Stacy Tessler Lindau1, Natalia Gavrilova, Diane Anderson. 1. University of Chicago, Pritzker School of Medicine, Departments of Ob/Gyn and Medicine-Geriatrics, 5841 S. Maryland Ave., MC2050, Chicago, IL 60637, USA. slindau@uchicago.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare sexuality among very long term survivors of vaginal and cervical cancer to national norms and assess quality of care for sexual problems. METHODS: A survey of survivors in a cancer registry (n=221) provided data comparable to the 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS sample was individually matched on age and race to survivors at a 2:1 ratio. Responses were compared using conditional logistic regression and two-sample t-tests. Correlates of sexual problems among survivors were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Survivors' mean age was 49 years (SD=6.0); median survivorship was 26.8 years (range 5.5-39.7). Survivors and controls reported similar levels of sexual partnership and activity, but sexual problems were significantly more prevalent among survivors (mean number of problems 2.6 versus 1.1, P<0.001). Satisfaction with care for sexual problems was lower than with cancer care overall (5.5 versus 8.0/10, P<0.001). While 74% believed that physicians should discuss sex, 62% reported never discussing the effect of genital tract cancer on sexuality. In adjusted analysis, survivors reporting no such discussion were significantly more likely to exhibit current complex sexual morbidity (> or =3 concurrent sexual problems) (OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.14-6.58). CONCLUSIONS: Despite profoundly more sexual problems, survivors' rate of sexual partnership and activity was similar to population controls. Satisfaction with care relating to sexuality was significantly lower than with cancer care overall. Conversation with a physician about the sexual effects of cancer is associated with significantly lower likelihood of complex sexual morbidity among very long term survivors.
OBJECTIVES: To compare sexuality among very long term survivors of vaginal and cervical cancer to national norms and assess quality of care for sexual problems. METHODS: A survey of survivors in a cancer registry (n=221) provided data comparable to the 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS sample was individually matched on age and race to survivors at a 2:1 ratio. Responses were compared using conditional logistic regression and two-sample t-tests. Correlates of sexual problems among survivors were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Survivors' mean age was 49 years (SD=6.0); median survivorship was 26.8 years (range 5.5-39.7). Survivors and controls reported similar levels of sexual partnership and activity, but sexual problems were significantly more prevalent among survivors (mean number of problems 2.6 versus 1.1, P<0.001). Satisfaction with care for sexual problems was lower than with cancer care overall (5.5 versus 8.0/10, P<0.001). While 74% believed that physicians should discuss sex, 62% reported never discussing the effect of genital tract cancer on sexuality. In adjusted analysis, survivors reporting no such discussion were significantly more likely to exhibit current complex sexual morbidity (> or =3 concurrent sexual problems) (OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.14-6.58). CONCLUSIONS: Despite profoundly more sexual problems, survivors' rate of sexual partnership and activity was similar to population controls. Satisfaction with care relating to sexuality was significantly lower than with cancer care overall. Conversation with a physician about the sexual effects of cancer is associated with significantly lower likelihood of complex sexual morbidity among very long term survivors.
Authors: S Houterman; M L G Janssen-Heijnen; L V van de Poll-Franse; H Brenner; J W W Coebergh Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2006-01-17 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Nancy E Avis; Kevin W Smith; Sarah McGraw; Roselyn G Smith; Vida M Petronis; Charles S Carver Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Michael Frumovitz; Charlotte C Sun; Leslie R Schover; Mark F Munsell; Anuja Jhingran; J Taylor Wharton; Patricia Eifel; Therese B Bevers; Charles F Levenback; David M Gershenson; Diane C Bodurka Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-03-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Melissa Y Carpentier; J Dennis Fortenberry; Mary A Ott; Mary J Brames; Lawrence H Einhorn Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2010-05-20 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Crystal S Denlinger; Robert W Carlson; Madhuri Are; K Scott Baker; Elizabeth Davis; Stephen B Edge; Debra L Friedman; Mindy Goldman; Lee Jones; Allison King; Elizabeth Kvale; Terry S Langbaum; Jennifer A Ligibel; Mary S McCabe; Kevin T McVary; Michelle Melisko; Jose G Montoya; Kathi Mooney; Mary Ann Morgan; Tracey O'Connor; Electra D Paskett; Muhammad Raza; Karen L Syrjala; Susan G Urba; Mark T Wakabayashi; Phyllis Zee; Nicole McMillian; Deborah Freedman-Cass Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: P Harter; I Schrof; L M Karl; R Hils; V Kullmann; A Traut; H Scheller; A du Bois Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Jeanne Carter; Helen Huang; Dana M Chase; Joan L Walker; David Cella; Lari Wenzel Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Casey M Hay; Heidi S Donovan; Erin G Hartnett; Jeanne Carter; Mary C Roberge; Grace B Campbell; Benjamin E Zuchelkowski; Sarah E Taylor Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Jan M Eberth; Pratibha Prarelkar; Hoang Nguyen; Charlotte Sun; Jennifer Irvin-Vidrine; Linda S Elting Journal: Tex Public Health J Date: 2013-01