Next Article in Journal
Using a Weekly Patient-Reported Outcome Questionnaire to Track Acute Toxicity in Patients Undergoing Pelvic Radiotherapy for Gynecologic Cancers
Previous Article in Journal
COVID-19 Impact on Diagnosis and Staging of Colorectal Cancer: A Single Tertiary Canadian Oncology Center Experience
Article

Sexual Functioning in Female Patients Undergoing Surgical Treatment for Colorectal Cancer—A Single-Center, Prospective Triple Timepoint Yearly Follow-Up

1
Department of Urology, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, 85-094 Bydgoszcz, Poland
2
Department of Rehabilitation, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, 85-094 Bydgoszcz, Poland
3
Department of Surgical Oncology, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, 85-094 Bydgoszcz, Poland
4
Department of Security and Crisis Management, Cuiavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship Office in Bydgoszcz, Ludwik Rydygier Regional Polyclinical Hospital in Toruń, 87-100 Toruń, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Curr. Oncol. 2022, 29(5), 3291-3305; https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol29050269
Received: 21 March 2022 / Revised: 13 April 2022 / Accepted: 30 April 2022 / Published: 5 May 2022

Abstract

The study was aimed at assessing the quality of sexual functioning in female patients having undergone surgical treatment for cancer depending on the type of surgery. The prospective cohort consisted of 48 female patients (23 patients with stoma [A2] and 25 patients with maintained continuity of the GI tract [A1]). Study methods included a diagnostic survey and the analysis of medical records of patients. Research tools consisted of a standardized FSFI questionnaire and a proprietary form for evaluation of sociodemographic data. Measurements were performed at threetimepoints: On the day before the surgery (Measurement I) as well as six and 12 months after the surgery (Measurements II and III, respectively). Statistically significant differences in results were observed in Measurements II and III in the subscales of arousal (II:p = 0.0068, III:p = 0.0018), lubrication (II:p = 0.0221, III:p = 0.0134), orgasm (II:p = 0.0044, III:p = 0.0021), satisfaction (II:p = 0.0021, III:p = 0.0433), and pain/discomfort (II:p = 0.0343, III:p = 0.0473). In all cases, lower scores corresponding to lower quality of sexual functioning were observed in patients in whom stoma had been performed. Statistically significant differences in sexual functioning were observed at Measurements II and III in each group, with the results being significantly (p > 0.05) worse in patients having undergone Hartmann’s procedure or abdominoperineal resection). Variables significantly affecting self-assessed sexual satisfaction included marital status, age, and modality of neoadjuvant treatment. Restoration of the continuity of the gastrointestinal tract is a chance for better self-assessment of the patient’s quality of life as regards sexual functioning.
Keywords: colorectal cancer; stoma; sexual functioning; quality of life colorectal cancer; stoma; sexual functioning; quality of life

1. Introduction

Despite the implementation of screening programs, colorectal cancer is one of the most common malignancies in both male and female patients in developed countries [1]. Female patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer and subjected to surgical and systemic treatment are at risk of numerous sexual dysfunctions [2]. Literature data suggest that such dysfunctions may affect up to 19–62% of women with this diagnosis [3]. A literature review showed that 30–40% of patients who were sexually active before treatment became sexually inactive after treatment [4].The main reasons responsible for sexual activity being limited or discontinued in these patients include dyspareunia, vaginal dryness, and reduced libido. Surgical treatment of colorectal cancer frequently requires formation of a temporary or permanent stoma, which undoubtedly changes the perception of one’s own body in the context of sexual attractiveness. Treatment for colorectal cancer may involve surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation. Delivering treatment near the genital organs can negatively affect the function of the female sex organs [5].
The altered perception of one’s own body, the stage of the neoplastic process, neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment modalities, and frequently also limited ability to perform one’s social role significantly contribute to intensification of psychosocial components responsible for reduced libido [2]. The aim of this study was to perform a prospective, single-center assessment of factors affecting the quality of sexual life in women having undergone surgeries for colorectal cancer within a one-year follow-up period.

2. Material and Methods

The study was designed as a single-center, prospective, triple timepoint pre-test post-test observation. The conduct of the study was approved by the Bioethics Committee at the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń (decision no. 283/2019). The study was conducted at the Clinical Department of Oncological Surgery of the Franciszek Łukaszczyk Oncology Centre in Bydgoszcz. The group included in statistical analysis consisted of 48 patients having undergone colorectal cancer surgeries by means of anterior resection (either open or laparoscopic), Hartmann’s resection, or abdominoperineal resection methods. Stoma was performed in 23 patients (group A2), whereas the continuity of gastrointestinal tract was maintained in another 25 patients (group A1). The study was conducted from June 2019 through August 2021. The quality of patients’ sexual life was assessed at threetimepoints: Measurement I was performed before the surgical intervention, Measurement II (CATI) was performed six months after the surgery, and Measurement III (CATI) was performed 12 months after the surgery. Due to the restrictions resulting from the spread of COVID-19 in Poland, the first phase of study recruitment lasted from June 2019 to March 2020 and was followed by a two-month break until recruitment was continued in July 2020 and August 2020.
