Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Nov 11;24(1):1374.
doi: 10.1186/s12885-024-13123-7.

The impact of curative cancer treatment on sexual health - clinical results from the EORTC QLQ-SH22 validation study

Anne S Oberguggenberger #  1 , Veronika I Engele #  2 , Claudia Schmalz  3 , Andy Nordin  4 , Vesna Bjelic-Radisic  5 , Anne Lanceley  6 , Karin Kuljanic  7 , Pernille T Jensen  8   9   10 , Ligita Paskeviciute Frøding  11 , Carien L Creutzberg  12 , Kristin Zimmermann  13 , Samantha Serpentini  14 , Juan I Arraras  15 , Eva Nagele  16   17 , Hilde Toelen  18 , Elfriede Greimel  16 ; EORTC Quality of Life Group
Collaborators, Affiliations

The impact of curative cancer treatment on sexual health - clinical results from the EORTC QLQ-SH22 validation study

Anne S Oberguggenberger et al. BMC Cancer. .

Abstract

Background: The European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) has recently developed and validated a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for sexual health (SH) in cancer patients. Here, we present results from a secondary analysis of the EORTC QLQ-SH22 validation study. The objective was to investigate the impact of cancer treatment on SH over the disease trajectory into survivorship in patients who underwent curative treatment.

Methods: Participants completed the EORTC QLQ-SH22 and the EORTC QLQ-C30 assessing SH and Quality of Life. We analyzed differences in SH of patients on active cancer treatment compared to patients off-treatment (cross sectional group comparison) as well as changes in SH during the course of treatment (from pre-treatment to follow-up).

Results: Our sample consisted of n = 394 (66.2% females) curatively treated cancer patients with 34% of patients being on-treatment and 66% of patients being in their follow-up after primary treatment (off-treatment group). Compared to patients off- treatment, patients on active cancer treatment experienced less sexual satisfaction (p = .021, Cohen's d = .36) and libido (p < .001, d = .60) and had higher levels of fatigue (p < .001, d = .50). Importance of sexual activity, masculinity and femininity did not differ between groups. Treatment effects on sexual activity decreased with treatment completion (p < .001, d = .50). Patients undergoing intensified treatment (chemotherapy, radiation, or endocrine treatment) reported more treatment effects (subscale EORTC QLQ-SH22) compared to patients undergoing surgery only.

Conclusion: Our results highlight the negative impact of oncological treatment on SH and how increasing treatment intensity further impair SH. Sexual satisfaction and libido improve after treatment completion while other aspects (e.g. masculinity/femininity) do not change during survivorship. We suggest monitoring of SH from the start of cancer treatment on and beyond into survivorship using PROMs as part of routine cancer care. Routine monitoring allows systematic identification of patient's SH problems and may improve awareness as well as target intervention for those in need of care.

Keywords: Cancer; EORTC QLG; Quality of Life; Sexual health.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Due to the secondary character of this analysis, no additional ethical approval was needed. In the original study eligible patients were invited to participate in accordance with the ethical and governance requirements of each centre. The Ethical Committee of the Medical University of Graz, Austria, was responsible for the principal investigator’s application and approved the study protocol as per the national requirements. Written informed consent was requested in all countries. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of the sample composition
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Differences in the QLQ-SH22 scales between patients on active treatment vs. patients off treatment
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Greimel E, Nagele E, Lanceley A, et al. Psychometric validation of the european organisation for research and treatment of cancer-quality of life questionnaire sexual health (EORTC QLQ-SH22). Eur J Cancer. 2021;154(July):235–45. 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.06.003. - PubMed
    1. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A Quality-of-Life Instrument for Use in International Clinical Trials in Oncology. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(5):365–76. 10.1093/JNCI/85.5.365. - PubMed
    1. Bober SL, Sanchez VV. Sexuality in adult cancer survivors: challenges and intervention. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(30):3712–9. 10.1200/JCO.2012.41.7915. - PubMed
    1. Gilbert E, Ussher JM, Perz J. Sexuality after gynaecological cancer: A review of the material, intrapsychic, and discursive aspects of treatment on women’s sexual-wellbeing. Maturitas. 2011;70(1):42–57. 10.1016/j.maturitas.2011.06.013. - PubMed
    1. Maruelli A, Ripamonti C, Bandieri E, Miccinesi G, Pessi MA, Buonaccorso L. Sexual satisfaction assessment in 194 nonmetastatic cancer patients on treatment or in follow-up. Tumori. 2014;100(2):232–236. 10.1177/030089161410000219. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources