Sexual Dysfunction in Adolescent and Young Adult Survivors of Childhood Cancer: Presentation,Risk Factors,and Evaluation of an Underdiagnosed Late Effect: A Narrative Review

Abstract

An area of concern affecting the quality of life of childhood cancer survivors (CCS) is that of sexual dysfunction (SD), which may be a result of both physical and psychosexual challenges associated with cancer and its treatment. This is especially pertinent as CCS are known to experience diminished quality of life compared to peers. Relevant to SD, cancer and its associated treatment are associated with negative effects on body image and romantic relationships, as well as overall physical and mental health. Although CCS have been shown to have SD at higher rates than the general population, this is often under-recognized and CCS commonly report that it is not addressed by their health care providers. To guide future research and improve clinical screening and treatment practices for SD, we performed a narrative review of this understudied topic to summarize existing knowledge of the incidence, risk factors, pathophysiology, and rates of screening for SD in CCS. We also outline current gaps in knowledge and directions for future research.

Introduction

Sexual dysfunction (SD), which encompasses a wide range of sexual concerns such as lack of desire, arousal difficulties, inability to achieve climax, lack of pleasure, pain with sexual activity, and dissatisfaction, is an important but often unrecognized area of concern for childhood cancer survivors (CCS).^1–3 SD may occur as a result of physiologic changes or psychosexual reasons, such as poor body image, concerns about fertility, and disruption of normal psychosexual development.^2,4–6 CCS, defined as patients diagnosed at 21 years or younger, are at particularly high risk for SD, as normal childhood and adolescent physiologic and psychologic developments are interrupted during cancer diagnosis and treatment.^7,8 CCS are known to report lower related measures of body image, romantic relationships, fertility, and physical and socioeconomic health.^9–11 As such, SD may contribute to this quality of life deficit. Unfortunately, SD in all cancer survivors, including CCS, is widely under-recognized, with both patients and providers reporting low levels of routine screening, despite recommendations by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) to address sexuality and cancer during and after therapy.^3,12–15

SD is a fairly common problem across all adult populations, with historic prevalence reports ranging from 10% to 52% of men and 25% to 64% of women.^4,16 Varying definitions for SD exist. Most broad is the World Health Organization (WHO) definition for sexual health, which is “a state of physical, emotional, mental, and social well-being in relation to sexuality, not merely the absence of disease, dysfunction, or infirmity.”¹⁷ Within WHO, the International Classification of Disease (ICD-10) has a more granular definition, encompassing a spectrum of symptoms, including lack of sexual desire, lack of sexual pleasure, failure of genital response, orgasmic dysfunction, premature ejaculation, and dyspareunia.¹⁸ In 2013, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 simplified SD categories, which may be used by clinicians to make official diagnoses, to include female sexual interest/arousal, genito-pelvic pain/penetration (females), erectile disorder, male hypoactive sexual desire disorder, delayed ejaculation, and “other” or “unspecified” SD.¹ Similar to ICD-10 definitions, the National Health and Social Life Survey defines SD using the following domains: (1) lack of desire for sex, (2) arousal difficulties (erection, lubrication), (3) inability to achieve climax/ejaculation, (4) anxiety about sexual performance, (5) climaxing/ejaculating too rapidly, (6) physical pain during intercourse, and (7) lack of pleasure.⁴ Patients who are undergoing or have undergone treatment for cancer have increased risk of SD, as might be expected given that individuals with poorer health, in general, are at higher risk.^5,19,20

SD among CCS is under-recognized, and studies are heterogeneous in their methods and results. Thus, a narrative review was undertaken to summarize current knowledge of the incidence, risk factors, underlying pathophysiology, and effects of SD on quality of life among CCS, as well as to describe current gaps in clinical care and research (Box 1). Two electronic databases (PubMed and Google Scholar) were searched, and 24 publications pertaining to SD and childhood cancer were reviewed, with 19 research articles directly relevant to SD in this population, all of which were included in this review (Tables 1 and 2). Where research in CCS was lacking, we summarized publications on SD in adult cancer survivors.

Box 1.

Summary of Recommended Next Steps in Improving Care of Sexual Dysfunction Among Childhood Cancer Survivors

Develop patient-centered approach to screening for SD, focused on reducing patient discomfort and increasing effectiveness of surveillance.

Develop or modify a screening tool for SD which is validated in the AYA population, aimed at use in both clinical and research settings.

Using the aforementioned AYA-specific SD screening tool, update what is known about SD in AYA CCS: a.

Re-define the epidemiology, risk factors (demographic, disease, and treatment related), and pathophysiology (including associations with hormone dysfunction, treatment, and mental health) for SD in AYA CCS.

Describe the natural history of SD development among AYA patients from cancer diagnosis through survivorship.

Evaluate the relationship between progression of psychosexual development, and other psychologic factors, and SD.

Re-evaluate associations between quality of life and SD in AYA CCS.

Develop multidisciplinary clinical interventions for SD in the AYA CCS population, focused on feasible, acceptable, and effective options. Key outcomes should include changes in SD as measured by an AYA-specific SD screening tool and effects on quality of life.

Evaluate the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions for SD in AYA CCS.

Improve physician knowledge and comfort with addressing SD, including improving awareness of risk, screening, and appropriate interventions.

Table 1.

