Search

There is a pressing need for greater understanding and focus on cancer survivorship and informal cancer caring of trans people (binary and non-binary), across tumor types, to inform culturally safe trans inclusive cancer information and care. This qualitative study, part of the mixed methods Out with Cancer project, examined experiences of trans embodiment and identity after cancer diagnosis and treatment. We drew on open-ended survey responses from 63 trans cancer survivors and 23 trans cancer carers, as well as interviews and a photo-elicitation activity with a subset of 22 participants (15 cancer survivors, 7 cancer carers). Reflexive thematic analysis identified three themes: Cancer enhances trans embodiment, through experiences of gender euphoria following cancer treatment, and acceleration of decisions about gender affirmation; cancer erases or inhibits gender affirmation; trans embodiment is invisible or pathologized in cancer care. These findings demonstrate that trans embodiment and identity, as well as the process of gender affirmation, may be disrupted by cancer or informal cancer caring. Conversely, cancer and cancer treatment can positively impact the embodied identity and lives of trans people, despite the anxiety and strain of negotiating medical procedures. However, if healthcare professionals operate within a cis-heteronormative framework and do not understand the meaning of embodied change following cancer treatment for trans individuals, these positive benefits may not be realized.

OBJECTIVE: There is growing recognition that health care professionals (HCPs) and policy makers are insufficiently equipped to provide culturally competent care to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI) cancer patients and their families. We examined HCP attitudes, knowledge, and practices regarding LGBTQI cancer care using a mixed-methods research design. METHOD: Surveys were completed by 357 oncology HCPs in nursing (40%), medical (24%), allied health (19%), and clinical leadership roles (11%); 48 of the surveyed HCPs were interviewed. RESULTS: Most HCPs reported being comfortable treating LGBTQI patients, but reported low levels of confidence and knowledge and systemic barriers to LGBTQI cancer care. Most wanted more education and training, particularly on trans and gender-diverse people (TGD) and those born with intersex variations. CONCLUSION: Education of HCPs and health system changes are required to overcome barriers to the provision of culturally competent cancer care for LGBTQI patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These findings reinforce the need for inclusion of LGBTQI content in HCP education and professional training curricula, and institutional support for LGBTQI-inclusive practice behaviours. This includes administrative and visual cues to signal safety of LGBTQI patients within cancer care, facilitating inclusive environments, and the provision of tailored patient-centred care.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer patients experience reproductive concerns from diagnosis through to survivorship. However, research has yet to investigate the degree of fertility-related psychological distress at different treatment time points: diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. Currently, cancer patients are offered fertility counselling at the time of diagnosis, to assist fertility preservation decision making. A systematic review of the short-term and long-term psychological impact of infertility in cancer patients would inform on an improved, longitudinal model of psychological care. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted in January 2018 utilising electronic databases Medline, EMBASE, PSYCH Info, Web of Science, and SCOPUS. An initial search identified 708 potentially relevant studies. Literature was assessed that reported on fertility-related psychological distress experienced by male and female cancer patients of reproductive age (<45 years) across oncology treatment time points. RESULTS: A total of 47 papers were included within the final review. Fertility-related psychological distress persists from diagnosis through to survivorship, with cancer patients reporting a range of negative emotional experiences brought about by threatened infertility. In survivorship, reproductive concerns, unfulfilled desire for a child, nulliparous status, and early menopause were linked to higher rates of mental health disorders and psychological distress. CONCLUSIONS: Fertility-related psychological distress is prevalent and persistent in cancer patients and survivors. As such, patients and survivors would greatly benefit from fertility-related psychological support implemented into standard practice from diagnosis through to survivorship. A revised model of care is proposed.

OBJECTIVE: Decline in fertility potential brought about by a cancer diagnosis or cancer treatment is one of the biggest impacts to cancer patients' long-term quality of life. As such, the current manuscript aimed to systematically review the literature on oncofertility support needs for cancer patients of a reproductive age (14-45 years of age). METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted in May 2016 through the searching of electronic databases Medline, EMBASE, PSYCH Info, Web of Science and SCOPUS, alongside the screening of relevant reference lists. An initial search identified 351 potentially relevant studies. The papers were divided into 2 categories; papers on patient oncofertility support needs were reviewed for this systematic review, and papers on clinician provision of oncofertility support were reviewed for a separate systematic review. RESULTS: A total of 30 studies were included within the final review. Support needs were categorised as information, service, clinician-patient interactions, psychological, and family. A number of studies indicated that cancer patients place great important on their oncofertility care and have unmet support needs. Patients were satisfied and felt supported when additional care was taken to ensure fertility information and service needs were met. CONCLUSIONS: Patients desire for clinicians to support their concerns through the provision of adequate information, access to oncofertility services, taking time to discuss oncofertility treatment and concerns, specialised psychological support, and responsiveness to individual needs.

