Sexual dysfunction is common across cancer types but rarely addressed in oncology care, per this narrative review — no numbers provided
Journal: Cancer Medicine | Published: 2026-04 | Type: Narrative Review | PMID: 42014931 Authors: Marino Pasquale et al., IRCCS-CROB Centro di Riferimento Oncologico Della Basilicata (Italy); Catalano Martina, University of Florence Funding/COI: Ministry of Health funding; COI not listed
Cancer and its treatments disrupt sexual function across multiple domains — erectile dysfunction, vaginal dryness, dyspareunia, reduced libido — while psychological symptoms like anxiety, fatigue, and body image disturbance compound the damage. The authors argue these concerns are routinely ignored in oncology care and that "oncosexology" as a subspecialty exists to fill that gap. The abstract provides no prevalence figures, no effect sizes, and no named interventions — just a broad assertion that multidisciplinary approaches help.
This is a narrative review — the lowest rung of the evidence hierarchy. The search methodology is described in a single sentence: "major scientific databases" were searched using unspecified terms, with no database names, date ranges, or hit counts disclosed. Inclusion criteria are openly subjective: articles were selected "based on the relevance of their findings and the quality of their presentation." There is no PRISMA flow, no PROSPERO registration, and no attempt at quantitative synthesis. What this review actually found — which papers, which interventions, which effect sizes — cannot be determined from the abstract alone.
The framing of "oncosexology" as a unified field also glosses over the fact that different cancers, treatments, and patient populations produce radically different sexual health profiles. Prostate cancer post-radiation and breast cancer post-chemotherapy are not the same problem.
This paper confirms that oncology does a poor job addressing sexual health — a finding that will surprise no one who has read the survivorship literature. The narrative review format and opaque methodology mean it can't quantify how bad the problem is or which interventions work. It reads like a position paper arguing that oncosexology deserves more attention, not a synthesis that advances the evidence base. Useful as a broad orientation to the field; useless as a source of actionable data.