Published Primary Research on Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Quality of Life Associations of Sexual Dysfunction in Survivors of Childhood, Adolescent, or Young Adult Cancer

Study	Population	Relevant research objective(s)	Methods	Findings
Acquati et al. (2018)²⁸	AYA (age 18–39; mean 29) oncology patients (n = 123)	Describe sexual function of AYA over the 2 years after cancer diagnosis; identify factors associated with SD; evaluate associations with quality of life	Quantitative survey: MOS Sexual Functioning Scale (validated)	Over 50% of participants described an SD concern within 4 months of diagnosis and 2 years after diagnosis. Factors associated with SD: female sex, older age, or currently being in a romantic relationship for females only. Psychological distress was associated with SD, whereas strong social support was associated with reduced SD
Bellizzi et al. (2012)⁹	AYA (age 15–39) cancer patients and survivors (n = 523; mean age 29)	To identify negative impacts of cancer on AYA development and to examine impacts according to age at diagnosis	Quantitative survey: single item related to SD (not validated)	40%–58% of participants, depending on age, reported negative impacts of cancer on sexual function or intimate relationships. Factors associated with negative impact: older age (21–39 years old vs. 15–20 years old)
Bober et al. (2013)²²	CCS (n = 291; mean age 27)	Describe prevalence and risk factors for sexual problems in CCS and evaluate the relationship between SD and HRQOL	Quantitative survey: Sexual functioning subscale of the Swedish HRQOL Survey, the SF-12, and the BSI-18 (all validated)	29% reported ≥2 SD concerns. Factors associated with having ≥2 SD concerns: female sex and older age. Age at diagnosis, cancer type, and treatment exposures were not associated with SD. Survivors with SD had higher levels of depression, anxiety, and poorer HRQOL across all subscales
Ford et al. (2014)²⁰	Female CCS (n = 2178; mean age 29); Female sibling controls (n = 408; mean age not published)	Describe prevalence, risk factors, and types of sexual problem in female CCS compared to healthy controls; compare sexual problems in CCS with and without OF	Quantitative survey: Sexual Functioning Questionnaire, Women's Health questionnaire, Sexual-Self Schema, and Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form (all validated)	CCS reported poorer overall sexual functioning, lower sexual interest, desire, arousal, satisfaction, and activity than siblings. There was no difference in Sexual-Self Schema. CCS with OF had more SD than CCS without OF. Among CCS with OF, there were no differences in SD by hormonal contraception/replacement status. Twenty-eight percent of CCS vs. 17% of controls was not sexually active in the past month. Reasons for inactivity included no partner (13% of CCS vs. 2.4% of siblings), lack of interest (6.4% vs. 3.4%), being too tired (4.5% vs. 2.9%), and/or a physical problem (2.4% vs. 0.7%) Factors associated with SD: older age, OF at a younger age, treatment with cranial radiation, and cancer diagnosis during adolescence. CCS with OF did not have poorer quality of life than CCS without
Haavisto et al. (2016)¹⁹	Finnish male survivors of childhood/AYA acute lymphoblastic leukemia (n = 52; median age 29); Healthy age-matched controls (n = 56; median age 30)	Describe prevalence, risk factors, and types of sexual problems or male ALL survivors compared to healthy controls	Quantitative survey: Derogatis Interview for Sexual Functioning self-report (validated)	CCS had less frequent sexual activity with a partner, poorer self-rated orgasms, and lower sexual satisfaction. Factors associated with SD: cranial irradiation, depression, absence of relationship, and, to a lesser extent, testicular size and older age. Age at diagnosis, gonadotoxic treatment, hypogonadism, physical functioning, and employment status were not associated with SD
Lehmann et al. (2016)²⁶	Non-CNS CCS (n = 87; mean age 28); healthy controls (n = 87; age matched)	To compare sexual experiences and satisfaction between healthy controls and non-CNS CCS	Quantitative survey: web-based Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction (validated)	CCS and controls had similar levels of sexual experiences and satisfaction
Olsson et al. (2018)²³	Swedish AYA (age 15–29 at diagnosis) cancer survivors (n = 285; mean age 28); Healthy controls (n = 255; mean age 28)	Describe the prevalence and types of sexual problems in AYA cancer survivors compared to healthy controls	Quantitative survey: study-developed web questionnaire (content validated)	AYA cancer survivors had lower sexual satisfaction than controls. Female cancer survivors had less frequent orgasm than controls, but no difference in physical complaints or desire. Male cancer survivors had lower desire, but no difference in physical complaints or orgasm frequency.
Ritenour et al. (2016)²⁴	Male CCS (n = 1622; mean age 37); sibling controls (n = 271; mean age 39)	Describe prevalence and risk factors for ED among male CCS	Quantitative survey: International Index of Erectile Function (validated)	12.3% of CCS vs. 4.2% of siblings experienced ED (relative risk 2.63 [95% CI 1.40–4.97]). Factors associated with ED: older age, known cardiac condition, previous diagnosis of depression, history of smoking, high dose testicular radiation, spinal cord surgery, prostate surgery, and pelvic surgery. High dose alkylator therapy was not associated with ED
Sundberg et al. (2011)⁵	Swedish CCS (n = 224; mean age 24); Healthy controls (n = 283; mean age 25)	Describe prevalence and types of sexual problems in CCS compared to healthy controls	Quantitative survey: 22-item Swedish questionnaire (validated)	Male CCS had diminished feelings of sexual attractiveness, decreased sexual interest, and lower sexual satisfaction compared to controls. Female CCS had similar SD prevalence to controls. Factors associated with SD in males: CNS tumor
van Dijk et al. (2008)²	Dutch CCS (n = 60; mean age 24.6)	Explore prevalence of psychosexual dysfunction and its relationship with quality of life	Quantitative surveys: (1) Study-developed psychosexual and social functioning questionnaire (not validated); (2) MOS-Short Form (MOS-SF-36) (validated)	41.4% experienced (almost) no sexual attraction, 44.8% were seldom/never satisfied with their sexual lives, and 44.2% were seldom/never able to see themselves as sexually attractive. 18.4% identified a limit in their sexual life due to their illness. Quality of life was not associated with psychosexual problems
van Iersel et al. (2018)²⁵	Male CCS (n = 956; median age 31)	Describe prevalence and risk factors for ED among male CCS.	Quantitative survey: International Index of Erectile Function (validated).	29% of males experienced ED. Factors associated with ED: older age, Hispanic or other race/ethnicity, low testosterone levels, low lean muscle mass, and greater body image dissatisfaction
Wettergren et al. (2017)⁶	AYA (age 15–39 at diagnosis) recent cancer survivors	Establish prevalence, risk factors, and persistence of impacts of AYA cancer on sexual function	Quantitative survey: single item related to SD (not validated)	49% reported a negative impact of cancer on sexual function 1 year after diagnosis, with 43% reporting negative impact 2 years after diagnosis. Factors were associated with SD: older age at diagnosis (25–39), not currently raising children, fatigue, negative perception of only physical appearance
Zebrack et al. (2010)²¹	AYA (age 18–39) CCS (n = 599)	Describe prevalence and risk factors and types of sexual problems in CCS and evaluate the relationship between SD and HRQOL	Quantitative survey: MOS Sexual Functioning scale (validated); SF-36	52% of females and 32% of males reported at least one SD problem. Symptoms were more severe in females. Factors associated with SD included: older age at diagnosis, older age at time of study, lower income (males), being married (females), and poorer overall health. Cancer type, education, and race were not associated with SD. Poorer HRQOL was associated with SD

