B R Simon Rosser1, Badrinath R Konety2, Darryl Mitteldorf3, Nidhi Kohli4, Lindsey Lesher1, William West5, Benjamin D Capistrant1, James Dewitt1, Enyinnaya Merengwa6, Gunna Kilian1. 1. Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 2. Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 3. Malecare Cancer Support, New York, New York. 4. Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 5. Department of Writing Studies, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 6. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Abstract
Introduction: This is the first known study to investigate what gay and bisexual men are offered and what they try as rehabilitation to address the sexual and urinary effects of prostate cancer treatment. Methods: A total of 193 gay and bisexual men with prostate cancer were recruited from a large male cancer survivor support and advocacy website. Online participants completed survey questions asking what rehabilitation treatments were offered, what they tried and what their satisfaction was with outcomes. Results: Most participants (68.4%) reported being out as gay/bisexual to at least 1 cancer specialist. Only 8.8% reported that a sexual history was taken. The most common problems reported were loss of ejaculate (93.8%), erectile difficulties (89.6%), change in sense of orgasm (87.0%), loss of sexual confidence (76.7%), changes to the penis (65.8%), increased pain in receptive anal sex (64.8%), urinary incontinence not related to sex (64.2%) and urinary incontinence during sex (49.2%). Of these factors only loss of ejaculate, erectile difficulties and nonsexual urinary problems were commonly discussed by clinicians during prostate cancer treatment. Satisfaction with specific rehabilitation options varied widely. Conclusions: Treatment for prostate cancer lacks adequate history taking and consensus around rehabilitation practices, resulting in idiosyncratic approaches to rehabilitation. Four clinical questions may improve outcomes. Prostate cancer specialists need education to become culturally competent in addressing the unique needs of gay and bisexual patients.
Introduction: This is the first known study to investigate what gay and bisexual men are offered and what they try as rehabilitation to address the sexual and urinary effects of prostate cancer treatment. Methods: A total of 193 gay and bisexual men with prostate cancer were recruited from a large male cancer survivor support and advocacy website. Online participants completed survey questions asking what rehabilitation treatments were offered, what they tried and what their satisfaction was with outcomes. Results: Most participants (68.4%) reported being out as gay/bisexual to at least 1 cancer specialist. Only 8.8% reported that a sexual history was taken. The most common problems reported were loss of ejaculate (93.8%), erectile difficulties (89.6%), change in sense of orgasm (87.0%), loss of sexual confidence (76.7%), changes to the penis (65.8%), increased pain in receptive anal sex (64.8%), urinary incontinence not related to sex (64.2%) and urinary incontinence during sex (49.2%). Of these factors only loss of ejaculate, erectile difficulties and nonsexual urinary problems were commonly discussed by clinicians during prostate cancer treatment. Satisfaction with specific rehabilitation options varied widely. Conclusions: Treatment for prostate cancer lacks adequate history taking and consensus around rehabilitation practices, resulting in idiosyncratic approaches to rehabilitation. Four clinical questions may improve outcomes. Prostate cancer specialists need education to become culturally competent in addressing the unique needs of gay and bisexual patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
erectile dysfunction; prostatic neoplasms; sexual and gender minorities; sexual behavior; urinary incontinence
Authors: J L Stanford; Z Feng; A S Hamilton; F D Gilliland; R A Stephenson; J W Eley; P C Albertsen; L C Harlan; A L Potosky Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-01-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: B R Simon Rosser; Benjamin Capistrant; Beatriz Torres; Badrinath Konety; Enyinnaya Merengwa; Darryl Mitteldorf; William West Journal: Sex Relation Ther Date: 2016-09-09
Authors: Jane M Ussher; Janette Perz; Andrew Kellett; Suzanne Chambers; David Latini; Ian D Davis; Duncan Rose; Gary W Dowsett; Scott Williams Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: David F Penson; Dale McLerran; Ziding Feng; Lin Li; Peter C Albertsen; Frank D Gilliland; Ann Hamilton; Richard M Hoffman; Robert A Stephenson; Arnold L Potosky; Janet L Stanford Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Daniela Wittmann; Marsha Carolan; Barbara Given; Ted A Skolarus; Heather Crossley; Lawrence An; Ganesh Palapattu; Patricia Clark; James E Montie Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2014-10-31 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: B R Simon Rosser; Nidhi Kohli; Lindsey Lesher; Benjamin D Capistrant; James DeWitt; Gunna Kilian; Badrinath R Konety; Enyinnaya Merengwa; Darryl Mitteldorf; William West Journal: Urol Pract Date: 2017-04-21
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
Authors: B R Simon Rosser; G Nic Rider; Aditya Kapoor; Kristine M C Talley; Ryan Haggart; Nidhi Kohli; Badrinath R Konety; Darryl Mitteldorf; Elizabeth J Polter; Michael W Ross; William West; Christopher Wheldon; Morgan Wright Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2021-07