The inclusion criteria were as follows:
good overall health status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] score of 0–1);
voluntary, written consent to participate in the study,
hospitalization at the Clinical Department of Oncological Surgery of the Franciszek Łukaszczyk Oncology Centre in Bydgoszcz at the time of recruitment;
no distant metastases;
age of up to 70 years;
patients married or staying in partnership for at least 12 months prior to the surgery.
The exclusion criteria were as follows:
class 3 obesity (Body Mass Index of >40);
concomitance of other serious diseases (>ASA II);
TNM (tumor, nodes, metastases) stage IV disease;
continuity of the digestive tract being restored during the study.
The study was conducted using the diagnostic survey method. A proprietary questionnaire was used to collect demographic data on the patient sample, namely information on patients’ age, educational background, area of residence, employment status, parity, socioeconomic status, and marital status.
Sexual satisfaction was assessed using the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) questionnaire. The use of the tool was authorized by its developers. The FSFI questionnaire is an international standardized tool to assess the quality of sexual life in women. It consists of 19 questions comprising a total of six domains, including desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, and pain/discomfort. The result is interpreted on the basis of total scores obtained in individual subscales; the higher the score, the better the quality of individual sexual functioning-related components. The questions relate to the latest four weeks of the respondent’s life.
Medical records of patients were analyzed to obtain relevant clinical data. Patients’ weight, height, BMI, type of surgery, modality of neoadjuvant treatment, modality of adjuvant treatment, duration of hospital stay, incidence of postoperative complications, and TMN tumor staging were determined for the purposes of statistical analysis.
At the first phase of the study, a total of 107 anterior resections, 88 laparoscopic anterior resections, 33 Hartmann’s procedures, and 56 abdominoperineal resections were performed at the Clinical Department of Oncological Surgery of the Oncology Centre in Bydgoszcz. The inclusion criteria were met by 65 patients who had been operated on. A total of 17 patients withdrew from the study at individual time points, were lost to follow-up, or provided incomplete answers to the survey questions. Thus, all study phases (June 2019–August 2021) were completed by a total of 48 patients. It’s shown on Figure 1.
Statistical analyses were carried out using the PQStat statistical package version 1.8.2.188. The weight, height and BMI values were compared between the groups (no stoma [A1] vs. stoma [A2] using Student’s t-test. The duration of hospital stay was compared between the groups (no stoma [A1] vs. stoma [A2] using Mann–Whitney’s U-test. Demographic and medical data were compared between the groups (no stoma [A1] vs. stoma [A2] using the chi2 of exact Fisher tests (depending on the Cochrane condition being/not being met). FSFI scores were compared between the groups (no stoma [A1] vs. stoma [A2] using Mann–Whitney’s U-test. FSFI scores at individual measurement timepoints were analyzed using the Friedman’s test and the Dunn–Bonferroni post hoc test. Correlations between FSFI scores and the quantitative demographic variables were analyzed by estimation of Spearman’s rank coefficients. Correlations between FSFI scores and the qualitative demographic variables were compared using Mann–Whitney’s U-test (k = 2) or the Kruskall-Wallis test (k > 2) as well as the Dunn–Bonferroni post hoc test.
Test probability of p < 0.05 was defined as statistically significant, whereas test probability of p < 0.01 was defined as highly significant.

3. Results

The compared groups groups (no stoma [A1] vs. stoma [A2] were characterized in terms of clinical and sociodemographic parameters. High significance (p < 0.0001) was observed for the differences between the groups in terms of the type of the surgical procedure. With regard to group A1, 56% of patients were qualified for anterior resection of rectum while the remaining 44% were qualified for laparoscopic anterior resection of rectum. In group A2, 52% of patients were subjected to abdominoperineal resection of rectum while the remaining 48% were subjected to the Hartmann’s procedure. High significance (p = 0.0004) was observed for the differences between the groups in terms of the type of neoadjuvant treatment. Qualification for neoadjuvant treatment was more common in patients in whom stoma was performed. Induction radiotherapy was the modality of choice in most patients within group A2, whereas radiochemotherapy was the most common neoadjuvant modality within group A1. With regard to demographic variables, both groups differed significantly (p = 0.0301) in terms of marital status. A higher percentage of married patients was observed in the no stoma group as compared to the stoma group. No significant differences were observed between the compared groups in terms of the type of adjuvant treatment (p = 0.6623), incidence of postoperative complications (p = 0.7195), tumor TNM staging (p = 0.7717), age (p =0.9869), educational background (p = 0.6834), area of residence (p = 0.6163), employment status (p = 0.7369), parity (p = 0.7051), socioeconomic status (p = 0.6812), weight (p = 0.5037), height (p = 0.8405), BMI (p = 0.4411) and duration of hospital stay (p = 0.7353). Details are presented in Table 1 and Table 2.