MOS, Medical Outcomes Study; SD, sexual dysfunction; AYA, adolescent and young adult; HRQOL, health-related quality of life; CCS, childhood cancer survivors; OF, ovarian failure; ALL, acute lymphoblastic leukemia; CNS, central nervous system; ED, erectile dysfunction; CI, confidence interval.

Table 2.

Published Primary Research on Patient Needs and Interventions Related to Sexual Dysfunction in Survivors of Childhood, Adolescent, or Young Adult Cancer

Study	Population	Relevant research objective(s)	Methods	Findings
Patient awareness, unmet needs, and communication
Frederick et al. (2016)³	AYA CCS (n = 22; mean age 23)	Characterize sexual dysfunction in AYA CCS and identify survivor-reported unmet clinical need regarding sexual health information and care	Qualitative interviews	20/22 reported psychological issues interfering with sexual activity, and 17/22 reported that most survivors reported physical SD. All reported inadequate clinical support and desire for information on sexual health. AYAs would prefer oncology provider to initiate conversations
Frederick et al. (2018)⁴⁵	Pediatric oncology clinicians (n = 22)	Investigate attitudes/perceptions of pediatric oncology clinicians toward discussing sexual and reproductive health with AYAs	Semistructured qualitative interviews	All clinicians reported discussing fertility with patients. 11/22 reported communication about sexual health, which was limited to safe sex and contraception at the start of treatment. Communication barriers included lack of knowledge/experience, lack of resources/referrals, low priority, parents/family, patient discomfort, clinician discomfort, time, and lack of rapport. Clinicians identified a need for formal education for themselves and education materials for patients
Frederick et al. (2019)⁴³	AYA (age 15–29) oncology patients and survivors (n = 23; mean age 18)	Explore AYA perceptions and experiences of sexual and reproductive health communication with oncology clinicians	Semistructured qualitative interviews	Problems with communication were identified: communication was inadequate and focused on fertility, barriers exist (patient and provider discomfort, privacy, lack of rapport, age/gender differences between clinicians and patients), and there was a lack of educational resources. AYA recommendations: providers should initiate conversations, offer time alone, normalize the topic, engage in ongoing conversations through treatment and survivorship, tailor communications to individual needs, and directly communicate with the AYA
Jervaeus et al. (2016)⁴⁴	AYA CCS (n = 133; median age 21)	Explore CCS perspectives on sex and sexual experiences, as well as their sexual health care needs	Qualitative analysis of online focus groups	CCS had generally not reflected on the possibility that their cancer could impact their sexual life. Insecurities about attractiveness, falling behind, and physical concerns were reported. Participants differed in their need for medical support, but many reported that sexual concerns had not been discussed with a health care provider
Stinson et al. (2015)⁴⁹	Adolescent oncology patients and survivors (n = 20; mean age 13) and parents (n = 20)	Explore adolescent oncology patients' and survivors' perspectives on romantic and sexual relationships	Semistructured qualitative interviews	Adolescents seemed to expect that cancer should have no impact on sexual relationships. Parents did express concerns that their child's history of cancer may impact sexual relationships
Interventions
Canada et al. (2007)⁴¹	AYA (age 15–25) oncology patients and survivors (n = 21; mean age 21)	Pilot test a two-session, individually delivered education and counseling intervention to enhance psychosexual development	Pilot test with waitlist design comparison group. Outcomes: Sexual Knowledge Test (unvalidated); Sexual Concerns Questionnaire (partially validated); Brief Symptom Inventory (validated), Global Severity Index for distress (validated)	The intervention resulted in improved cancer-related sexual knowledge, increased confidence about appearance, decreased sexual concerns, and decreased overall distress

Epidemiology of SD Among CCS

Studies evaluating SD among CCS demonstrate that roughly 30%–50% of CCS experience SD.^2,6,21,22 Specifically, using four validated sexual functioning questions within a larger quality of life survey, Bober et al. found that roughly 50% of young adult and adult (age 18–57) CCS have at least one SD problem, with 30% reporting two SD problems.^21,22 Similarly, using a single-item question, the Adolescent and Young Adult Health Outcomes and Patient Experience (AYA HOPE) demonstrated that 1 year after diagnosis, 49% of adolescent and young adult (AYA) oncology patients (diagnosed between ages 15 and 39, both on therapy and off therapy) report a negative impact of cancer on sexual function or intimacy, and at 2 years after diagnosis, 43% still report a negative impact on sexual function.⁶ Zebrack et al. reported a 43% incidence of SD among young adult (18–39 years) survivors of childhood cancer (diagnosed at 21 years of age or younger), with 52% of females and 32% of males reporting a problem on the Medical Outcomes Study Sexual Functioning Scale.²¹ Similarly, in a Dutch population of CCS (age 17–39 at time of survey) which did not use a validated measure, there were high rates of sexual symptoms (e.g., 41% experienced no or almost no sexual attraction), although only 18% of survivors reported a limitation in their sexual life due to illness.² These studies provide some insight into the incidence of SD after cancer therapy and demonstrate that SD persists for at least 2 years after therapy, but no study has described the natural history of SD during therapy or in long-term follow-up, such as when it first occurs and how it may or may not change through adulthood.

Rates of SD among CCS appear to be higher than non-CCS populations of similar ages. For example, a U.S. population of male survivors of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia age 25–38 years had diminished sexual arousal, sexual behavior, orgasm, and sexual drive compared with age-matched controls, as measured by the Derogatis Interview for Sexual Functioning self-report.¹⁹ Swedish AYA cancer survivors (age 15–29 years at time of treatment) reported lower sexual satisfaction than controls, with females specifically having a lower frequency of orgasm and males having lower sexual desire; this study used a questionnaire with face and content validity but without further psychometric testing.²³ Male CCS, age 20 or older (mean age 39), also have higher rates of erectile dysfunction than sibling controls (12.3% vs. 4.2%).²⁴ In a study focused on all CCS (vs. AYA only) using the validated International Index of Erectile Function, rates of erectile dysfunction among CCS were even greater (29% of participants, median age 31).²⁵ These discrepancies may be explained by the difference in age at diagnosis/treatment, the difference in tools used, or perhaps in that the latter study, through the CCS Study, did not include some patients with malignant diagnoses, such as patients with germ cell tumors, retinoblastoma, or hepatoblastoma, who may be at lower risk due to less intensive or gonadotoxic treatment. Similarly, female CCS, age 18–51 (mean 29), have psychosexual dysfunction, including diminished sexual interest, desire, arousal, and satisfaction than sibling controls, as measured by dichotomized results of the validated Women's Health Questionnaire.²⁰

It is notable, however, that a few studies have yielded more reserved results regarding the impact of childhood cancer on sexual function. A different Swedish cohort of CCS focusing on childhood cancer (age 0–18 at time of treatment) found that male survivors had more dysfunction than controls, while females reported similar dysfunction rates to controls, although with notably fewer reported current romantic partnerships than controls.⁵ In the United States, a web-based questionnaire using the Global Measure for Sexual Satisfaction found that young adult CCS (age 20–40) had comparable relationship status and sexual function to age and sex matched controls; the reason for this study's discrepant findings is unclear, but it is possible that this is due to exclusion of patients with a history of central nervous system (CNS) tumors (see “Pathophysiology” section).²⁶

While all the studies reviewed in this section provide some insight into SD after childhood cancer, they used tools that were either not fully validated or were validated for a general adult population, which may underestimate or inaccurately categorize SD among younger cohorts, who may have different sexual concerns than older adults. Furthermore, several studies have suggested that the inherent linkage of SD to sexual activity level may limit defining and understanding SD in younger patients. This is particularly true for females, as awareness of desire, arousal, and satisfaction are more closely related to partner intercourse, whereas these domains in males are more readily recognized without a partner.²¹ To adequately assess for SD among AYA survivors of childhood cancer, tools should be validated specifically in this population, as these patients may have different concerns than healthy populations.

In studies using adult measurements of SD (both validated and not), patient risk factors for SD among CCS included female sex, older age at diagnosis, being older at time of evaluation, lower income, and concurrent health problems.^{6,19–22,27–31} While most studies seem to agree on these risk factors, the AYA HOPE study did not find that female sex was a risk factor for SD and found increased SD in younger (age 15–20) oncology patients and survivors, and Bober et al. did not find that age at diagnosis was a risk factor.^6,22 In females, ovarian failure at a younger age is also a risk factor for SD.²⁰ As with studies reporting the prevalence of SD after cancer, no studies have prospectively evaluated for risk factors for SD, during or after cancer.

Proposed Underlying Pathophysiology of SD in CCS

CCS experience a wide variety of types of SD, including decreased desire/drive, arousal, behavior, satisfaction, and difficulty with orgasm.^2,5,19,20,22 Reasons for SD have been postulated to be both physiologic and psychosexual in nature (Fig. 1).

FIG. 1.

Cancer, treatment, and development-related factors that may contribute to sexual dysfunction in childhood cancer survivors. CNS, central nervous system. Color images are available online.

