Young-onset colorectal cancer treatment side effects: Infertility, sexual dysfunction, and quality-of-life outcomes.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3587-3587
Author(s):  
Laura Diane Porter ◽  
Ronit Yarden ◽  
Kim Lynn Newcomer ◽  
Negeen Fathi ◽  

3587 Background: Colorectal cancer is the third-most commonly diagnosed cancer and the second-leading cause of cancer death in men and women combined in the United States. Young-onset colorectal cancer refers to individuals diagnosed under the age of 50. In recent years, the incidence has increased by 2.2% annually in individuals younger than 50 years and 1% in individuals 50-64, in contrast to a 3.3% decrease in adults 65 years and older. Young-onset (YO) CRC patients and survivors face unique clinical challenges with fertility and sexual dysfunctions, but this risk is not well quantified. There is limited data and public discussion on the long-term effects of colorectal cancer treatments on fertility and sexual dysfunction and the long-term impact on the quality of life. Methods: To explore the unique challenges and unmet needs of the young-adult patient population, a cross-sectional study was conducted. Colorectal cancer patients and survivors (N = 884) diagnosed between the ages of 20 to 50 years old (median age 42 ± 7.0) completed an online questionnaire based on established instruments EORTC-QOL-30, EORTC-CR-29, and EORTC-SHC-22. Results: Thirty-one percent of respondents stated that a medical professional spoke to them about fertility preservation at the time of diagnosis and during treatment. Only 31% were referred to a reproductive endocrinologist, even though 37% of women and 16% of men reported that treatment left them infertile or sterile. Among survey respondents, 12% of women had an egg retrieval procedure, and 36% of men had their sperm preserved prior to the start of treatment. Fifty-three percent of women reported treatment led to premature menopause. Sixty-five percent of respondents suffer from some level of sexual dysfunction due to treatment. In patients who received radiation therapy, women were 12% less likely than men to have discussed sexual side effects with the provider before treatment. Patients who have an ostomy reported more severe sexual dysfunction (17.8%). Rectal cancer patients were 2.5 times more likely than those with colon cancer to report severe dysfunction after their treatment. More than 25% of the respondents said they would have considered alternative treatment if they would have known the risks of sexual dysfunction. Conclusions: Our survey demonstrates inadequate communications between patients and providers about the irreversible fertility and sexual effects of colorectal cancer treatments. Younger patients and survivors face unique long-term challenges and require further information about fertility preservation options and emotional support regarding their sexuality post-treatment. Other studies are needed to assess the physical and psychological side effects endured by young-onset CRC patients and survivors.

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (10) ◽  
pp. 643-651 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Pereira ◽  
Glenn L. Schattman

Recent developments in cancer diagnostics and treatments have considerably improved long-term survival rates. Despite improvements in chemotherapy regimens, more focused radiotherapy and diverse surgical options, cancer treatments often have gonadotoxic side-effects that can manifest as loss of fertility or sexual dysfunction, particularly in young cancer survivors. In this review, we focus on two pertinent quality-of-life issues in female cancer survivors of reproductive age—fertility preservation and sexual function. Fertility preservation encompasses all clinical and laboratory efforts to preserve a woman’s chance to achieve future genetic motherhood. These efforts range from well-established protocols such as ovarian stimulation with cryopreservation of embryos or oocytes, to nascent clinical trials involving cryopreservation and re-implantation of ovarian tissue. Therefore, fertility preservation strategies are individualized to the cancer diagnosis, time interval until initiation of treatments must begin, prognosis, pubertal status, and maturity level of patient. Some patients choose not to pursue fertility preservation, and the conversation then centers around other quality of life issues. Not all cancer treatments cause loss of fertility; however, most treatments can directly impact the physical and psychosocial aspects of sexual function. Cancer treatment is also associated with fear, anxiety, and depression, which can further decrease sexual desire, function, and frequency. Sexual dysfunction after cancer treatment is generally ascertained by compassionate inquiry. Strategies to promote sexual function after cancer treatment include pelvic floor exercises, clitoral therapy devices, pharmacologic agents, as well as couples-based psychotherapeutic and psycho-educational interventions. Quality-of-life issues in young cancer survivors are often best addressed by utilizing a multidisciplinary team consisting of physicians, nurses, social workers, psychiatrists, sex educators, counselors, or therapists.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1566-1566
Author(s):  
Paris A. Kosmidis ◽  
Christie Lagogianni ◽  
Thanos Kosmidis

1566 Background: Quality of life of cancer patients is a critical part of cancer care. Symptom management is evolving as a multidisciplinary approach, and is increasingly delivered through a combination of physical and remote interactions. CareAcross is an online platform offering personalized, guidelines-based support to cancer patients, that complements physicians’ support and enables remote monitoring. This analysis investigated the improvement in the quality of life of cancer patients delivered through such remote support. Methods: Patients engage with an online interactive platform to receive personalized support based on a variety of parameters, through algorithms incorporating their exact diagnoses, treatments and comorbidities, and more. For symptom management, patients report the presence of specific side-effects via brief questionnaires; for each side-effect reported, they receive tailored support (text and multimedia) to help overcome it. These online questionnaires are repeated periodically to capture the outcome of the supportive process, and provide additional support as necessary. A retrospective analysis evaluated the efficacy of the personalized support: each patient’s reported side-effects were compared before versus after receiving the support, hence calculating the reduced incidence. Results: 2203 patients from 8 countries, with breast, lung, prostate or colorectal cancer (1563, 404, 159 and 77, respectively) reported side-effects, received support, and updated their reports at least once. The median follow-up period was 4.9 months. The patient-reported outcomes on their quality of life revealed substantial improvement, regardless of cancer type (lowest recorded improvement = 25.7%). Commonly reported side-effects included sleep problems, dry mouth, constipation, changes in food taste, and more (see Table). Side-effects reported in specific cancer types also showed substantial improvement, including hot flushes (breast; 32.0% improvement), dyspnea (lung; 38.1%), bowel dysfunction (prostate; 80%) and others. The efficacy of the support to breast, prostate or colorectal cancer patients was similar; support to lung cancer patients exhibited the lowest efficacy (p < 0.05). Fatigue was the most common side-effect. It was also the most resistant to improvement compared to all others (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Digital remote support of cancer patients is a realistic option to improve quality of life. Randomized controlled trials can help quantify its impact on health economics, hospital admissions, resource utilization, and other aspects.[Table: see text]


2011 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. 1741-1751 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lina Jansen ◽  
Michael Hoffmeister ◽  
Jenny Chang‐Claude ◽  
Moritz Koch ◽  
Hermann Brenner ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 398-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. M. Soveri ◽  
A. Lamminmäki ◽  
U. A. Hänninen ◽  
M. Karhunen ◽  
P. Bono ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 277 (8) ◽  
pp. 2325-2333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aysegul Ucuncu Kefeli ◽  
Canan Sanal-Toprak ◽  
Ruslan Asedov ◽  
Zeynep Ozen ◽  
Gulseren Akyuz ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Sánchez-Gundín ◽  
Cristina Martín-Sabroso ◽  
Ana M. Fernández-Carballido ◽  
D. Barreda-Hernández ◽  
Ana I. Torres-Suárez

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document