The next step of the analysis consisted in comparing the quality of sexual life as assessed using the FSFI questionnaire at 3 study time points: Before the surgery (Measurement I), six months after the surgery (Measurement II), and 12 months after the surgery (Measurement III). Detailed results in desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, and pain/discomfort subscales as well as the overall FSFI scores are presented in Table 3. At the first timepoint, no differences were observed in FSFI scores between the study groups (p > 0.05). Statistically significant differences in results were observed in Measurements II and III in the subscales of arousal (II:p = 0.0068, III:p = 0.0018), lubrication (II:p = 0.0221, III:p = 0.0134), orgasm (II:p = 0.0044, III:p = 0.0021), satisfaction (II:p = 0.0021, III:p = 0.0433), and pain/discomfort (II:p = 0.0343, III:p = 0.0473). In all cases, lower results corresponding to lower quality of sexual functioning were observed in patients in whom stoma had been performed. The overall FSFI score was also significantly lower in the group of patients with stoma (II:p = 0.0118, III:p = 0.0025).
The next stage of statistical analysis focused on the sexual functioning of patients in both groups as assessed at individual time points. Within group A1, significant differences were observed within the subscales of arousal (p = 0.0478) and pain/discomfort (p = 0.0191) as well as in the overall FSFI scores (p = 0.0243). Findings included an initial decrease in the results at the second measurement timepoint and a significant increase 12 months after the treatment. Notably, scores higher than those reported prior the procedure were observed in all cases at the third measurement timepoint. Within group A2, significant or highly significant differences were observed between individual timepoints with regard to the subscales of arousal (p = 0.0032), lubrication (p = 0.0051), and orgasm (p = 0.0109), as well as to the overall FSFI score (p = 0.0142). Significant drops were observed in these between the Measurement I and Measurement II timepoints. At Measurement III, the scores were on an upward trend; however, they remained much lower than those at the baseline. Details are presented in Table 4.
The next stage of the statistical analysis consisted in the analysis of correlations between the overall FSFI score and the demographic and clinical data. The relationship between the overall FSFI score and the quantitative demographic variables of weight, height, BMI, parity, duration of hospital stay was negligible (p > 0.05) at each of the measurement timepoints. Similarly, FSFI results did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) in relation to qualitative variables such as the incidence of postoperative complications, type of adjuvant treatment, cancer staging, educational background, area of residence, employment status, or socioeconomic status.
Highly significant correlation was observed at Measurements I (p = 0.0238) and III (p = 0.0084) between the overall assessment of the quality of sexual life and the type of surgical procedure. Lower results corresponding to worse self-assessment of sexual functioning were observed for procedures involving enterostomy formation. No statistical significance was observed between the results of anterior resection laparoscopic anterior resection procedures. No statistically significant differences in the results were observed for individual types of surgical procedures (p > 0.05) at Measurement II. Irrespective of the measurement timepoint, the lowest results were observed for abdominoperineal resection of rectum.
The overall FSFI scores at Measurement I did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) for individual modalities of neoadjuvant treatment, whereas the differences at Measurements II (p = 0.0149) and III (p = 0.0433) were significant. The lowest results were observed for neoadjuvant radiotherapy.
A highly significant difference in results (p < 0.01) was also observed for the variable of marital status—regardless of the measurement timepoint, better sexual functioning was reported by married patients as compared to patients in partnership-based relationships.
Irrespective of the study group, a statistically significant difference (p = 0.0208) was observed for the variable of age at the Measurement II timepoint. This was a negative and low-level correlation. Details are presented in Table 5 and Table 6.

4. Discussion

This paper assesses the demographic and clinical factors that influence the self-assessment of the quality of sexual life in female patients receiving surgical treatment due to colorectal cancer. The study population was divided into two groups, namely patients requiring stoma formation (A2) and patients in whom gastrointestinal continuity was maintained (A1). Study variables were measured using the international standardized Female Sexual Index Function (FSFI) questionnaire. Differences in sexual satisfaction were analyzed in relation to the study groups, the measurement timepoints (preoperative, six and 12 months after the surgery), as well as the clinical and demographic factors.
Estimates show that up to 75% of patients treated for colorectal cancer experience sexual functioning disorders with nearly 1/3 declaring complete temporary of permanent discontinuation of intercourses [6]. As shown by the results of our studies, the self-assessment of the quality of sexual life is significantly worse among women subjected to surgical procedures requiring stoma formation; it must be noted that no significant differences had been observed between the groups in any of the FSFI subscales at the first measurement timepoint (p >0.05). Other authors confirm the negative impact of stoma on one’s own body image and thus on the worsening of sexual functioning [7,8]. Negative perception of the altered physical image may be a predictor of distress and depressive disorders [9]. Medical professionals may contribute to the reduction of sexual disorders in patients with stoma by means of education regarding appropriate hygiene (reduction of odor, skin irritation, management of waste) as well as regarding the common prevalence of these problems [10]. While the surgery has no impact on degree of sexual desire, patients with stoma may present with anxiety regarding their partner’s reaction to their altered physicality or regarding possible leaks from stoma bags during sexual activity; the patients should be therefore instructed to empty their bags prior to the intercourse [11]. The correlation between stoma and worsened sexual functioning was also described in other studies [7,11,12,13,14].
