Information and Screening for Sexual Disorders of Patients with Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer: Results of a Survey

92% of breast cancer patients wanted systematic sexual health information; only 47% ever got any, and just 20% were screened

Journal: Gynécologie, obstétrique, fertilité & sénologie | Published: 2025-07-04 | Type: Cross-sectional survey | PMID: 40618953 Authors: Guillier A, Dalenc F, Lamy S, Cousseau L, Vaysse C — Toulouse University Hospital and Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse-Oncopole Funding/COI: Funding not listed. Co-author Charlotte Vaysse sits on the editorial committee of the publishing journal; she certifies non-participation in the peer review and final decision for this manuscript. All other authors declare no conflicts.

Summary

Sexual dysfunction affects 40–60% of breast cancer patients — a figure the authors cite without a primary source in the abstract — yet at a major French cancer center, fewer than half of patients recalled receiving any information about it, and fewer than one in five had been formally screened. The mismatch between what patients want (systematic information and screening, according to over 90% and 78% of respondents, respectively) and what they get is stark. Clinician-side barriers include time pressure, forgetting to raise the topic, and insufficient training.

Claims

• 47% of 147 patients reported receiving information about sexual disorders at some point during their care
• 92% wanted systematic information about sexual health
• 20% of patients reported being screened for sexual disorders by a healthcare professional
• 78% wanted systematic screening
• Clinician barriers identified: discomfort raising the topic, insufficient consultation time, forgetfulness, and lack of training
• The authors assert sexual dysfunction prevalence of 40–60% after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, though no specific citation is provided in the available abstract

Study Quality

Single-center cross-sectional survey at one French institution (Toulouse-Oncopole), 147 patients with non-metastatic breast cancer plus an unspecified number of caregivers. Questionnaire-based self-report introduces recall bias — patients may not accurately remember whether a conversation occurred or how it was framed. Response rate is not reported in the abstract, which is a significant omission for a survey study; non-responders may differ systematically from responders, and those willing to answer questions about sexual health may not represent the full patient population.

The parallel caregiver questionnaire is described in the methods but results are largely absent from the abstract, making it impossible to assess alignment between patient-reported experience and clinician-reported practice.

Red Flags

• Single French cancer center; generalizability is uncertain
• Response rate not reported in abstract — critical for any survey study
• The 40–60% prevalence figure for sexual dysfunction is stated without citation in the available abstract
• Caregiver data collected but not clearly reported alongside patient data
• Publishing journal's editorial board member is a co-author; institutional transparency measures were taken but the structural conflict remains
• No correction for multiple comparisons in what appears to be a descriptive study
• Abstract only available in English; full paper is in French, limiting accessibility

Strengths

• Quantifies the patient-desire vs. clinical-practice gap with concrete percentages
• Captures both sides of the encounter (patients and caregivers), at least in design
• Identifies specific, actionable barriers rather than generic "more research needed" conclusions
• Addresses a clinically real and underreported problem in oncology survivorship care

Verdict

This is a descriptive survey that confirms what most oncology clinicians already know anecdotally: sexual health gets deprioritized, and patients notice. The numbers are useful for making the case internally to clinical teams, but the study design — single center, unknown response rate, self-report only — puts a hard ceiling on how much weight to assign them. It reads more like an internal quality audit than a generalizable research contribution. Worth a paragraph in a survivorship care review; not worth treating as establishing evidence.