PURPOSE: A woman's risk for sexual disruption after breast cancer recurrence has received little clinical or research attention. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Breast cancer patients recently diagnosed with recurrence (n = 60) were initially assessed at baseline and completed follow-ups at 4, 8, and 12 months. They were compared by age, stage, and duration and frequency of follow-up with matched patients who remained disease free (n = 120). Using linear mixed modeling, the groups were compared in their trajectories of change on measures of sexuality, relationship satisfaction, cancer-specific stress, and physical functioning. Recurrence subgroups, those with locoregional versus distant disease and those younger versus older than 52 years, were also compared. RESULTS: At baseline, the recurrence group had significantly lower intercourse frequency and physical functioning compared with the disease-free group and these differences were maintained. There were no significant differences in the frequencies of kissing or sexual and relationship satisfactions. For the recurrence group patients, the heightened stress of the diagnostic/early recurrence treatment period declined to the lower disease-free levels by 12 months. This effect was largely due to improvement of the patients with distant disease. Finally, sexual changes were most notable for younger patients. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first longitudinal, controlled study of sexuality-sexuality in the context of other quality of life domains-for women coping with recurrence. Despite disruption, patients maintained their sexual lives. Younger and distant recurrence patients, however, may have greatest risk of sexual disruption. The factors contributing to sexual disruption remain unknown, and studies investigating strategies to help patients maintain this aspect of quality of life are needed.
PURPOSE: A woman's risk for sexual disruption after breast cancer recurrence has received little clinical or research attention. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Breast cancerpatients recently diagnosed with recurrence (n = 60) were initially assessed at baseline and completed follow-ups at 4, 8, and 12 months. They were compared by age, stage, and duration and frequency of follow-up with matched patients who remained disease free (n = 120). Using linear mixed modeling, the groups were compared in their trajectories of change on measures of sexuality, relationship satisfaction, cancer-specific stress, and physical functioning. Recurrence subgroups, those with locoregional versus distant disease and those younger versus older than 52 years, were also compared. RESULTS: At baseline, the recurrence group had significantly lower intercourse frequency and physical functioning compared with the disease-free group and these differences were maintained. There were no significant differences in the frequencies of kissing or sexual and relationship satisfactions. For the recurrence group patients, the heightened stress of the diagnostic/early recurrence treatment period declined to the lower disease-free levels by 12 months. This effect was largely due to improvement of the patients with distant disease. Finally, sexual changes were most notable for younger patients. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first longitudinal, controlled study of sexuality-sexuality in the context of other quality of life domains-for women coping with recurrence. Despite disruption, patients maintained their sexual lives. Younger and distant recurrence patients, however, may have greatest risk of sexual disruption. The factors contributing to sexual disruption remain unknown, and studies investigating strategies to help patients maintain this aspect of quality of life are needed.
Authors: Barbara L Andersen; Charles L Shapiro; William B Farrar; Timothy Crespin; Sharla Wells-Digregorio Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: M Hanson Frost; V J Suman; T A Rummans; A M Dose; M Taylor; P Novotny; R Johnson; R E Evans Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2000 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: H Okamura; T Watanabe; M Narabayashi; N Katsumata; M Ando; I Adachi; T Akechi; Y Uchitomi Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Andrea A Thornton; Lisa Madlensky; Shirley W Flatt; Robert M Kaplan; John P Pierce Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: B L Andersen; W B Farrar; D Golden-Kreutz; L A Kutz; R MacCallum; M E Courtney; R Glaser Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1998-01-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jennifer Barsky Reese; Kristen Sorice; Stephen J Lepore; Mary B Daly; James A Tulsky; Mary Catherine Beach Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2018-10-04
Authors: Emily K Hill; Stacey Sandbo; Emily Abramsohn; Jennifer Makelarski; Kristen Wroblewski; Emily R Wenrich; Stacy McCoy; Sarah M Temkin; S Diane Yamada; Stacy T Lindau Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-12-23 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sharla Wells-Di Gregorio; Kristen M Carpenter; Caroline S Dorfman; Hae-Chung Yang; Laura E Simonelli; William E Carson Journal: Brain Behav Immun Date: 2011-07-23 Impact factor: 7.217
Authors: Jennifer Barsky Reese; Rebecca A Shelby; Francis J Keefe; Laura S Porter; Amy P Abernethy Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2009-09-24 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Alexander Morzycki; Joseph Corkum; Nadim Joukhadar; Osama Samargandi; Jason G Williams; Simon G Frank Journal: Plast Surg (Oakv) Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 0.947