Abstract
Background:
Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common side effect of prostate cancer treatment, affecting up to 50% of patients after radiation therapy.Objectives:
This study aims to analyze the correlation between the dose received by the penile bulb (PB) and ED in men who underwent definitive radiation therapy for early-stage prostate cancer without androgen deprivation therapy.Methods:
The study included 40 patients who received 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) for localized prostate cancer and were reported to be potent before treatment, as determined by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-15) questionnaire. The dose to the PB was measured using dose volume histograms (DVHs), and the IIEF-15 questionnaire was completed again 3 months after 3D-CRT. The Pearson correlation coefficient and linear regression test were used to examine the correlation between the ED score and PB doses. Statistical significance was considered if the P value was less than 0.05.Results:
The mean age of the patients was 75.5 ± 5.70 years. The average ED score based on the questionnaire was 15 ± 10.55. Twenty percent of the patients had moderate ED, while 80% had mild ED (all patients reported a decrease in potency after 3D-CRT). However, the correlation between the ED score and the PB mean dose was not statistically significant.Conclusions:
This study revealed ED in all prostate cancer patients after 3D-CRT, but no significant correlation was found between the dose received by the PB and radiotherapy-induced impotence.Keywords
Radiation Therapy Prostate Cancer Prostate Cancer; Penile Bulb
1. Background
Prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer and the second most prevalent cause of cancer death in men (1). With the increased implementation of screening programs, more patients are being diagnosed at earlier stages, significantly improving their survival (2). Therefore, efforts should be made to reduce the side effects of treatment (3). Currently, treatment options for patients with early-stage prostate cancer include active surveillance, radical prostatectomy, and definitive radiotherapy (RT) (4, 5). In many cases of early-stage prostate cancer, definitive RT is chosen due to the patient's inability to tolerate surgery or their preference for a non-surgical procedure without compromising the outcome (6). However, acute and late toxicities related to unintentional doses to organs at risk are expected following RT administration (7).
Erectile dysfunction (ED), defined as the inability to obtain or maintain a penile erection during sexual activities, is a common problem associated with prostate RT, with an estimated rate of up to 50% in some reports (8). The underlying mechanisms may include direct radiation-induced damage to the penile bulb (PB) or the neurovascular bundles, although the exact mechanisms remain unclear (9-11). The rates of ED following definitive RT have decreased in recent years with the advancement of treatment techniques (12). Conformal treatment technologies, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT), and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), have improved the technical delivery and dose administered by radiation therapy, thereby reducing acute and late side effects (13-15).
These advanced techniques have made it possible to increase the doses to targeted areas while reducing the dose to at-risk organs (14, 16, 17). The PB is located near the prostate and the radiation field. The dose received by the PB is a crucial factor in the development of ED, with a dose of approximately 50 Gray (Gy) to the entire PB identified as a threshold for an increased risk of ED (13, 18). In many oncological centers in Iran and similar developing countries, 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) is the most commonly available method. However, there is limited data on the dose to the PB and its association with sexual disorders related to prostate radiation therapy in Iran.
2. Objectives
This study aims to investigate the relationship between the PB dose in 3D-CRT and the incidence of ED related to RT at the Mahdieh and Besat Radiation Therapy Center in Hamadan, Iran.
3. Methods
The study involved patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PSA < 10, Gleason Score < 7, T stage < T2) who had an expected life expectancy of more than 10 years and were referred for definitive external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) at the Mahdieh and Besat Radiation Therapy Center in Hamadan, Iran, between June 2021 and August 2023. Patients who were candidates for concurrent or adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were excluded from the study.
Individuals with underlying health conditions known to increase the risk of ED, such as atherosclerosis, hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, were also excluded. Additionally, smokers or those who had smoked in the past 6 months were not included. Pelvic multiparametric MRIs were performed on all patients to ensure appropriate staging before entering the study. All patients were initially examined for proper erection by a trained urologist, and they completed the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-15) Questionnaire. The IIEF-15 consists of 15 questions that assess male sexual function across five main domains: Erectile function, orgasmic function, sexual desire, intercourse satisfaction, and overall satisfaction. Each question is scored from 0 to 5. Patients were categorized based on their total score as follows: 1 - 10: severe ED; 11 - 16: Moderate dysfunction; 17 - 21: Mild to moderate dysfunction; 22 - 25: Mild dysfunction; 26 - 30: No dysfunction. Those scoring 25 or below were classified as having ED before radiation therapy and were excluded from the study.
