4.5 Article

Comparison of Quality of Life and Sexuality between Cervical Cancer Survivors and Healthy Women

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
卷 48, 期 4, 页码 1321-1329

出版社

KOREAN CANCER ASSOCIATION
DOI: 10.4143/crt.2015.425

关键词

Uterine cervical neoplasms; Quality of life; Sexuality; Survivors

类别

资金

  1. Korean National Cancer Center [1340930-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The purpose of this study is to compare quality of life (QoL) and sexual functioning between sexually active cervical cancer survivors and healthy women. Materials and Methods In this cross-sectional study, propensity-score-matched cervical cancer survivors (n=104) and healthy women (n=104) were compared. All women had engaged in sexual activity within the previous 3 months, and cervical cancer survivors showed no evidence of disease after primary treatment. QoL and sexual functioning were assessed using three questionnaires; the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), Cervical Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-CX24), and the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). Results Significantly higher scores for lymphedema were observed in the cervical cancer survivors group compared with the healthy women group (mean, 20.2 vs. 12.2; p < 0.05). Sexuality, both in terms of sexual activity, sexual enjoyment, and sexual worry (EORTC QLQ-CX24), and in terms of desire,. arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, and pain (FSFI) were similar between the groups. When the scale of sexual/vaginal functioning in EORTC QLQ-CX24 was divided into individual questions, cervical cancer survivors reported shorter vaginal length than the control group, but without statistical significance (mean, 80.6 vs. 85.4; p=0.077). Conclusion Compared with healthy women, sexuality was not impaired in cervical cancer survivors who showed no evidence of disease after primary treatment and engaging in sexual activity. Further prospective cohort studies are warranted to confirm this finding.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据