Dyadic Aspects of Sexual Well-Being in Men with Laser-Treated Penile Carcinoma

Abstract

IntroductionCoping with cancer, its treatment and recovery are dyadic processes within a relationship. Sexual dysfunctions and problems of penile cancer may add to the demands of coping.AimThe prospective study aimed to describe the dyadic aspects of sexual well-being and life satisfaction before and 1 year after organ-sparing laser treatment of penile carcinoma.MethodsA consecutive series of 29 patients with penile carcinoma suitable for laser treatment were included together with their partners, median age 60 (37–73) years and 57 (30–72) years, respectively. Median length of relationship was 29 years (1–54 years). The participants completed structured interviews before treatment, at 6 months’ and 12 months’ follow-up. The interview addressed sexual activities, sexual functions, verbal (sexual) communication, and life satisfaction.Main Outcome MeasuresThree well-validated instruments were included: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, International Index of Erectile Function-5, and Life Satisfaction checklist, LiSat-11. The interviews contained the same questions for patients and partners at all three measuring points.ResultsThere was a high level of within-couple agreement on sexual activities, sexual function, and life satisfaction before and after organ-sparring treatment. No significant differences between interview data at 6 and 12 months’ follow-up occurred. Before treatment, sexual dysfunctions were common among men, especially decreased sexual interest and dyspareunia. At follow-up, increased sexual function was found, with the exception of erectile function and women’s orgasm. A rather high proportion was being unsatisfactory sexually inactive. Few had an ongoing verbal (sexual) mutual communication. Couples with an active sexual life at follow-up showed coherence in high satisfaction with life as a whole.ConclusionA high level of within-couple agreement concerning sexuality and life satisfaction points to the necessity of including an adequate sexological case history, counseling, and treatment for this group of patients and their partners.

What are the unmet supportive care needs of men affected by penile cancer? A systematic review of the empirical evidence

“…Of the 1725 retrieved from the search, 1662 articles were excluded following the application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria during the title and abstract screening, see Figure 1. In total, 62 fulltext publications were reviewed in full and 45 were excluded with reasons and 18 articles were included, reporting the results from 17 studies in the final review (Kieffer et al, 2014, Sosnowski et al, 2016, Wan et al, 2018, Windahl et al, 2004, Witty et al, 2013, Mortensen and Jakobsen, 2013, Skeppner and Fugl-Meyer, 2015, Skeppner et al, 2008, Opjordsmoen et al, 1994, Bhat et al, 2018, Bullen et al, 2010, Drager et al, 2017, Ficarra et al, 2000, Gordon et al, 2017, Bullen et al, 2009, D'Ancona et al, 1997, Bullen et al, 2010, Bullen et al, 2009.…”

Sexual Function and Testosterone Level in Men With Conservatively Treated Chronic Kidney Disease

“…This may also be an explanation for the nonsignificant association between decreased testosterone levels and sexual dysfunctions. Moreover, for those who have a partner, sexual dysfunctions and the distress caused by them should also be regarded from the partner’s perspective as sexual dysfunctions concur to a significant degree ( A. R. Fugl-Meyer et al, 2002 ; Skeppner & Fugl-Meyer, 2015 ; Wagner, Fugl-Meyer, & Fugl-Meyer, 2000 ). Thus, questionnaires may not be the only tool when investigating sexuality in populations with chronic diseases.…”

Surgical management of penile carcinoma in situ: results from an international collaborative study and review of the literature

“…Recently, organ‐sparing approaches for the management of low‐stage penile cancer have become widely accepted because they provide oncological control while achieving satisfactory somatic and sexual health outcomes . The rarity of the disease makes it difficult to perform randomized trials, and thus we have few data to compare oncological efficacy among different organ‐sparing treatments.…”