According to Rezaee et al., the Persian version of the IIEF-15 is a valid and reliable tool for assessing male sexual function. They reported Cronbach's alpha and intra-cluster correlation coefficients for the questionnaire at 0.893 each (with a confidence interval between 0.811 and 0.950), indicating strong internal consistency of the questionnaire items and domains (19). The Cronbach's alpha for our sample was 0.97. CT scans were performed with an empty rectum and a comfortably full bladder in the supine position. Axial CT scans with 5 mm slice thickness were used for contouring and were fused with multiplanar MRI. Clinical tumor volume (CTV), planned tumor volume (PTV), PB, rectal, and prostate anatomy were delineated on each slice. Radiotherapy was administered exclusively to the prostate, as pelvic lymph node irradiation was deemed unnecessary due to the patients' low risk. The prostate gland and seminal vesicles were included as CTV. A 5 mm margin was applied in all directions for PTV, except for a 3 mm margin posteriorly to spare the rectum. The PB was defined as the proximal part of the penis, located just caudal to the prostate gland (the proximal expansion of the corpus spongiosum attached to the urogenital diaphragm and covered by the bulbospongiosus muscle).
External beam radiation therapy was planned and delivered with the patient in the supine position. All patients underwent 3D-CRT with a total dose of 76 Gy, administered as 2 Gy per fraction. The energy used for all patients was 18 MeV, delivered by an Elekta Synergy linear accelerator. The dose received by the PB was measured using dose-volume histograms (DVH). For each DVH, the average dose received by the PB was calculated. Three months after completing radiation therapy, patients were asked about their sexual function during follow-up visits, and they completed the IIEF questionnaire again. Data collected included age, disease stage, mean dose to the PB, ED score, and Body Mass Index (BMI). The data were analyzed using SPSS version 26 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to investigate the relationship between ED score and dose received. A linear regression test was used to examine the adjusted association between the mean dose and ED. The normality of the ED response variable (measured as a continuous variable) was assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The linearity assumption for the regression model was checked using residual plots. Residuals (the differences between observed and predicted values) were plotted against the independent variables. The residuals were randomly scattered around zero with no clear pattern, suggesting that the linearity assumption holds for the three variables in the model. To determine if the two ED groups (mild versus moderate) were homogeneous with respect to age, BMI, and received dose, we used two independent sample t-tests. All tests were considered statistically significant when the P value was <0.05.
4. Results
Forty patients who underwent definitive external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for low-risk prostate cancer were enrolled in this study. The mean ± SD age of the patients was 75.5 ±5.70 years, with an age range of 68 to 85. Disease stage was I in 60% of the patients, while the remaining 40% were at stage IIA. The mean ± SD dose to the PB was 56.98 ± 9.05 Gy (95% CI = 50.50 - 63.46). The average ED score based on the questionnaire was 15 ± 10.55. The correlation between the ED score and the dose was not significant (r = -0.199; P = 0.589).
A multivariate regression analysis was conducted to investigate the association between ED and the received dose, adjusted for the effects of BMI and age. Table 1 presents the coefficients of the multivariate linear regression for the associations between the average received dose and ED. According to the results, there was no significant association between the average received PB dose and the ED score. Additionally, based on the categorization of ED, 20% of the patients had moderate ED, and 80% had mild ED. Table 2 shows the doses received by the two groups. As shown, there were no significant differences in the doses received between the two groups.
