology. 2006 Jan;67(1):185-6
pubmed: 16413361
Urology. 2006 Apr;67(4):742-5
pubmed: 16566975
Sex Med. 2014 Aug;2(3):141-51
pubmed: 25356311
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1992;26(2):127-9
pubmed: 1626201
Eur Urol. 2004 Aug;46(2):264-9; discussion 269-70
pubmed: 15245823
J Egypt Natl Canc Inst. 2005 Dec;17(4):239-44
pubmed: 17102818
Sex Med Rev. 2018 Jul;6(3):469-481
pubmed: 29371143
Cancer Med. 2018 Mar;7(3):635-645
pubmed: 29436144
Psychooncology. 2017 Oct;26(10):1632-1639
pubmed: 27240019
JAMA. 1999 Feb 10;281(6):537-44
pubmed: 10022110
Urology. 2004 Jun;63(6):1153-7
pubmed: 15183970