OBJECTIVE: To determine if heterosexual and nonheterosexual men treated for prostate cancer differ in diagnostic and treatment outcomes and in various measures of physical health, sexual function, and well being, before and after the treatment. METHODS: Four hundred sixty self-identified heterosexual and 96 self-identified nonheterosexual men completed an anonymous online survey. The men in the 2 groups were then compared using logistic regressions that controlled for differences among countries. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age at diagnosis for men in the 2 groups. However, Gleason scores at diagnosis were significantly lower for the nonheterosexual men (P = .02). There were no significant differences among men in the 2 groups in the proportion who receive different treatment modalities or in the incidence of urinary incontinence, who experience bone pain (as a marker of disease progression), who take antidepressants (as a proxy measure for mental health), or who experience erectile dysfunction after the treatment. However, nonheterosexual men rated the degree to which they were bothered by an inability to ejaculate significantly higher than did the heterosexual men (P = .04). CONCLUSION: This is the first set of findings from a survey that compares heterosexual and nonheterosexual men treated for prostate cancer. Although the groups were generally similar, nonheterosexual men might experience more intensive screening for disease, as indicated by lower Gleason scores at diagnosis. Nonheterosexual men appear more distressed by loss of ejaculation after prostatectomy.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if heterosexual and nonheterosexual men treated for prostate cancer differ in diagnostic and treatment outcomes and in various measures of physical health, sexual function, and well being, before and after the treatment. METHODS: Four hundred sixty self-identified heterosexual and 96 self-identified nonheterosexual men completed an anonymous online survey. The men in the 2 groups were then compared using logistic regressions that controlled for differences among countries. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age at diagnosis for men in the 2 groups. However, Gleason scores at diagnosis were significantly lower for the nonheterosexual men (P = .02). There were no significant differences among men in the 2 groups in the proportion who receive different treatment modalities or in the incidence of urinary incontinence, who experience bone pain (as a marker of disease progression), who take antidepressants (as a proxy measure for mental health), or who experience erectile dysfunction after the treatment. However, nonheterosexual men rated the degree to which they were bothered by an inability to ejaculate significantly higher than did the heterosexual men (P = .04). CONCLUSION: This is the first set of findings from a survey that compares heterosexual and nonheterosexual men treated for prostate cancer. Although the groups were generally similar, nonheterosexual men might experience more intensive screening for disease, as indicated by lower Gleason scores at diagnosis. Nonheterosexual men appear more distressed by loss of ejaculation after prostatectomy.
Authors: Gwendolyn P Quinn; Julian A Sanchez; Steven K Sutton; Susan T Vadaparampil; Giang T Nguyen; B Lee Green; Peter A Kanetsky; Matthew B Schabath Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Benjamin D Capistrant; Lindsey Lesher; Nidhi Kohli; Enyinnaya N Merengwa; Badrinath Konety; Darryl Mitteldorf; William G West; B R Simon Rosser Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2018-07-02 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: B R Simon Rosser; Benjamin Capistrant; Maria Beatriz Torres; Badrinath Konety; Enyinnaya Merengwa; Darryl Mitteldorf; William West Journal: Sex Relation Ther Date: 2016-08-29
Authors: L Boeri; P Capogrosso; E Ventimiglia; A Serino; G La Croce; A Russo; G Castagna; R Scano; A Briganti; R Damiano; F Montorsi; A Salonia Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2015-09-29 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Tae L Hart; David W Coon; Marc A Kowalkowski; Karen Zhang; Justin I Hersom; Heather H Goltz; Daniela A Wittmann; David M Latini Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2014-05-30 Impact factor: 3.802