Coefficients of Multivariate Linear Regression for the Associations Between Average Received Dose and Erectile Dysfunction a
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | -129.694 | 71.474 | - | -1.815 | 0.120 |
| Dose | -0.002 | 0.004 | -0.201 | -0.603 | 0.569 | |
| BMI | 3.400 | 1.785 | 0.658 | 1.904 | 0.106 | |
| Age | 1.013 | 0.602 | 0.547 | 1.682 | 0.143 | |
Comparison Between Two Erectile Dysfunction Groups (Mild Versus Moderate) in Terms of Age, Body Mass Index, and Mean Dose
| Variables | Mean ± SD | P-Value |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.293 | |
| Mild | 74.5 ± 5.86 | |
| Moderate | 79.5 ± 3.53 | |
| Average received dose | 0.711 | |
| Mild | 57.27 ±10.23 | |
| Moderate | 55.84 ± 13.33 | |
| BMI | 0.303 | |
| Mild | 23.64 ± 2.05 | |
| Moderate | 25.39 ± 1.76 |
5. Discussion
Prostate cancer is a common cancer type among men, accounting for 14.1% of all new cancer cases and 6.8% of all male cancer deaths worldwide in 2020 (20). Radiotherapy is a critical component of curative treatment for early-stage prostate cancer, with outcomes comparable to radical prostatectomy (21). Compared to surgery, RT offers several advantages, including avoiding complications associated with general anesthesia and surgery, such as bleeding, and a lower risk of urinary incontinence and stricture (22). Recent clinical trials have shown that increasing radiation doses to the prostate can improve cancer-related outcomes, though it may also increase side effects, such as sexual disorders (23).
The incidence of ED following RT varies widely, affecting 20% to 90% of patients (24). While early-stage prostate cancer patients generally have high survival rates, approximately half may develop ED within 3 to 5 years after completing treatment (25). Since sexual function is a crucial aspect of human health and cancer survivorship, understanding the potential effects of different treatment modalities on sexual health is essential (26). Key predictors of ED following treatment include the patient’s age at the time of radiation, their erectile function before treatment, the type of RT used, and the health of their erectile tissues (27). Younger men and those with better erectile function before treatment tend to have better erectile outcomes (24). Many studies have identified patient-related factors such as diabetes, smoking, a history of hypertension, and cardiovascular disease as risk factors for ED (28). A study by Cahlon et al. involving 487 patients who underwent prostate RT found that age over 70 years and diabetes were significant contributors to the development of ED (29). In this study, patients with diabetes, smokers, and those with a history of hypertension or cardiovascular disease were excluded. We also excluded patients receiving ADT, as ADT has been shown to predict ED following EBRT. Additionally, patients who had undergone brachytherapy were excluded, as the additional dosage from brachytherapy complicates the determination of the contributions of each therapy (30).
Studies on erectile function following RT have mainly focused on the dose to critical erectile structures, particularly the PB (31). Many studies suggest that the maximum dose to the PB area to prevent ED should be less than 50 Gy (18). In a study by Fisch et al., which also used 3D-CRT, 33% of patients reported ED, with a dose of D70 ≥70 Gy significantly associated with ED (32). Mangar et al. investigated the rate of ED based on patient-reported questionnaires and found that a D90 ≥50 Gy is associated with a significant risk of ED (33). In the current study, the average dose to the PB was 56.98 Gy, exceeding the recommended maximum dose.
There is inconsistency regarding the relationship between PB dose and ED occurrence in prostate cancer (34, 35). Although the PB is a primary focus in many research studies, several investigations have shown that the dose delivered to the PB is not the most significant factor for ED (36). A recent systematic review revealed that out of 23 studies on radiation-induced ED, only 15 showed a significant correlation between the PB dose and the incidence of ED (36). For instance, Roach et al. found that patients with a median penile dose of 52.5 Gy or more had a greater risk of radiation-induced impotence compared with those receiving a dose of less than 52.5 Gy (P = 0.039, odds ratio = 1.98, 95% CI = 1.03 - 3.78) (18). However, Van der Wielen et al. found no significant differences in mean dose, maximum dose, or volume of various structures between patients with and without ED 2 years after EBRT (37). Similarly, Selek et al. studied 28 patients and found that 68% developed post-treatment ED, but there was no dose-volume effect between PB dose and ED, which aligns with our research findings (38).
To explain this controversy, it is important to recognize that the development of ED in prostate cancer patients is a multifaceted phenomenon influenced by various physical and psychological factors. Some studies have focused on other anatomical structures, such as the proximal centimeter of the crura, internal pudendal arteries, neurovascular bundles, and ejaculatory ducts (37). However, there was insufficient evidence to establish a relationship between ED and the dose to the neurovascular bundles based on eight studies. One study investigated the relationship between ED and the dose received by the internal pudendal arteries but found no significant correlation (36). Nevertheless, studies that spared blood vessels reported positive outcomes in maintaining erectile function without compromising the intended treatment volume. Thus, controversy exists regarding the importance of doses to different irradiated structures in the development of ED (36).
