Sexual problems after surgery for rectal cancer are common, multifactorial, inadequately discussed, and untreated. Therefore, sexual dysfunction should be discussed with rectal cancer patients, and efforts to prevent and treat it should be increased.

Objective: To measure sexual function and quality of life (QOL) after rectal cancer treatment. Summary Background Data: Previous studies on sexual function after rectal cancer treatment have focused on males and have not used validated instruments. Methods: Patients undergoing curative rectal cancer surgery from 1980 to 2003 were administered a questionnaire, including the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) or International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), and the EORTC QLQ-C30/CR-38. Multiple logistic regression was used to test associations of clinical factors with outcomes. Results: Eighty-one women (81.0%) and 99 men (80.5%) returned the questionnaire; 32% of women and 50% of men are sexually active, compared with 61% and 91% preoperatively (P Ͻ 0.04); 29% of women and 45% of men reported that "surgery made their sexual lives worse." Mean (SD) FSFI and IIEF scores were 17.5 (11.9) and 29.3 (22.8). Specific sexual problems in women were libido 41%, arousal 29%, lubrication 56%, orgasm 35%, and dyspareunia 46%, and in men libido 47%, impotence 32%, partial impotence 52%, orgasm 41%, and ejaculation 43%. Both genders reported a negative body image. Patients seldom remembered discussing sexual risks preoperatively and seldom were treated for dysfunction. Current age (P Ͻ 0.001), surgical procedure (P ϭ 0.003), and preoperative sexual activity (P ϭ 0.001) were independently associated with current sexual activity. Gender (male, P ϭ 0.014), surgical procedure (P ϭ 0.005), and radiation therapy (P ϭ 0.0001) were independently associated with the outcome "surgery made sexual life worse." Global QOL scores were high. Conclusions: Sexual problems after surgery for rectal cancer are common, multifactorial, inadequately discussed, and untreated. Therefore, sexual dysfunction should be discussed with rectal cancer patients, and efforts to prevent and treat it should be increased.

No abstract

Background The proportion of cancer cases in younger patients is increasing though colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines recommend starting at age 50. The national treatment patterns and outcomes of these patients are largely unknown. Methods This is a population-based retrospective cohort study of the nationally representative Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry for patients diagnosed with CRC from 1998-2011. Patients were categorized as being younger or older than the recommended screening age. Differences in stage at diagnosis, patterns of therapy, and disease-specific survival were compared between age groups using multinomial regression, multiple regression, cox-proportional hazards regression, and Weibull survival analysis. Results Of 258,024 CRC patients, 37,847 (15%) were younger than 50. Young patients were more likely to present with regional (Relative risk ratio [RRR]: 1.3, p<0.001) or distant (RRR: 1.5, p<0.001) disease. CRC patients with distant metastasis were more likely to receive surgical therapy for their primary tumor in the younger age group (adjusted probability: 72% vs. 63%; p<0.001), and radiation therapy was more likely in younger RC patients (adjusted probability: 53% vs. 48%; p<0.001). Patients younger than screening age had better overall disease-specific survival (Hazard ratio: 0.77; p<0.001), despite a larger proportion presenting with advanced disease. Conclusions Colorectal cancer patients diagnosed before age 50 are more likely to present with advanced stage disease. However, they receive more aggressive therapy and achieve longer disease-specific survival, despite the greater proportion with advanced-stage disease. These findings suggest the need for improved risk assessment and screening decisions for younger adults.

Background There is limited high quality evidence regarding the impact of patient navigation (PN) on outcomes for patients with diagnosed cancer. Methods We pooled data from two sites from the national Patient Navigation Research Program (PNRP). Patients (n=438) with newly diagnosed breast (n=353) or colorectal cancer (n=85) were randomized to PN or usual care. Trained lay navigators met with patients randomized to PN to help them assess treatment barriers and identify resources to overcome barriers. We used intent-to-treat analysis to assess time to completion of primary treatment, psychological distress (Impact of Events Scale) and satisfaction (Patient Satisfaction with Cancer-Related Care) within three months after initiation of cancer treatment. Results The sample was predominantly middle-aged (mean age=57) and female (90%); 44% were race-ethnic minorities (44%), 46% reported lower education levels, 18% were uninsured and 9% reported a non-English primary language. The randomized groups were comparable in baseline characteristics. Primary analysis showed no statistically significant group differences in time to completion of primary cancer treatment, satisfaction with cancer-related care, or psychological distress. Subgroup analysis showed that socially disadvantaged patients (i.e. uninsured, low English proficiency and non-English primary language) who received PN reported higher satisfaction than those receiving usual care (all ps < 0.05). Navigated patients living alone reported greater distress than those receiving usual care. Conclusions Although the primary analysis showed no overall benefit, the subgroup analysis suggests that PN may improve satisfaction with care for certain disadvantaged individuals. Impact PN for cancer patients may not necessarily reduce treatment time nor distress.