Kristine A Donovan1, Brian D Gonzalez1, Ashley M Nelson2, Mayer N Fishman3, Babu Zachariah4, Paul B Jacobsen1. 1. Health Outcomes and Behavior Program, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. 2. Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. 3. Department of Genitourinary Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, James A. Haley Veterans' Hospital, Tampa, FL, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The adverse sexual effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) on men with prostate cancer have been well described. Less well known is the relative degree of sexual dysfunction and bother associated with ADT compared to other primary treatment modalities such as radical prostatectomy. We sought to describe the trajectory and relative magnitude of changes in sexual function and bother in men on ADT and to examine demographic and clinical predictors of ADT's adverse sexual effects. METHODS: Prostate cancer patients treated with ADT (n = 60) completed assessments of sexual function and sexual bother 3 times during a 1-year period after the initiation of ADT. Prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy only and not receiving ADT (n = 85) and men with no history of cancer (n = 86) matched on age and education completed assessments at similar intervals. RESULTS: Androgen deprivation therapy recipients reported worsening sexual function and increasing bother over time compared to controls. Effect sizes for the differences in sexual function were large to very large, and for bother were small to very large. Age younger than 83 years predicted relatively poorer sexual function, and age younger than 78 years predicted greater sexual bother at 12 months in men on ADT compared to men not on ADT. CONCLUSIONS: Most men on ADT for prostate cancer will never return to baseline levels of sexual function. Interventions focused on sexual bother over function and designed to help couples build and maintain satisfying relationship intimacy are likely to more positively affect men's psychological well-being while on ADT than medical or sexual aids targeting sexual dysfunction.
OBJECTIVES: The adverse sexual effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) on men with prostate cancer have been well described. Less well known is the relative degree of sexual dysfunction and bother associated with ADT compared to other primary treatment modalities such as radical prostatectomy. We sought to describe the trajectory and relative magnitude of changes in sexual function and bother in men on ADT and to examine demographic and clinical predictors of ADT's adverse sexual effects. METHODS:Prostate cancerpatients treated with ADT (n = 60) completed assessments of sexual function and sexual bother 3 times during a 1-year period after the initiation of ADT. Prostate cancerpatients treated with radical prostatectomy only and not receiving ADT (n = 85) and men with no history of cancer (n = 86) matched on age and education completed assessments at similar intervals. RESULTS: Androgen deprivation therapy recipients reported worsening sexual function and increasing bother over time compared to controls. Effect sizes for the differences in sexual function were large to very large, and for bother were small to very large. Age younger than 83 years predicted relatively poorer sexual function, and age younger than 78 years predicted greater sexual bother at 12 months in men on ADT compared to men not on ADT. CONCLUSIONS: Most men on ADT for prostate cancer will never return to baseline levels of sexual function. Interventions focused on sexual bother over function and designed to help couples build and maintain satisfying relationship intimacy are likely to more positively affect men's psychological well-being while on ADT than medical or sexual aids targeting sexual dysfunction.
Authors: Farhang Rabbani; Jeffrey Schiff; Michael Piecuch; Luis Herran Yunis; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; John P Mulhall Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2010-08-16 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Justin K Lee; Melissa Assel; Alan E Thong; Daniel D Sjoberg; John P Mulhall; Jaspreet Sandhu; Andrew J Vickers; Behfar Ehdaie Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-08-17 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Catherine Benedict; Lara Traeger; Jason R Dahn; Michael Antoni; Eric S Zhou; Natalie Bustillo; Frank J Penedo Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2014-07-24 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Matthew J Resnick; Tatsuki Koyama; Kang-Hsien Fan; Peter C Albertsen; Michael Goodman; Ann S Hamilton; Richard M Hoffman; Arnold L Potosky; Janet L Stanford; Antoinette M Stroup; R Lawrence Van Horn; David F Penson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-01-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Marigdalia K Ramirez-Fort; Marc J Rogers; Roberto Santiago; Sean S Mahase; Melissa Mendez; Yi Zheng; Xiang Kong; James A Kashanian; M Junaid Niaz; Shearwood McClelland; Xiaodong Wu; Neil H Bander; Peter Schlegel; John P Mulhall; Christopher S Lange Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2020-03-19
Authors: Na Tosha N Gatson; Maria L Boccia; Kerianne R Taylor; Jada K O Mack; Ekokobe Fonkem Journal: Curr Oncol Rep Date: 2021-08-27 Impact factor: 5.075
Authors: Melissa K Hyde; Melissa Opozda; Kirstyn Laurie; Andrew D Vincent; John L Oliffe; Christian J Nelson; Jeff Dunn; Eric Chung; Michael Gillman; Rustom P Manecksha; Gary Wittert; Suzanne K Chambers Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-09-26 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Blanca Noriega Esquives; Tae K Lee; Patricia I Moreno; Rina S Fox; Betina Yanez; Gregory E Miller; Ryne Estabrook; Mark J Begale; Sarah C Flury; Kent Perry; Shilajit D Kundu; Frank J Penedo Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2022-02-02
Authors: Damiano Pizzol; Tao Xiao; Lee Smith; Guillermo F López Sánchez; Andrea Garolla; Christopher Parris; Yvonne Barnett; Petre Cristian Ilie; Pinar Soysal; Jae Il Shin; Mark A Tully; Lin Yang; Nicola Veronese; Igor Grabovac Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Rosa L Coolen; Jacqueline C Cambier; Panagiota I Spantidea; Els van Asselt; Bertil F M Blok Journal: J Anat Date: 2021-02-22 Impact factor: 2.610