It has been suggested that the effects of RT on penile structures may extend beyond anatomical damage and contribute to an inflammatory process (39). Radiation therapy induces a proinflammatory cytokine cascade that creates an inflammatory microenvironment, leading to neurovascular toxicity (40). The degree of inflammation is directly proportional to the amount of irradiated prostatic tissue, fraction delivery time, patient setup errors, and rectal sparing protocols (40). Endothelial damage and accelerated atherosclerosis of various vessels in the prostate area can also occur, leading to arterial occlusive disease and abnormal blood flow, which can affect a significant percentage of patients (40).
To achieve penile erection, psychogenic stimulation triggered by sexual thoughts and stimuli is required in addition to pathophysiological factors. For patients with prostate cancer, ED may result from various psychological factors such as depression, anxiety, frustration, shame, and lack of confidence in sexual performance (41). Several studies have indicated that prostate cancer treatment can lead to changes in emotional state, self-esteem, and body image, which may contribute to ED (42, 43). Therefore, to arrive at a more accurate conclusion, it is essential to assess the psychological aspects of prostate cancer treatment using appropriate questionnaires such as the Self-Esteem Scale (SES), Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ), Body Image Scale (BIS), and the functional assessment of cancer therapy-prostate (FACT-P). It is worth noting that in this study, only the IIEF-15 Questionnaire was used, and this should be considered when interpreting our conclusions.
Several limitations should be considered when interpreting our findings. Firstly, our sample size was relatively small, which may impact the generalizability of our results. Additionally, while our primary focus was on exploring the relationship between ED and PB dose, we did not examine potential correlations with other anatomical structures, presenting an opportunity for future research in this area. Lastly, our data collection was restricted to patient visits over a 3-month period, which may provide only a partial understanding of long-term trends and effects. Therefore, further research with a larger sample size and extended follow-up is needed to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.
Despite advancements in radiation techniques designed to minimize nerve and vascular damage to the prostate and reduce the exposure of surrounding tissues to radiation, a recent study found that 100% of patients reported experiencing post-treatment ED. This issue may be attributed to the routine use of 3D-CRT, particularly in developing countries like Iran, which can result in damage to normal tissue, including the PB, despite efforts to contour the organ at risk. As many medical centers in developing countries utilize 3D-CRT to treat prostate cancer, a multidisciplinary discussion may be necessary to select the most appropriate treatment modality. Considering advanced techniques such as IMRT, IGRT, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) could be steps towards improving patient outcomes.
5.1. Conclusions
According to this study, all patients experienced reduced potency within 3 months of receiving radiation therapy. However, further analysis did not establish a statistically significant correlation between the radiation dose administered to the PB and potency preservation. This aspect requires further investigation in future studies with a larger sample size and the use of more advanced radiation techniques.
References
-
1.
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209-49. [PubMed ID: 33538338]. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660.
-
2.
Franlund M, Mansson M, Godtman RA, Aus G, Holmberg E, Kollberg KS, et al. Results from 22 years of Followup in the Goteborg Randomized Population-Based Prostate Cancer Screening Trial. J Urol. 2022;208(2):292-300. [PubMed ID: 35422134]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9275849]. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002696.
-
3.
Van Poppel H, Roobol MJ, Chapple CR, Catto JWF, N'Dow J, Sonksen J, et al. Prostate-specific Antigen Testing as Part of a Risk-Adapted Early Detection Strategy for Prostate Cancer: European Association of Urology Position and Recommendations for 2021. Eur Urol. 2021;80(6):703-11. [PubMed ID: 34407909]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2021.07.024.
-
4.
Maggi M, Cowan JE, Fasulo V, Washington SL, Lonergan PE, Sciarra A, et al. The Long-Term Risks of Metastases in Men on Active Surveillance for Early Stage Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2020;204(6):1222-8. [PubMed ID: 33157570]. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001313.
-
5.
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, et al. Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy in PSA-detected clinically localised prostate cancer: the ProtecT three-arm RCT. Health Technol Assess. 2020;24(37):1-176. [PubMed ID: 32773013]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7443739]. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta24370.
-
6.
Potters L, Klein EA, Kattan MW, Reddy CA, Ciezki JP, Reuther AM, et al. Monotherapy for stage T1-T2 prostate cancer: radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, or permanent seed implantation. Radiother Oncol. 2004;71(1):29-33. [PubMed ID: 15066293]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2003.12.011.