Another aspect of the statistical analysis consisted in the comparison of the quality of sexual functioning as self-assessed by patients in each group depending on the study timepoint. Findings in both study groups included an initial decrease in the results at the second measurement timepoint and a significant increase 12 months after the treatment. Scores higher that those reported prior to the surgery were observed in the no stoma group of patients 12 months after the treatment. In the stoma group, the scores at Measurement III were already on an upward trend while remaining much lower than those at the baseline. According to other authors, patients not reporting any sexual dysfunctions prior to oncological treatment may experience changes in sexual functioning during or after cancer therapy [15]. Long-term results obtained by Zutshi et al. in 260 colorectal cancer patients also suggest a significant drop in sexual functioning within one year after the surgery [16].
In this study, a statistically significant difference was observed in the self-assessed sexual satisfaction depending on the type of neoadjuvant treatment. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy has significantly contributed to the worsening of sexual functioning as self-assessed six and 12 months after the surgery. Svanström Röjvall and numerous other researchers point at the negative consequences of preoperative irradiation on the subsequent sexual activity. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy contributes to vaginal dryness and induces menopause in premenopausal women [2,14,17,18]. Decreased androgen production, similar to that observed following gonadal resection, was also observed in other studies in women with pelvic cancer and no ovarian resection [4]. Traa et al. demonstrated that neoadjuvant radiotherapy, stoma, older age, and incidence of postoperative complications are associated with higher risk of sexual dysfunctions [13,14]. Similar observations were made by other authors [11].
In our study, patient’s marital status was a differentiating factor in the self-assessment of sexual functioning in women subjected to surgical treatment of colorectal cancer. In the course of the statistical analysis, marries patients were compared against patients in partnerships. As shown in the review by Wezel et al., the incidence of sexual dysfunctions was correlated with marital status and radiation dose applied (>50.4 Gy) [19]. In our study, a relationship between patient’s age and the incidence of sexual dysfunctions three months after the surgery was also demonstrated irrespective of the type of surgical procedure. No statistically significant differences were observed one year after the surgery. As noted by Traa et al., older age is a risk factor for sexual dysfunctions [13,14]. No impact of sociodemographic status on the quality of sexual life was observed in our study. Other authors stress that health care professionals should provide particular support to patients with low sociodemographic status by initiating conversations on sexual life in the period between disease diagnosis and the end of cancer treatment [20].
The results presented herein contribute to understanding the causes of sexual dysfunctions in female patients undergoing surgeries due to colorectal cancer and provide instigation for interventional studies involving the elements of psychophysical rehabilitation. An added scientific value consists in the use of a standardized, international assessment tool dedicated to multi-dimensional evaluation of sexual functioning in women as well as in the prospective character of the study. It is worth noting that the available literature consists mainly of retrospective date from small, primarily male samples. The need for further prospective, long-term studies and development of systemic solutions aimed at reducing sexual dysfunctions among women following colorectal cancer therapy was also pointed out by other authors [1].
We recognize our study does have certain limitations, including the relatively small sample size and lack of subject randomization.

5. Conclusions

  • The quality of their sexual live as self-assessed by patients with stoma was significantly worse than that in patients in whom gastrointestinal tract continuity had been maintained.
  • Irrespective of the study group, deterioration in the quality of sexual life was observed six months after the treatment. One year after the surgery, the results were showing an upward trend; however, they remained lower than the baseline values in patients with stomia while exceeding the baseline scores in all subscales in patients in whom no stoma was required.
  • Marital status and age were the demographic variables responsible for significant differentiation of satisfaction with sexual life. Better quality of sexual functioning was reported by younger and/or married patients.
