4.5 Article

Sexual dysfunction after treatment for testicular cancer - A systematic review

Journal

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOMATIC RESEARCH
Volume 51, Issue 6, Pages 735-743

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3999(01)00282-3

Keywords

testicular cancer; sexual dysfunction; systematic review

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: We aimed to assess the nature and risk of sexual dysfunction in men after treatment for testicular cancer. Method: Systematic review of sexual dysfunction in men treated for testicular cancer. The odds ratio or proportions of subjects with reduced sexual drive, erectile dysfunction or orgasmic/ejaculatory dysfunction was calculated. Results: A detailed review of 79 of the 227 citations was conducted. The highest level of evidence found, were controlled studies. Six controlled studies examined sexual function in 709 patients after they had received treatment. Seven uncontrolled studies examined sexual function in 337 subjects before and after treatment for testicular cancer. Most studies were limited by low response rates, use of unvalidated questionnaires and inclusion of a variety of treatment modalities. Few assessed psychological function and none examined its possible interaction with sexual dysfunction. Meta-analysis of the controlled studies indicated significantly reduced or absent orgasm (OR=4.62, 95% CI=2.47-8.63) together with erectile (OR=2.47, 95% CI=1.54-3.96) and ejaculatory dysfunction (OR=28.57, 95% CI=1.75-464.78) up to 2 years after treatment. Effects on sexual function were less consistent in the uncontrolled studies. Conclusions: The controlled studies indicate that sexual dysfunction persists for up to 2 years after treatment. However, better evidence is needed in studies that control for the impact of the testicular cancer, the treatment modality and psychological reactions to both. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available