MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911089005 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.11.008

Sexual Health Problems and Discussion in Colorectal Cancer Patients Two Years After Diagnosis: A National Cross-Sectional Study

2019· article· en· W2911089005 on OpenAlexaff
Thierry Almont, Anne‐Déborah Bouhnik, Ali Ben Charif, Marc‐Karim Bendiane, C. Couteau, C. Manceau, Julien Mancini, É. Huyghe

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMinistère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux (Québec)Quebec Rehabilitation Research Network
FundersInstitut National Du CancerLigue Contre le Cancer
KeywordsOrgasmMedicineHuman sexualityColorectal cancerSexual intercoursePsychosexual developmentSexual dysfunctionCross-sectional studyGynecologyCancerOdds ratioReproductive healthClinical psychologyObstetricsInternal medicinePsychologyPopulationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is accompanied by specific treatment-related physical (ostomy, incontinence) and psychosexual (body image, depression) consequences on sexual health. AIM: To assess sexual health of patients with CRC 2 years after diagnosis. METHODS: We selected all patients with CRC from a French nationwide longitudinal study. Data sources included patient questionnaires, medical questionnaires, and medico-administrative databases. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: We evaluated sexual health using the Relationship and Sexuality Scale and assessed self-reported rates of discussion about sexuality with health care providers. RESULTS: Across the 487 patients, 258 were men and 229 were women; 77% were diagnosed with colon cancer and 23% with rectal cancer. Overall, 54% of patients reported a decrease in sexual desire, 61% a decrease in frequency of intercourse, and 48% a decrease in the possibility to reach an orgasm. Patients still experiencing fecal incontinence 2 years after diagnosis had decreases in all sexual desire, intercourse, orgasm, and satisfaction Relationship and Sexuality Scale items. Patients with rectal cancer had significantly more frequent troubles with desire and orgasm than did patients with colon cancer (P = .003 and P = .014, respectively). Regarding the discussion about sexuality, only 20% of men, 11% of women, 11% of patients with colon cancer, and 33% of patients with rectal cancer recalled having discussed sexuality with the medical team. Factors independently increasing the chance to have discussed sexuality with the medical team were younger age (odds ratio [OR] = 2.77 [1.31; 5.84]; P = .007), having an ostomy (OR = 2.93 [1.27; 6.73]; P = .011), and radiotherapy (OR = 2.78 [1.23; 6.27]; P = .014). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These results highlight the need for developing interventions to improve information delivery at cancer announcement and for managing sexual troubles during survivorship in patients with CRC, particularly those experiencing fecal incontinence. STRENGTH & LIMITATIONS: Strengths are the sample size and the national representation using the data of a large-scale nation-wide survey, with the possibility of comparing colon and rectal cancers. Limitations are the assessment of sexuality 2 years after diagnosis and using only self-reported measures. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the lack of discussion about sexuality with the oncology team and the need for specific sexual rehabilitation interventions, especially for patients with rectal cancer and fecal incontinence. Developing these aspects may help patients with CRC improve their sexual prognosis. Almont T, Bouhnik A-D, Charif AB, et al. Sexual Health Problems and Discussion in Colorectal Cancer Patients Two Years After Diagnosis: A National Cross-Sectional Study. J Sex Med 2019;16:96-110.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207