While SD has been described across all types of CCS, and in fact cancer type was not a risk factor in several studies, one study did find increased rates in survivors of CNS tumors.^5,21,22 Treatment-related risk factors may include having undergone chemotherapy, retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, cranial irradiation, testicular irradiation, surgery on spinal cord/nerves, or pelvic surgery, although many of these risk factors are specifically related to erectile or ejaculatory function.^{19,20,24,28,29,31–33} The significance of each exposure varied across these studies; furthermore, one study did not demonstrate any relationship between treatment exposures and SD.²² Treatment or supportive care with ovarian function suppression³⁴ and general androgen suppression place survivors at risk for SD. Notably, among adult gynecologic cancer patients and survivors (mean age 54), radiation exposure was not a risk factor for SD, but in other instances, including in CCS, pelvic radiation has been associated with SD.^31,32,35

The effects of chemotherapy and cranial, pelvic, and testicular irradiation on SD are likely related to effects of sex hormone production and balance.³¹ A single study on male CCS demonstrated that lower testosterone levels were associated with erectile dysfunction.²⁵ All other studies on this topic have focused on adult or young adult cancer populations often in testicular cancer and breast cancer survivors where sex hormone changes due to cancer treatment may be important. Several studies in adults, across cancer diagnoses, have shown that lower testosterone levels may be associated with SD in males across domains of interest, satisfaction, and erectile function.^30,36,37 Even mildly increased luteinizing hormone, particularly in the setting of low-normal or low testosterone both in clinical and subclinical hypogonadism, and increased follicle stimulating hormone may be associated with less sexual activity in male survivors.^19,30,36,37 Females with ovarian failure also have SD in both adult and CCS populations, with effects on sexual interest, desire, arousal, satisfaction, pain, overall function, and other domains.^20,38 Furthermore, premature ovarian failure as a result of chemotherapy may have a greater impact on sexual function than normal menopause.³⁵ These studies have largely used self report without the use of validated SD screening tools; because physiologic disturbances could possibly be targeted with hormone replacement or other interventions, clarifying these links using validated instruments is crucial.

As previously mentioned, while physiologic dysfunction due to treatment exposures and cancer types may play a role in the pathophysiology of SD in cancer survivors, they do not seem to explain all SDs among CCS. In fact, multiple studies suggest that psychosocial factors may be more significant.^2,3,30,35,37 Mental health conditions, including depression, anxiety, and higher emotional distress, are associated with increased SD among CCS, and these concerns are generally increased among CCS compared to the general population.^19,28–31 Beyond mental health, psychosexual reasons for dysfunction may include body image issues, concerns about fertility, and disruption of normal psychosexual development.^{2,3,5,6,26,39} Most of these potential underlying psychological causes are hypothesized based on known risk for these issues among CCS and qualitative patient report. For example, it is well-established that CCS have delayed psychosexual milestones compared to peers, demonstrating disruption in development, but linkage between this and SD has not been directly demonstrated.^2,39,40 One study did demonstrate a significant association between body image and SD using validated scales for both.²⁶ Additional research evaluating for links between objectively demonstrated psychosexual concerns and SD are needed.

SD and Quality of Life

Results of studies evaluating the association between quality of life and SD are mixed and are limited by the use of unvalidated assessment tools. Zebrack et al demonstrated a significant association between SD and diminished quality of life (specifically bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role-emotional status, and mental health) among young adult survivors of childhood cancer, with potentially greater distress among men as a result of sexual symptoms than among women.²¹ Partner status has not been reliably associated with SD risk, with several studies demonstrating increased SD in partnered individuals and other demonstrating increased risk in unpartnered individuals.^20,21,28,29 Notably, those studies that demonstrated being partnered as a risk factor for SD specifically found this to be true in females.^21,28 Patient awareness of SD can be dependent on sexual activity with a partner, particularly in females; self-report screening tools may have varying sensitivity to this dependency, which may explain this variation in associations.²¹ Bober et al. also found correlations between SD and quality of life in all CCS, but demonstrate differences between sexes: SD in females correlated with emotional/mental health, energy/fatigue, and social functioning, whereas SD in males correlated with physical quality of life and pain.²² In contrast, two studies did not find an association between SD and quality of life, one of which was completed in a Dutch CCS population and one of which in a U.S. population. Notably, while in the U.S. population there was no correlation between SD and health-related quality of life, there was an association between increased psychological distress and SD.^2,28 Importantly, no study has evaluated the association between SD and quality of life specifically among AYA CCS.

Interpreting the association between SD and quality of life is challenging not only because of mixed study results but also because it is possible that SD and poor quality of life may have causal links in both directions. Interestingly, two studies (one focusing on AYAs and one on adult cancer survivors) have shown improvement in psychological distress as a result of addressing SD with education and therapy interventions.^41,42 This suggests that, regardless of the direction of causality between SD and diminished quality of life, improvements in SD may result in improvements in quality of life. Larger studies and studies evaluating the association between change in SD and quality of life are needed.

Poor Clinician Recognition of SD

Studies have found that both adult cancer survivors and CCS want help for SD. For example, a survey of adult cancer survivors demonstrated that 24% of women and 21% of men reported wanting help for sexual problems but that that need was largely unmet.¹² AYA cancer patients and survivors place a high priority on addressing sexual health concerns and report a desire to discuss sexual and reproductive health with their oncologists, but report that they are hesitant to initiate conversations and prefer their provider to take the lead.^3,43 In one of these studies, all participants reported inadequate clinical support regarding sexual health.³ AYA patients both on therapy and in survivorship would like their providers to address these issues in a number of ways, including: routinely offering time for private physician–patient conversations, normalizing the topic, engaging in ongoing conversations throughout treatment and survivorship, tailoring communications to individual needs, and engaging in direct in-person communication.⁴³ Importantly, many CCS patients report problems with SD but are unaware of the potential relationship between this problem and their history of cancer, further demonstrating the need for patient education and provider-initiated conversations.⁴⁴