  • Neoadjuvant radiotherapy was the clinical variable responsible for significant differentiation of satisfaction with sexual life. Worse quality of life results related to sexual functioning were reported by patients who had received neoadjuvant radiotherapy prior to the surgery.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.T. (Magdalena Tarkowska); data curation, M.T. (Magdalena Tarkowska) and B.S.; formal analysis, M.T. (Magdalena Tarkowska), B.S., I.G.-M. and M.J.; investigation, M.T. (Magdalena Tarkowska) and T.N.; methodology, M.T. (Magdalena Tarkowska); project administration, M.T. (Magdalena Tarkowska); resources, I.G.-M., T.N., W.Z. and M.T. (Michał Tarkowski); software, M.T. (Magdalena Tarkowska), T.N., P.J. and M.T. (Michał Tarkowski); supervision, M.T. (Magdalena Tarkowska), W.Z. and P.J.; validation M.T. (Magdalena Tarkowska) and B.S.; visualization, M.T. (Magdalena Tarkowska); writing—original draft, M.T. (Magdalena Tarkowska); writing—review and editing, M.T. (Magdalena Tarkowska), W.Z. and I.G.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The conduct of the study was approved by the Bioethics Committee at the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń (decision no. 283/2019)). All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consed was obtained from all individuals patricipants included in a study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analysed Turing the current study are available from the corresponding author on responsablereques.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the patients and professional personnel in the Department of Surgical Oncology, Oncology Centre, Bydgoszcz, Poland, for their assistance in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Canty, J.; Stabile, C.; Milli, L.; Seidel, B.; Goldfrank, D.; Carter, J. Sexual function in women with colorectal/anal cancer. Sex. Med. Rev. 2019, 7, 202–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. SvanstromRojvall, A.; Buchli, C.; Bottai, M.; Ahlberg, M.; Flöter-Rådestad, A.; Martling, A.; Segelman, J. Effect of radio-therapy for rectal cancer on female sexual function: A prospective cohort study. J. Br. Surg. 2020, 107, 525–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ho, V.P.; Lee, Y.; Stein, S.L.; Temple, L.K.F. Sexual function after treatment for rectal cancer: A review. Dis. Colon Rectum 2011, 54, 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. American Cancer Society. Colorectal Cancer Facts and Figures, 2011–2013; American Cancer Society: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  5. Li, C.C.; Rew, L. A feminist perspective on sexuality and bodyimage in females with colorectal cancer: An integrative review. J. Wound Ostomy Cont. Nurs. 2010, 37, 519–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Reese, J.B.; Porter, L.S.; Somers, T.J.; Keefe, F.J. Pilot feasibility study of a telephone-based couples intervention for physical intimacy and sexual concerns in colorectal cancer. J. Sex. Marital Ther. 2012, 38, 402–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Ayalon, R.; Bachner, Y.G. Medical, social, and personal factors as correlates of quality of life among older cancer patients with permanent stoma. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2019, 38, 50–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Thyø, A.; Laurberg, S.; Emmertsen, K.J. Impact of bowel and stoma dysfunction on female sexuality after treatment for rectal cancer. Color. Dis. 2020, 22, 894–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Sharpe, L.; Patel, D.; Clarke, S. The relationship between body image disturbance and distress in colorectal cancer patients with and without stomas. J. Psychosom. Res. 2011, 70, 395–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Silva, N.M.; Santos, M.A.D.; Rosado, S.R.; Galvao, C.M.; Sonobe, H.M. Psychological aspects of patients with intestinal stoma: Integrative review. Rev. Lat. Am. Enferm. 2017, 25, 2950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Albaugh, J.A.; Tenfelde, S.; Hayden, D.M. Sexual Dysfunction and Intimacy for Ostomates. Clin. Colon Rectal Surg. 2017, 30, 201–216. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  12. Traa, M.J.; Roukema, J.A.; De Vries, J.; Rutten, H.J.T.; Langenhoff, B.; Jansen, W.; Den Oudsten, B.L. Biopsychosocial predictors of sexual function and quality of sexual life: A study among patients with colorectal cancer. Transl. Androl. Urol. 2015, 4, 206–217. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  13. Traa, M.J.; De Vries, J.; Roukema, J.A.; Den Oudsten, B.L. Sexual (dys) function and the quality of sexual life in patients with colorectal cancer: A systematic review. Ann. Oncol. 2012, 23, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Lange, M.M.; Marijen, C.A.M.; Maas, C.P.; Putter, H.; Rutten, H.J.; Stiggelbout, A.M.; Meershoek–Klein Kranenbarg, E.; van de Velde, C.J.H. Risk factors for sexual dysfunction after rectal cancer treatment. EJC 2009, 45, 1578–1588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Hawkins, Y.; Ussher, J.; Gilbert, E.; Perz, J.; Sandoval, M.; Sundquist, K. Changes in sexuality and intimacy after the diagnosis and treatment of cancer: The experience of partners in a sexual relationship with a person with cancer. Cancer Nurs. 2009, 32, 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Zutshi, M.; Hull, T.; Shedda, S.; Lavery, I.; Hammel, J. Gender differences in mortality, quality of life and function after restorative procedures for rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2013, 15, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Fleischer, R.T.; Vollenhoven, B.J.; Weston, G.C. The effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy on fertility in premenopausal women. Obstet. Gynecol. Surv. 2011, 66, 248–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Svanström Röjvall, A.; Buchli, C.; FlöterRådestad, A.; Martling, A.; Segelman, J. Impact of Androgens on Sexual Function in Women With Rectal Cancer–A Prospective Cohort Study. J. Sex. Med. 2021, 18, 1374–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Welzel, G.; Hagele, V.; Wenz, F.; Mai, S.K. Quality of life outcomes in patients with anal cancer after combined radiochemotherapy. Strahlenther. Und Onkol. 2011, 187, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Haviland, J.; Sodergren, S.; Calman, L.; Corner, J.; Din, A.; Fenlon, D.; Grimmett, C.; Richardson, A.; Smith, P.W.; Winter, J. Social support following diagnosis and treatment for colorectal cancer and associations with health-related quality of life: Results from the UK ColoREctal Wellbeing (CREW) cohort study. Psychooncology 2017, 26, 2276–2284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Scheme describing the exclusion of patients from the study.
Figure 1. Scheme describing the exclusion of patients from the study.
