MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sexual Rehabilitation and Cancer Survivorship: A State of Art Review of Current Literature and Management Strategies in Male Sexual Dysfunction Among Prostate Cancer Survivors

2013· review· en· W2162833037 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicineSexual dysfunctionErectile dysfunctionManagement of prostate cancerSexual functionGynecologyReproductive healthCancerProstateInternal medicinePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The challenges for prostate cancer survivors include the surveillance of prostate cancer recurrence and management of physical, cognitive, sexual, and socioeconomic quality of life issues. Sexual function remains an important issue in men, who often continue to be interested in sex after prostate cancer treatment. The various post-prostate cancer treatment-related sexual dysfunctions are penile deformities and erectile dysfunction (ED); sexual desire and mental health; ejaculatory and orgasmic dysfunctions; and changes in partner relationship and dynamics. AIMS: The aim of this study is to provide state of art review of the various male sexual dysfunctions in prostate cancer survivors and the management strategies in sexual rehabilitation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A literature search for English language original and review articles either published or e-published was performed using PubMed database. Keywords included prostate cancer, prostate cancer treatment, prostate prostatectomy (RP), sexual dysfunction, erectile dysfunction (ED), sexual desire, mental health, ejaculation, orgasmic, climacturia, and relationship. RESULTS: There has been considerable volume of publication in recent years on prostate cancer-related male sexual dysfunction. Penile deformities and ED shared similar pathophysiology and that penile smooth muscle fibrosis ultimately results in structural alterations and end-organ failure. Penile rehabilitation using oral phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors is considered the standard of care especially in patients who received nerve-sparing RP and should be instituted as soon as possible to protect and prevent corporal endothelial and smooth muscle damage. However, there is no consensus on the exact timing, dose, and duration of PDE5 inhibitors and its impact in non-nerve-sparing RP and other forms of prostate cancer treatment modalities. Current literature on hypoactive sexual desire, ejaculatory, and orgasmic dysfunctions in patients who received prostate cancer treatment is limited. Psychological and sexual counseling play an important role in rehabilitation and treatment of various forms of male sexual dysfunctions. CONCLUSION: While several preventive and treatment strategies for the preservation and recovery of sexual function are available, no specific recommendation or consensus guidelines exist regarding the optimal rehabilitation or treatment protocol. While medical and surgical therapies are effective in erectile function recovery and/or preservation, psychological and sexual counseling are equally important in sexual rehabilitation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it