Provider perspectives have also been assessed. Among pediatric oncologists, challenges in meeting sexual health needs include lack of knowledge/experience, lack of resources/referrals, parent/family presence, concerns of patient discomfort, clinical discomfort, lack of rapport, low priority, and limited time.⁴⁵ Unfortunately, these issues persist for survivors outside of their oncology care as well. Among general internists, there is a low rate of screening for SD in cancer survivors, resulting in low recognition and inadequate intervention. For example, at a major academic medical center, 62% of general internists reported that they never or rarely addressed SD among their patients who are cancer survivors, citing inadequate training or perception of patient anxiety/fears about the topic.¹³

This low rate of screening is remarkable given NCCN and ASCO recommendations, which state that the oncology team should initiate discussions of sexuality and cancer both during treatment planning and periodically in follow-up.^14,15 The absence of adequate support for cancer survivors despite these guidelines indicates that provider education is crucial to (1) improve awareness of the risk for SD after cancer and (2) to increase provider comfort with screening for and addressing SD concerns, so that physicians are more likely to ask patients about SD. To this end, Aubin and Perez created a “Clinician's Toolbox” to assess for sexual impacts of cancer in AYA CCS, although implementation and effectiveness have not been tested.⁴⁶ Similarly, the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology hosted a webinar aimed at educating providers about SD and how to screen for it.⁴⁷ Again, wider dissemination of education efforts have not been published, although the authors of this review are aware of such efforts being underway. While oncologists must be leaders in providing treatment-related late effect screening, other relevant providers, including radiation oncologists, endocrinologists, gynecologists, urologists, and psychologists, caring for these patients should also be aware of the need for, and participate in, the need for education and screening.

Given the sensitivity of this topic, it is possible that screening tools may be a helpful approach to assessing for SD both in clinical and research settings.⁴⁶ Screening tools may be particularly useful in AYA CCS, who may be especially vulnerable to discomfort related to discussions of sexuality and sexual function.^43,48,49 As previously mentioned, no SD screening tools exist that have been validated in the adolescent or specifically young adult general populations, and no screening tools focus specifically on AYA CCS. In contrast, multiple tools exist to screen for SD in adult populations, a number of which have been validated.^50,51 Only the National Institute of Health developed Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sexual Function and Satisfaction (PROMIS^® SexFS) measures, have comparable sex-specific versions, and have been validated in adult (mean age 58.5 years) cancer populations.^52–54

It is unknown whether adult screening tools for SD are relevant for the AYA population; as such, this requires formal assessment. Tools validated in older adult populations may have decreased relevance especially in younger (age 15–24) AYAs, because they do not take into consideration developmental stage. Furthermore, as previously noted, CCS are at unique risk due to the potential for disrupted or delayed sexual development.⁸ Even within this younger AYA age range, the sexual health concerns for a 15-year old may be different than for a 24-year old, particularly based on attainment of psychosexual milestones. Beyond evaluation of such tools in this unique population, their utility for screening or diagnosis, compared with in-person communication, is unknown.

Interventions for SD

As SD is identified, one challenge is having the tools and infrastructure to intervene and support patients.⁴⁵ While pediatric providers have been trained in adolescent health, as subspecialists, they may need continuing education about how to address SD concerns and guidance as to which referrals are appropriate. To this end, the Children's Oncology Group has embarked on a nationwide survey of oncology providers trying to understand their education needs.

Current literature regarding interventions to address SD demonstrates that interventions must be interdisciplinary since the complex pathophysiology of SD may include physical, hormonal, and psychological challenges. For example, approaches that address physiologic limitations (such as with lubricators, dilators, moisturizers, pelvic floor exercises, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, and vacuum erection devices), as well as cognitive behavioral therapy, counseling, and education, are necessary.¹⁵ This may be achieved through multidisciplinary sexual medicine clinics, where available, or through establishing a comprehensive referral network. Several studies focusing on adult cancer survivors have demonstrated improved sexual function in women using such multidisciplinary approaches with a significant education component.^42,55 A similar counseling and education-focused intervention aimed at enhancing psychosexual development in the AYA CCS population demonstrated improved body image and decreased distress, but did not assess for changes in SD.⁴¹

Published interventions involving hormone replacement have involved significant treatment heterogeneity (dosage, form, etc.) and, while largely not promising for treatment of SD, have generally used unvalidated assessments for SD.^20,56–59 It is possible that a study with more specific eligibility and a homogenous hormone replacement intervention would find benefit. The utility of pharmacologic interventions to directly address SD, such as phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors for erectile dysfunction or the recently approved bremelanotide for female hypoactive sexual desire disorder, has not been studied in CCS and rarely in adult cancer survivors.

In summary, while several studies demonstrate possible interventions and success of multidisciplinary clinics for addressing SD in adult cancer survivors or general adult populations, no studies have focused on CCS or the AYA population.

Conclusion

CCS have an increased risk of SD as a result of their cancer diagnoses and treatment. While pediatric oncology guidelines do not address the risk for SD among childhood cancer patients and CCS, pediatric oncologists and survivorship clinicians should consider following guidelines for adult cancer patients and survivors.^14,15 ASCO recommends, “That there be a discussion with the patient, initiated by a member of the health care team, regarding sexual health and dysfunction resulting from cancer or its treatment.”¹⁵ Identifying specific risk groups has been challenging because of multifactorial pathophysiology, which may include endocrine dysfunction due to chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery, local effects of radiation and/or surgery, and disruptions in usual psychosocial development. As such, all patients who undergo treatment for childhood cancer warrant education and screening for SD; it is the responsibility of all relevant providers, including oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgeons, endocrinologists, and psychologists, to address this unmet need. In patients where SD is identified, while physiologic or medical issues should be addressed first, “psychosocial and/or psychosexual counseling should be offered to all patients with cancer, aiming to improve sexual response, body image, intimacy and relationship issues, and overall sexual functioning and satisfaction.”¹⁵

In addition to immediate changes in clinical practice, additional research addressing gaps in knowledge, including pathophysiology, preferred screening approaches, age and development-specific screening tools, interventions, and associations between SD and quality of life, is necessary. Ultimately, improved identification and treatment of SD will address an unmet need and may lead to improved quality of life for the vulnerable AYA CCS population.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Funding Information

No funding was received for this work.