Curroncol 29 00269 g001
Table 1. Clinical and sociodemographic data.
Table 1. Clinical and sociodemographic data.
Variable No Stoma (A1)Stoma (A2)chi2/Fisher’s Test (p)
N%N%
Type of surgeryAnterior resection1456%00%<0.0001
Laparoscopic anterior resection1144%00%
Abdominoperineal resection00%1252.17%
Hartmann’s procedure00%1147.83%
Neoadjuvant treatmentnone936%00%0.0004
chemotherapy00%313.04%
radiochemotherapy1144%730.43%
radiotherapy520%1356.52%
Adjuvant treatmentnone1768%1565.22%0.6623
chemotherapy728%521.74%
radiochemotherapy14%313.04%
Post-surgical complicationsnone2184%1878.26%0.7195
observed416%521.74%
TNM stage of the disease (I–III)I936%730.43%0.7717
IIA832%1147.83%
IIB14%00%
IIIB312%313.04%
IIIC416%28.7%
Educational backgroundelementary28%417.39%0.6834
vocational520%313.04%
secondary1248%1252.17%
higher624%417.39%
Area of residenceurban1976%1669.57%0.6163
rural624%730.43%
Employment statusretired/on disablement pension2080%1669.57%0.7369
regular employment/company owner416%626.09%
housekeeping14%14.35%
Parity014%28.7%0.7051
1312%28.7%
21560%1252.17%
3416%417.39%
414%14.35%
500%28.7%
714%00%
Marital statusmarried2288%1460.87%0.0301
in partnership312%939.13%
Socioeconomic statusvery good14%14.35%0.6812
good1248%834.78%
average1144%1460.87%
low14%00%
p—significance level, A1—no stoma, A2—stoma.
Table 2. Weight, height, BMI, hospitalization time, and age.
Table 2. Weight, height, BMI, hospitalization time, and age.
WeightHeightBMIHospitalization TimeAge
A1A2A1A2AA2A1A2A1A2
M69.4266.46159.6159.2427.2225.867.728.3962.4862.43
Me66.66516015825.0726.04776566
SD15.9414.386.765.455.956.214.735.969.32349.5908
Mann–Whitney’s U-test/Student’s t-test
(df = 46)
t = 0.6739t = 0.2024t = 0.7770Z = 0.3381t = 0.0166
p = 0.5037p = 0.8405p = 0.4411p = 0.7353p = 0.9869
p—significance level, A1—no stoma, A2—stoma, M—mean, Me—median, SD—standard deviation.
Table 3. FSFI scores in individual study groups.
Table 3. FSFI scores in individual study groups.
Variables Included in the AnalysisGroupMMeSDMann–Whitney’s U-Test
I—Desire [Measurement I]A14.854.801.05Z = 1.3502
p = 0.1770
A24.304.201.40
II—Arousal [Measurement I]A14.545.702.13Z = 1.3427
p = 0.1794
A23.724.802.43
III—Lubrication [Measurement I]A14.275.101.98Z = 0.3029
p = 0.7619
A23.655.102.51
IV—Orgasm [Measurement I]A14.385.202.02Z = 1.4471
p = 0.1479
A23.394.802.49
V—Satisfaction [Measurement I]A15.175.600.91Z = 0.3271
p = 0.7436
A24.755.601.45
VI—Pain/discomfort [Measurement I]A14.164.802.10Z = 1.1906
p = 0.2338
A23.324.002.42
Overall FSFI score [Measurement I]A127.3730.909.36Z = 1.4967
p = 0.1345
A223.1328.7011.62
I—Desire [Measurement II]A14.666.001.68Z = 1.9151
p = 0.0555
A23.834.201.47
II—Arousal [Measurement II]A13.795.102.48Z = 2.7056
p = 0.0068
A21.962.102.06
III—Lubrication [Measurement II]A13.645.102.54Z = 2.2882
p = 0.0221
A21.800.002.41
IV—Orgasm [Measurement II]A13.945.602.70Z = 2.8509
p = 0.0044
A21.700.002.36
V—Satisfaction [Measurement II]A14.835.201.10Z = 3.0704
p = 0.0021
A23.633.201.34
VI—Pain/discomfort [Measurement II]A13.664.802.55Z = 2.1160
p = 0.0343
A22.000.002.51
Overall FSFI score [Measurement II]A124.5232.8012.69Z = 2.5187
p = 0.0118
A214.939.5010.86
I—Desire [Measurement III]A15.266.001.41Z = 1.8930
p = 0.0584
A24.624.801.58
II—Arousal [Measurement III]A14.706.002.24Z = 3.1205
p = 0.0018
A22.712.702.48
III—Lubrication [Measurement III]A14.465.402.15Z = 2.4730
p = 0.0134
A22.692.402.59
IV—Orgasm [Measurement III]A14.696.002.23Z = 3.0707
p = 0.0021
A22.642.402.56
V—Satisfaction [Measurement III]A15.185.601.21Z = 2.0210
p = 0.0433
A24.284.801.53
VI—Pain/discomfort [Measurement III]A14.705.602.18Z = 1.9836
p = 0.0473
A22.973.202.80
Overall FSFI score [Measurement III]A129.0034.9010.99Z = 3.0268
p = 0.0025
A219.9118.7012.76
p—significance level, A1—no stoma, A2—stoma, M—mean, Me—median, SD—standard deviation.
