PURPOSE: To assess physical and psychological morbidity, sexual functioning and social and relationship satisfaction among women treated with pelvic radiotherapy. METHODS: Observational (case-control) study of 199 women: 98 submitted to pelvic radiotherapy for the treatment of uterine, rectal or anal cancers and 101 without a personal history of cancer and similar socio-demographic variables. These completed a socio-demographic and clinical questionnaire, and validated measures of psychological health (DASS: Lovibond and Lovibond in Behav Res Ther 33:353-343, 1995), sexual function (FSFI: Rosen et al. in J Sex Marital Ther 26:191-208, 2007), social support (ESSS: Ribeiro in Analise Psicologica 3:547-558, 1999) and relationship satisfaction (IMS: Hudson in The WALMYR assessment scales scoring manual 1992). RESULTS: Women submitted to pelvic irradiation reported a higher rate of adverse physical symptoms in the last month: fatigue 59 versus 25% (p < 0.001), lack of strength 42 versus 20% (p = 0.001), diarrhoea 24 versus 12% (p = 0.032), vaginal discharge 17 versus 7% (p = 0.024), skin erythema 9 versus 2% (p = 0.026). Levels of depression, anxiety and stress were higher among radiotherapy patients, but only reach statistical significance for the stress parameter (6.1 vs. 4.0, p = 0.012). Also these women reported lower scores of satisfaction with social support (57.2 vs. 62.2, p = 0.005) and sexual function (8.5 vs. 13.5, p = 0.049). No statistically significant differences occurred between the two groups regarding scores of relationship satisfaction (20.8 vs. 19.9, p = n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested that pelvic radiotherapy had a negative impact on female sexuality. Thus, interventions that would help to reduce this impact need to be designed and integrated into routine clinical practice.
PURPOSE: To assess physical and psychological morbidity, sexual functioning and social and relationship satisfaction among women treated with pelvic radiotherapy. METHODS: Observational (case-control) study of 199 women: 98 submitted to pelvic radiotherapy for the treatment of uterine, rectal or anal cancers and 101 without a personal history of cancer and similar socio-demographic variables. These completed a socio-demographic and clinical questionnaire, and validated measures of psychological health (DASS: Lovibond and Lovibond in Behav Res Ther 33:353-343, 1995), sexual function (FSFI: Rosen et al. in J Sex Marital Ther 26:191-208, 2007), social support (ESSS: Ribeiro in Analise Psicologica 3:547-558, 1999) and relationship satisfaction (IMS: Hudson in The WALMYR assessment scales scoring manual 1992). RESULTS:Women submitted to pelvic irradiation reported a higher rate of adverse physical symptoms in the last month: fatigue 59 versus 25% (p < 0.001), lack of strength 42 versus 20% (p = 0.001), diarrhoea 24 versus 12% (p = 0.032), vaginal discharge 17 versus 7% (p = 0.024), skin erythema 9 versus 2% (p = 0.026). Levels of depression, anxiety and stress were higher among radiotherapy patients, but only reach statistical significance for the stress parameter (6.1 vs. 4.0, p = 0.012). Also these women reported lower scores of satisfaction with social support (57.2 vs. 62.2, p = 0.005) and sexual function (8.5 vs. 13.5, p = 0.049). No statistically significant differences occurred between the two groups regarding scores of relationship satisfaction (20.8 vs. 19.9, p = n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested that pelvic radiotherapy had a negative impact on female sexuality. Thus, interventions that would help to reduce this impact need to be designed and integrated into routine clinical practice.
Authors: Crystal S Denlinger; Tara Sanft; K Scott Baker; Shrujal Baxi; Gregory Broderick; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Debra L Friedman; Mindy Goldman; Melissa Hudson; Nazanin Khakpour; Allison King; Divya Koura; Elizabeth Kvale; Robin M Lally; Terry S Langbaum; Michelle Melisko; Jose G Montoya; Kathi Mooney; Javid J Moslehi; Tracey O'Connor; Linda Overholser; Electra D Paskett; Jeffrey Peppercorn; M Alma Rodriguez; Kathryn J Ruddy; Paula Silverman; Sophia Smith; Karen L Syrjala; Amye Tevaarwerk; Susan G Urba; Mark T Wakabayashi; Phyllis Zee; Deborah A Freedman-Cass; Nicole R McMillian Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 11.908
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: Maria Ida Maiorino; Paolo Chiodini; Giuseppe Bellastella; Dario Giugliano; Katherine Esposito Journal: Endocrine Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: C Pisani; L Deantonio; D Surico; M Brambilla; A Galla; E Ferrara; L Masini; G Gambaro; N Surico; M Krengli Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2015-11-25 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: J Andersson; G Abis; M Gellerstedt; E Angenete; U Angerås; M A Cuesta; P Jess; J Rosenberg; H J Bonjer; E Haglind Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Christina M Wilson; Deborah B McGuire; Beth L Rodgers; R K Elswick; Sarah M Temkin Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 2021 Sep-Oct 01 Impact factor: 2.592