References

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5: fifth edition. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.

van Dijk

, van Dulmen-den Broeder

, Kaspers

, et al. Psychosexual functioning of childhood cancer survivors. Psychooncology. 2008; 17(5):506–11.

Frederick

, Recklitis

, Blackmon

, Bober

. Sexual dysfunction in young adult survivors of childhood cancer. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2016; 63(9):1622–8.

Laumann

, Paik

, Rosen

. Sexual dysfunction in the United States: prevalence and predictors. JAMA. 1999; 281(6):537–44.

Sundberg

, Lampic

, Arvidson

, et al. Sexual function and experience among long-term survivors of childhood cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2011; 47(3):397–403.

Wettergren

, Kent

, Mitchell

, et al. Cancer negatively impacts on sexual function in adolescents and young adults: the AYA HOPE study. Psychooncology. 2017; 26(10):1632–9.

Arnett

. Emerging adulthood: a theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. Am Psychol. 2000; 55(5):469–80.

Chulani

, Gordon

. Adolescent growth and development. Prim Care. 2014; 41(3):465–87.

Bellizzi

, Smith

, Schmidt

, et al. Positive and negative psychosocial impact of being diagnosed with cancer as an adolescent or young adult. Cancer. 2012; 118(20):5155–62.

10.

Husson

, Zebrack

, Block

, et al. Health-related quality of life in adolescent and young adult patients with cancer: a longitudinal study. J Clin Oncol. 2017; 35(6):652–9.

11.

Smith

, Bellizzi

, Keegan

, et al. Health-related quality of life of adolescent and young adult patients with cancer in the United States: the adolescent and young adult health outcomes and patient experience study. J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31(17):2136–45.

12.

Schover

. Sexual quality of life in men and women after cancer. Climacteric. 2019; 22(6):553–17.

13.

Park

, Bober

, Campbell

, et al. General internist communication about sexual function with cancer survivors. J Gen Intern Med. 2009; 24(Suppl 2):S407–11.

14.

Denlinger

, Sanft

, Baker

, et al. Survivorship, version 2.2017, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017; 15(9):1140–63.

15.

Carter

, Lacchetti

, Andersen

, et al. Interventions to address sexual problems in people with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Adaptation of Cancer Care Ontario guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2018; 36(5):492–511.

16.

Bramer

. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems. Tenth revision. World Health Stat Q. 1988; 41(1):32–6.

17.

WHO. Defining sexual health Report of a technical consultation on sexual health Geneva, Switzerland; 2006. Accessed 2020. Accessed February 21, 2019 from: https://who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/sexual_health/defining_sexual_health.pdf

18.

WHO. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems 10th revision (ICD-10); 2013. Accessed March 10, 2020 from: https://icd.who.int/browse10/2019/en

19.

Haavisto

, Henriksson

, Heikkinen

, et al. Sexual function in male long-term survivors of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Cancer. 2016; 122(14):2268–76.

20.

Ford

, Kawashima

, Whitton

, et al. Psychosexual functioning among adult female survivors of childhood cancer: a report from the childhood cancer survivor study. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(28):3126–36.

21.

Zebrack

, Foley

, Wittmann

, Leonard

. Sexual functioning in young adult survivors of childhood cancer. Psychooncology. 2010; 19(8):814–22.

22.

Bober

, Zhou

, Chen

, et al. Sexual function in childhood cancer survivors: a report from Project REACH. J Sex Med. 2013; 10(8):2084–93.

23.

Olsson

, Steineck

, Enskar

, et al. Sexual function in adolescent and young adult cancer survivors-a population-based study. J Cancer Surviv. 2018; 12(4):450–9.

24.

Ritenour

, Seidel

, Leisenring

, et al. Erectile dysfunction in male survivors of childhood cancer-a report from the childhood cancer survivor study. J Sex Med. 2016; 13(6):945–54.

25.

van Iersel

, Li

, Chemaitilly

, et al. Erectile dysfunction in male survivors of childhood cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2018; 4(11):1613–6.

26.

Lehmann

, Hagedoorn

, Gerhardt

, et al. Body issues, sexual satisfaction, and relationship status satisfaction in long-term childhood cancer survivors and healthy controls. Psychooncology. 2016; 25(2):210–6.

27.

Greaves

, Sarker

, Chowdhury

, et al. Fertility and sexual function in long-term survivors of haematological malignancy: using patient-reported outcome measures to assess a neglected area of need in the late effects clinic. Br J Haematol. 2014; 164(4):526–35.

28.

Acquati

, Zebrack

, Faul

, et al. Sexual functioning among young adult cancer patients: a 2-year longitudinal study. Cancer. 2018; 124(2):398–405.

29.

Carpentier

, Fortenberry

. Romantic and sexual relationships, body image, and fertility in adolescent and young adult testicular cancer survivors: a review of the literature. J Adolesc Health. 2010; 47(2):115–25.

30.

Kiserud

, Schover

, Dahl

, et al. Do male lymphoma survivors have impaired sexual function?. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27(35):6019–26.

31.

Kenney

, Cohen

, Shnorhavorian

, et al. Male reproductive health after childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancers: a report from the Children's Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30(27):3408–16.