Table 4. FSFI scores at individual time points.
Table 4. FSFI scores at individual time points.
GroupVariables Included in the AnalysisMMeSDFriedman’s Test
No stoma
(A1)
I—Desire [Measurement I]4.854.801.05T = 5.9385
p = 0.0513
[Measurement II]4.666.001.68
[Measurement III]5.266.001.41
II—Arousal[Measurement I]4.545.702.13T = 6.08
p = 0.0478
[Measurement II]3.795.102.48
[Measurement III]4.706.002.24
III—Lubrication[Measurement I]4.275.101.98T = 3.4865
p = 0.175
[Measurement II]3.645.102.54
[Measurement III]4.465.402.15
IV—Orgasm[Measurement I]4.385.202.02T = 4.9143
p = 0.0857
[Measurement II]3.945.602.70
[Measurement III]4.696.002.23
V—Satisfaction[Measurement I]5.175.600.91T = 4.0256
p = 0.1336
[Measurement II]4.835.201.10
[Measurement III]5.185.601.21
VI—Pain/discomfort[Measurement I]4.164.802.10T = 7.9143
p = 0.0191
[Measurement II]3.664.802.55
[Measurement III]4.705.602.18
Overall FSFI score[Measurement I]27.3730.909.36T = 7.4382
p = 0.0243
[Measurement II]24.5232.8012.69
[Measurement III]29.0034.9010.99
Stoma
(A2)
I—Desire[Measurement I]4.304.201.40T = 4.6944
p = 0.0956
[Measurement II]3.834.201.47
[Measurement III]4.624.801.58
II—Arousal[Measurement I]3.724.802.43T = 11.5143
p = 0.0032
[Measurement II]1.962.102.06
[Measurement III]2.712.702.48
III—Lubrication[Measurement I]3.655.102.51T = 10.5538
p = 0.0051
[Measurement II]1.800.002.41
[Measurement III]2.692.402.59
IV—Orgasm[Measurement I]3.394.802.49T = 9.0313
p = 0.0109
[Measurement II]1.700.002.36
[Measurement III]2.642.402.56
V—Satisfaction[Measurement I]4.755.601.45T = 5.8611
p = 0.0534
[Measurement II]3.633.201.34
[Measurement III]4.284.801.53
VI—Pain/discomfort[Measurement I]3.324.002.42T = 5.7288
p = 0.057
[Measurement II]2.000.002.51
[Measurement III]2.973.202.80
Overall FSFI score[Measurement I]23.1328.7011.62T = 8.5122
p = 0.0142
[Measurement II]14.939.5010.86
[Measurement III]19.9118.7012.76
p—significance level, A1—no stoma, A2—stoma, M—mean, Me—median, SD—standard deviation.
Table 5. Correlation between FSFI scores and quantitative clinical and demographic stales.
Table 5. Correlation between FSFI scores and quantitative clinical and demographic stales.
Variables Included in the Analysisrp
WeightFSFI [Measurement I]−0.00520.9721
FSFI [Measurement II]0.11640.4309
FSFI [Measurement III]0.01040.9440
HeightFSFI [Measurement I]0.14870.3132
FSFI [Measurement II]0.07480.6132
FSFI [Measurement III]0.08030.5877
BMIFSFI [Measurement I]−0.09200.5339
FSFI [Measurement II]0.17460.2352
FSFI [Measurement III]0.03680.8037
Hospitalization timeFSFI [Measurement I]−0.19140.1924
FSFI [Measurement II]0.02770.8518
FSFI [Measurement III]0.07940.5918
ParityFSFI [Measurement I]0.09810.5070
FSFI [Measurement II]0.11490.4367
FSFI [Measurement III]0.08090.5847
AgeFSFI [Measurement I]−0.15210.3020
FSFI [Measurement II]−0.33290.0208
FSFI [Measurement III]−0.12460.3987
p—significance level.
Table 6. Correlation between FSFI scores and qualitative clinical and demographic stales.
Table 6. Correlation between FSFI scores and qualitative clinical and demographic stales.
