Pilot Study on Quality of Life and Sexual Function in Men-Who-Have-Sex-with-Men Treated for Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is limited data on post-treatment quality of life (QoL) for men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM) with prostate cancer (PCa). QoL in MSM may not be reflected by assessment tools designed for the heterosexual population. AIMS: Our goals were to evaluate post-treatment QoL in PCa patients who are MSM, and to investigate the utility of current QoL assessment tool. METHODS: PCa patients treated with surgery and/or radiation were recruited from the local MSM community. Each participant completed the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire (MSHQ), and a questionnaire focused on insertive and receptive roles of anal intercourse. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Response scores were calculated based on questionnaire design and compared by treatment modality. RESULTS: Seven participants treated with surgery (mean age 58) and eight participants treated with radiation (mean age 67) were recruited. No participant in the surgical group received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) while two in radiation group were treated with ADT. The sample size of this study did not permit formal statistical analysis, although potential differences in Urinary and Bowel Domains from EPIC and Ejaculation Scale from MSHQ were observed. More participants from the radiation group seemed to be able to maintain both insertive and receptive anal intercourse roles after treatment compared to participants who received surgery. CONCLUSIONS: While the two validated assessment tools suggested similar QoL scores including sexual function for both surgical and radiation groups, post-treatment sexual function related to anal intercourse may be better in the radiation group, as compared to the surgical group. Larger studies in PCa patients from MSM community are warranted to verify these data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".