32.

Moroney

, Flink

, Sheeder

, et al. Radiation therapy is not an independent risk factor for decreased sexual function in women with gynecologic cancers. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2018; 23(5):331–6.

33.

Guntupalli

, Sheeder

, Ioffe

, et al. Sexual and marital dysfunction in women with gynecologic cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017; 27(3):603–7.

34.

Ribi

, Luo

, Bernhard

, et al. Adjuvant tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression versus tamoxifen alone in premenopausal women with early breast cancer: patient-reported outcomes in the suppression of ovarian function trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34(14):1601–10.

35.

Zhou

, Frederick

, Bober

. Hormonal changes and sexual dysfunction. Med Clin North Am. 2017; 101(6):1135–50.

36.

Huddart

, Norman

, Moynihan

, et al. Fertility, gonadal and sexual function in survivors of testicular cancer. Br J Cancer. 2005; 93(2):200–7.

37.

Howell

, Radford

, Smets

, Shalet

. Fatigue, sexual function and mood following treatment for haematological malignancy: the impact of mild Leydig cell dysfunction. Br J Cancer. 2000; 82(4):789–93.

38.

Schover

. Premature ovarian failure and its consequences: vasomotor symptoms, sexuality, and fertility. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26(5):753–8.

39.

Lehmann

, Keim

, Ferrante

, et al. Psychosexual development and satisfaction with timing of developmental milestones among adult survivors of childhood cancer. Psychooncology. 2018; 27(8):1944–9.

40.

Muller

. Disturbance of pubertal development after cancer treatment. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2002; 16(1):91–103.

41.

Canada

, Schover

, Li

. A pilot intervention to enhance psychosexual development in adolescents and young adults with cancer. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2007; 49(6):824–8.

42.

Bober

, Recklitis

, Michaud

, Wright

. Improvement in sexual function after ovarian cancer: effects of sexual therapy and rehabilitation after treatment for ovarian cancer. Cancer. 2018; 124(1):176–82.

43.

Frederick

, Revette

, Michaud

, Bober

. A qualitative study of sexual and reproductive health communication with adolescent and young adult oncology patients. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2019; 66(6):e27673.

44.

Jervaeus

, Nilsson

, Eriksson

, et al. Exploring childhood cancer survivors' views about sex and sexual experiences-findings from online focus group discussions. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2016; 20:165–72.

45.

Frederick

, Campbell

, Kenney

, et al. Barriers and facilitators to sexual and reproductive health communication between pediatric oncology clinicians and adolescent and young adult patients: the clinician perspective. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2018; 65(8):e27087.

46.

Aubin

, Perez

. The clinician's toolbox: assessing the sexual impacts of cancer on adolescents and young adults with cancer (AYAC). Sex Med. 2015; 3(3):198–212.

47.

Frederick

, Bober

. Addressing sexual health in adolescent and young patients with cancer and blood disorders; 2019. Accessed March 13, 2020 from: http://aspho.org/knowledge-center/134-addressing-sexual-health-in-adolescent-and-young-patients-with-cancer-and-blood-disorders?category_id=33

48.

Keegan

, Lichtensztajn

, Kato

, et al. Unmet adolescent and young adult cancer survivors information and service needs: a population-based cancer registry study. J Cancer Surviv. 2012; 6(3):239–50.

49.

Stinson

, Jibb

, Greenberg

, et al. A qualitative study of the impact of cancer on romantic relationships, sexual relationships, and fertility: perspectives of canadian adolescents and parents during and after treatment. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2015; 4(2):84–90.

50.

Arrington

, Cofrancesco

, Wu

. Questionnaires to measure sexual quality of life. Qual Life Res. 2004; 13(10):1643–58.

51.

Jeffery

, Tzeng

, Keefe

, et al. Initial report of the cancer Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) sexual function committee: review of sexual function measures and domains used in oncology. Cancer. 2009; 115(6):1142–53.

52.

Flynn

, Lin

, Cyranowski

, et al. Development of the NIH PROMIS (R) Sexual Function and Satisfaction measures in patients with cancer. J Sex Med. 2013; 10(Suppl 1):43–52.

53.

Flynn

, Reeve

, Lin

, et al. Construct validity of the PROMIS(R) sexual function and satisfaction measures in patients with cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013; 11:40.

54.

Weinfurt

, Lin

, Bruner

, et al. Development and initial validation of the PROMIS((R)) sexual function and satisfaction measures version 2.0. J Sex Med. 2015; 12(9):1961–74.

55.

Carter

, Stabile

, Seidel

, et al. Vaginal and sexual health treatment strategies within a female sexual medicine program for cancer patients and survivors. J Cancer Surviv. 2017; 11(2):274–83.

56.

Taylor

, Tal

, Pal

, et al. Effects of oral vs transdermal estrogen therapy on sexual function in early postmenopause: ancillary study of the Kronos Early Estrogen Prevention Study (KEEPS). JAMA Intern Med. 2017; 177(10):1471–9.

57.

Davis

, Worsley

, Miller

, et al. Androgens and female sexual function and dysfunction—findings from the Fourth International Consultation of Sexual Medicine. J Sex Med. 2016; 13(2):168–78.

58.

Worsley

, Santoro

, Miller

, et al. Hormones and female sexual dysfunction: beyond estrogens and androgens—findings from the fourth international consultation on sexual medicine. J Sex Med. 2016; 13(3):283–90.

59.

Howell

, Radford

, Adams

, et al. Randomized placebo-controlled trial of testosterone replacement in men with mild Leydig cell insufficiency following cytotoxic chemotherapy. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2001; 55(3):315–24.