Variables Included in the AnalysisData FilterMMeSDMann–Whitney’s U-Test\Kruskall-Wallis Test
Type of surgery
FSFI
[Measurement I]
Anterior resection28.0931.508.89H = 9.4569
p = 0.0238
Laparoscopic anterior resection26.4530.8010.30
abdominoperineal resection16.137.5012.23
Hartmann’s procedure30.7731.703.11
FSFI
[Measurement II]
Anterior resection24.6432.8012.44H = 6.6092
p = 0.0855
Laparoscopic anterior resection24.3532.9013.61
abdominoperineal resection15.798.3512.89
Hartmann’s procedure13.999.508.66
FSFI
[Measurement III]
Anterior resection30.1135.3510.70H = 11.7098
p = 0.0084
Laparoscopic anterior resection27.5834.2011.70
abdominoperineal resection15.327.8012.41
Hartmann’s procedure24.9330.8011.67
Neoadjuvant treatment
FSFI
[Measurement I]
none25.9030.4011.24H = 2.1982
p = 0.5323
radiotherapy22.5528.3011.72
chemotherapy29.1029.602.88
radiochemotherapy27.2231.909.94
FSFI
[Measurement II]
none24.1132.8012.51H = 10.4742
p = 0.0149
radiotherapy12.117.2010.79
chemotherapy18.6018.700.56
radiochemotherapy25.8632.8011.97
FSFI
[Measurement III]
none25.3434.9015.08H = 8.1351
p = 0.0433
radiotherapy18.6414.4513.02
chemotherapy22.5018.707.20
radiochemotherapy30.6634.858.89
Adjuvant treatment
FSFI
[Measurement I]
none25.0429.8010.91H = 0.3516
p = 0.8388
chemotherapy25.1430.7511.83
radiochemotherapy28.3327.802.82
FSFI
[Measurement II]
none21.6127.3513.03H = 2.6381
p = 0.2674
chemotherapy16.538.2013.42
radiochemotherapy16.6018.354.03
FSFI
[Measurement III]
none24.7031.9513.13H = 0.7292
p = 0.6945
chemotherapy24.1830.1513.14
radiochemotherapy25.6024.758.54
Post-surgical complications
FSFI
[Measurement I]
none25.9430.7010.07Z = 0.5549
p = 0.5790
observed22.7228.7013.05
FSFI
[Measurement II]
none18.8418.0012.55Z = 0.9552
p = 0.3395
observed24.6032.8012.91
FSFI
[Measurement III]
none23.4630.8012.99Z = 1.2429
p = 0.2139
observed29.7732.109.78
Disease staging (I–III)
FSFI
[Measurement I]
I24.6929.1011.04H = 3.2311
p = 0.3573
IIA25.8230.0010.21
IIIB28.5532.9011.46
IIIC25.4529.9510.09
FSFI
[Measurement II]
I23.6932.8513.53H = 5.9091
p = 0.1161
IIA18.0818.0011.71
IIIB24.3032.8013.31
IIIC13.477.8011.39
FSFI
[Measurement III]
I25.2331.0511.94H = 0.4719
p = 0.9250
IIA23.4031.1013.18
IIIB24.3732.4515.07
IIIC26.5835.0514.08
Educational background
FSFI
[Measurement I]
elementary21.1026.0011.05H = 3.6209
p = 0.3054
vocational27.6430.858.37
secondary26.4231.3010.70
higher23.4530.1512.21
FSFI
[Measurement II]
elementary11.488.607.75H = 5.9592
p = 0.1136
vocational25.5633.0012.54
secondary21.2023.5012.66
higher17.429.0013.70
FSFI
[Measurement III]
elementary22.6524.9012.81H = 0.5749
p = 0.9021
vocational26.0531.4512.28
secondary24.8731.1012.86
higher24.1832.7013.93
Area of residence
FSFI
[Measurement I]
urban25.6230.7010.64Z = 0.5338
p = 0.5935
rural24.5929.5010.92
FSFI
[Measurement II]
urban20.1419.1012.63Z = 0.1515
p = 0.8796
rural19.3510.6013.33
FSFI
[Measurement III]
urban23.6930.3012.86Z = 0.4877
p = 0.6257
rural27.2332.9012.01
Employment status
FSFI
[Measurement I]
retired/on disablement pension24.5829.6010.92H = 1.3071
p = 0.5202
regular employment/company owner27.0231.2510.61
housekeeping30.6030.601.56
FSFI
[Measurement II]
retired/on disablement pension18.1710.0012.83H = 2.9775
p = 0.2257
regular employment/company owner25.0228.4011.88
housekeeping25.9525.959.69
FSFI
[Measurement III]
retired/on disablement pension25.3331.1512.24H = 1.8582
p = 0.3949
regular employment/company owner20.5124.1514.49
housekeeping33.0533.053.18
Marital status
FSFI
[Measurement I]
married27.7631.759.15Z = 2.9533
p = 0.0031
in partnership18.0717.3511.74
FSFI
[Measurement II]
married24.0432.0011.89Z = 3.8386
p = 0.0001
in partnership7.586.403.96
FSFI
[Measurement III]
married27.2033.5512.12Z = 2.5981
p = 0.0094
in partnership16.9814.4511.25
Socioeconomic status
FSFI
[Measurement I]
average22.6727.1011.32H = 4.3520
p = 0.1135
good29.0431.958.15
very good19.7019.7020.51
FSFI
[Measurement II]
average16.059.5011.97H = 4.3976
p = 0.1109
good22.8428.4012.74
very good32.7032.702.12
FSFI
[Measurement III]
average21.6127.6012.89H = 3.0044
p = 0.2226
good26.9031.5012.20
very good34.8034.800.85
p—significance level, M—mean, Me—median, SD—standard deviation.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Back to TopTop