Pelvic floor disorders in women with gynecologic malignancies: a systematic review
Introduction and hypothesis
Pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) negatively affect quality of life in the general population, and their prevalence in gynecologic cancer survivors has not been systematically described. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of PFDs in cancer survivors. We hypothesized that the prevalence of PFDs in the gynecologic cancer population would be higher than in the general female population.
We searched PubMed (1809 to present), EMBASE (1974 to present), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) through May 2017. The search combined subject headings, title, and abstract words for gynecologic cancer, PFDs, and prevalence. Any studies evaluating the prevalence of PFDs in gynecologic malignancies were included.
A total of 550 articles met the designated search criteria and 31 articles were included in this review. In cervical cancer survivors, before treatment the prevalences of stress urinary incontinence (SUI), urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) and fecal incontinence (FI) were 24–29%, 8–18% and 6%, respectively, and after treatment the prevalences of SUI, UUI, urinary retention, FI, fecal urge, dyspareunia and vaginal dryness were 4–76%, 4–59%, 0.4–39%, 2–34%, 3–49%, 12–58% and 15–47%, respectively. In uterine cancer survivors, before treatment the prevalences of SUI, UUI and FI were 29–36%, 15–25% and 3%, respectively, and after treatment the prevalences of urinary incontinence (UI) and dyspareunia were 2–44% and 7–39%, respectively. In vulvar cancer survivors, after treatment the prevalences of UI, SUI and FI were 4–32%, 6–20% and 1–20%, respectively. In ovarian cancer survivors, the prevalences of SUI, UUI, prolapse and sexual dysfunction were 32–42%, 15–39%, 17% and 62–75%, respectively.
PFDs are prevalent in gynecologic cancer survivors and this is an important area of clinical concern and future research.
KeywordsPrevalence Pelvic floor disorders Gynecologic cancer Survivor
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
Dr. Sanses was supported by Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health (BIRCWH) K12 HD43489 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development at the time of the study, and by the National Institute on Aging (1R03AG053281–01).
The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
- 17.Kirchheiner K, Nout RA, Tanderup K, Lindegaard JC, Westerveld H, Haie-Meder C, et al. Manifestation pattern of early-late vaginal morbidity after definitive radiation (chemo)therapy and image-guided adaptive brachytherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer: an analysis from the EMBRACE study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;89(1):88–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.de Boer SM, Nout RA, Jurgenliemk-Schulz IM, Jobsen JJ, Lutgens LCHW, van der Steen-Banasik EM, et al. Long-term impact of endometrial cancer diagnosis and treatment on health-related quality of life and cancer survivorship: results from the randomized PORTEC-2 trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;93(4):797–809.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 34.Nout RA, van de Poll-Franse LV, Lybeert MLM, Warlam-Rodenhuis CC, Jobsen JJ, Mens JWM, et al. Long-term outcome and quality of life of patients with endometrial carcinoma treated with or without pelvic radiotherapy in the post operative radiation therapy in endometrial carcinoma 1 (PORTEC-1) trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(13):1692–700.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.de Boer SM, Powell ME, Mileshkin L, Katsaros D, Bessette P, Haie-Meder C, et al. Toxicity and quality of life after adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer (PORTEC-3): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(8):1114–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar