MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409811018 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdaf068.141

(158) SEX AFTER CANCER: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF DILATORS AND PELVIC THERAPY IN THE MANAGEMENT OF SEXUAL ISSUES FOLLOWING CANCER TREATMENT

2025· review· en· W4409811018 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda Olson, R Horwitz, H Quaile, Lisa Astalos Chism

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenital Health and Disease
Canadian institutionsStuart Olson (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePenile cancerCancerSex therapyGynecologySexual dysfunctionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Sequelae of cancer treatment on vulvar and vaginal health can include tissue changes as often seen in genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) as well as changes in libido and body image. Atrophic vaginitis is a survivorship issue that affects nearly 70% of postmenopausal breast cancer survivors when compared to affecting 50% of postmenopausal women without breast cancer. Chemotherapy or endocrine therapy for eligible patients with BRCA mutation also contributes to effects on vaginal health. The impacts of these changes on quality of life, sexual function, and pain, are not routinely discussed in oncological settings, leaving some patients reporting emotional repercussions. Vaginal dilators in combination with pelvic health education and physiotherapy can impact the self-image, sense of sexuality, and sexual relationships among patients following cancer treatment. Objective The purpose of this review is to: 1. Analyze the literature on use of dilators in managing vaginal pain and sexual dysfunction across various types of cancer affecting people with a vagina. 2. Review the various protocols in dilator therapy, including specifics for cancer patients 3. Review what has been shown in regard to outcomes of dilator training on sexual function in cancer patients. Methods This review synthesizes data from randomized controlled trials, observational and analytical studies and relevant literature published in the last ten years (2014-2024). Data was also collected from peer-reviewed journals. Results The findings of this review indicate that vaginal dilators may be of benefit in the management of vaginismus and vaginal stenosis which can be seen following cancer treatment. Dilators can be offered to anyone having pain with examinations and/or sexual activity, which is particularly important for women treated with pelvic or vaginal radiation therapy. Importantly, the benefit of dilator training is greatest when started early, with patients who receive early education theoretically more likely to have successful treatment outcomes. Dilators should not be recommended based on sexual activity or sexual orientation but, rather, to all at risk for vaginal changes and to be proactive in their sexual and vulvovaginal health. Conclusions Dilators are found to help improve elasticity, vaginal diameter, vaginal length, and sexual function in people with a vagina following breast, endometrial, and cervical cancer treatment. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Intimate Rose.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicGenital Health and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207