OBJECTIVE: The emerging discipline of oncofertility advocates for the timely provision of fertility information and referral for fertility preservation to all cancer patients of reproductive age (<45 years). A systematic review was undertaken on the clinician provision of oncofertility support to determine whether cancer patients are having their support needs adequately met by staff. METHODS: An initial search conducted in May 2016 identified 351 potentially relevant studies. The papers were divided into 2 categories: Papers on the clinician provision of oncofertility support were reviewed for this study, and papers on patient oncofertility support needs were reviewed for a separate systematic review. RESULTS: A total of 23 studies were included within the final review of this manuscript. Although many clinicians are broadly informed about the risk to their patients' fertility brought about by cancer treatment, there are many factors which hinder the appropriate discussion, referral, or service utilisation needed to provide adequate oncofertility support to patients of reproductive age. CONCLUSIONS: Oncofertility support is often not delivered to the standard of current guidelines, with many clinicians not providing the recommended care to all eligible patients, and as such many patients may lack the oncofertility support that they require. The implementation of a clear procedural process would assist clinicians in the provision of oncofertility support for cancer patients of reproductive age.

Gay and bisexual (GB) men with prostate cancer (PCa) have been described as an "invisible diversity" in PCa research due to their lack of visibility, and absence of identification of their needs. This study examined the meaning and consequences of erectile dysfunction (ED) and other sexual changes in 124 GB men with PCa and 21 male partners, through an on-line survey. A sub-sample of 46 men with PCa and seven partners also took part in a one-to-one interview. ED was reported by 72 % of survey respondents, associated with reports of emotional distress, negative impact on gay identities, and feelings of sexual disqualification. Other sexual concerns included loss of libido, climacturia, loss of sensitivity or pain during anal sex, non-ejaculatory orgasms, and reduced penis size. Many of these changes have particular significance in the context of gay sex and gay identities, and can result in feelings of exclusion from a sexual community central to GB men's lives. However, a number of men were reconciled to sexual changes, did not experience a challenge to identity, and engaged in sexual re-negotiation. The nature of GB relationships, wherein many men are single, engage in casual sex, or have concurrent partners, influenced experiences of distress, identity, and renegotiation. It is concluded that researchers and clinicians need to be aware of the meaning and consequences of sexual changes for GB men when designing studies to examine the impact of PCa on men's sexuality, advising GB men of the sexual consequences of PCa, and providing information and support to ameliorate sexual changes.

OBJECTIVE: Decline in fertility potential brought about by a cancer diagnosis or cancer treatment is one of the biggest impacts to cancer patients' long term quality of life. As such, the current manuscript aimed to systematically review the literature on oncofertility support needs for cancer patients of a reproductive age (14-45 years of age). METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted in May 2016 through the searching of electronic databases Medline, EMBASE, PSYCH Info, Web of Science and SCOPUS, alongside the screening of relevant reference lists. An initial search identified 351 potentially relevant studies. The papers were divided into two categories; papers on patient oncofertility support needs were reviewed for this systematic review and papers on clinician provision of oncofertility support were reviewed for a separate systematic review. RESULTS: A total of 30 studies were included within the final review. Support needs were categorised as information, service, clinician-patient interactions, psychological and family. A number of studies indicated that cancer patients place great important on their oncofertility care and have unmet support needs. Patients were satisfied and felt supported when additional care was taken to ensure fertility information and service needs were met. CONCLUSIONS: Patients desire for clinicians to support their concerns through the provision of adequate information, access to oncofertility services, taking time to discuss oncofertility treatment and concerns, specialised psychological support and responsiveness to individual needs.

INTRODUCTION: Decrements in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and sexual difficulties are a recognized consequence of prostate cancer (PCa) treatment. However little is known about the experience of gay and bisexual (GB) men. AIM: HRQOL and psychosexual predictors of HRQOL were examined in GB and heterosexual men with PCa to inform targeted health information and support. METHOD: One hundred twenty-four GB and 225 heterosexual men with PCa completed a range of validated psychosexual instruments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) was used to measure HRQOL, with validated psychosexual measures, and demographic and treatment variables used as predictors. RESULTS: GB men were significantly younger (64.25 years) than heterosexual men (71.54 years), less likely to be in an ongoing relationship, and more likely to have casual sexual partners. Compared with age-matched population norms, participants in both groups reported significantly lower sexual functioning and HRQOL, increased psychological distress, disruptions to dyadic sexual communication, and lower masculine self-esteem, sexual confidence, and sexual intimacy. In comparison with heterosexual men, GB men reported significantly lower HRQOL (P = .046), masculine self-esteem (P < .001), and satisfaction with treatment (P = .013); higher psychological distress (P = .005), cancer related distress (P < .001) and ejaculatory concern (P < .001); and higher sexual functioning (P < .001) and sexual confidence (P = .001). In regression analysis, psychological distress, cancer-related distress, masculine self-esteem, and satisfaction with treatment were predictors of HRQOL for GB men (R2Adj = .804); psychological distress and sexual confidence were predictors for heterosexual men (R2Adj = .690). CONCLUSION: These findings confirm differences between GB and heterosexual men in the impact of PCa on HRQOL across a range of domains, suggesting there is a need for GB targeted PCa i