-
7.
Hanif S, Osmani AH, Mallick J. Treatment Related Acute Toxicities Between Treatment with 3D-CRT and IMRT in Localised Prostate Cancer. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2024;34(5):573-7. [PubMed ID: 38720219]. https://doi.org/10.29271/jcpsp.2024.05.573.
-
8.
Lane A, Metcalfe C, Young GJ, Peters TJ, Blazeby J, Avery KN, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in the ProtecT randomized trial of clinically localized prostate cancer treatments: study design, and baseline urinary, bowel and sexual function and quality of life. BJU Int. 2016;118(6):869-79. [PubMed ID: 27415448]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5113698]. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13582.
-
9.
Akbal C, Tinay I, Simsek F, Turkeri LN. Erectile dysfunction following radiotherapy and brachytherapy for prostate cancer: pathophysiology, prevention and treatment. Int Urol Nephrol. 2008;40(2):355-63. [PubMed ID: 17960489]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-007-9247-1.
-
10.
Ramirez-Fort MK, Rogers MJ, Santiago R, Mahase SS, Mendez M, Zheng Y, et al. Prostatic irradiation-induced sexual dysfunction: a review and multidisciplinary guide to management in the radical radiotherapy era (Part I defining the organ at risk for sexual toxicities). Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2020;25(3):367-75. [PubMed ID: 32322175]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7163290]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpor.2020.03.007.
-
11.
Shabataev V, Saadat SH, Elterman DS. Management of erectile dysfunction and LUTS/incontinence: the two most common, long-term side effects of prostate cancer treatment. Can J Urol. 2020;27(27 Suppl 1):17-24. [PubMed ID: 32101696].
-
12.
Li G, Xia YF, Huang YX, Okat D, Qiu B, Doyen J, et al. Better preservation of erectile function in localized prostate cancer patients with modern proton therapy: Is it cost-effective? Prostate. 2022;82(15):1438-46. [PubMed ID: 35915875]. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.24417.
-
13.
Sethi A, Mohideen N, Leybovich L, Mulhall J. Role of IMRT in reducing penile doses in dose escalation for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;55(4):970-8. [PubMed ID: 12605975]. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-3016(02)04164-0.
-
14.
Zhang E, Ruth KJ, Buyyounouski MK, Price RJ, Uzzo RG, Sobczak ML, et al. Long-Term Results of a Phase 3 Randomized Prospective Trial of Erectile Tissue-Sparing Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Men With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2023;115(5):1074-84. [PubMed ID: 36566906]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10462387]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.12.008.
-
15.
Katz AJ, Kang J. Quality of Life and Toxicity after SBRT for Organ-Confined Prostate Cancer, a 7-Year Study. Front Oncol. 2014;4:301. [PubMed ID: 25389521]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC4211385]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2014.00301.
-
16.
Le Guevelou J, Sargos P, Ferretti L, Supiot S, Pasquier D, Crehange G, et al. Sexual Structure Sparing for Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol Oncol. 2024;7(3):332-43. [PubMed ID: 37640583]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2023.08.003.
-
17.
Hatano K, Tohyama N, Kodama T, Okabe N, Sakai M, Konoeda K. Current status of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer: History, clinical results and future directions. Int J Urol. 2019;26(8):775-84. [PubMed ID: 31115116]. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.14011.
-
18.
Roach M, Winter K, Michalski JM, Cox JD, Purdy JA, Bosch W, et al. Penile bulb dose and impotence after three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer on RTOG 9406: findings from a prospective, multi-institutional, phase I/II dose-escalation study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;60(5):1351-6. [PubMed ID: 15590164]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.05.026.
-
19.
Rezaei N, Sharifi N, Fathnezhad-Kazemi A, Shafiei E. Evaluation of Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory: A Cross-Sectional Study. Sex Med. 2021;9(5):100409. [PubMed ID: 34325191]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8498951]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esxm.2021.100409.
-
20.
Bergengren O, Pekala KR, Matsoukas K, Fainberg J, Mungovan SF, Bratt O, et al. 2022 Update on Prostate Cancer Epidemiology and Risk Factors-A Systematic Review. Eur Urol. 2023;84(2):191-206. [PubMed ID: 37202314]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10851915]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.04.021.
-
21.
Deville C, Kamran SC, Morgan SC, Yamoah K, Vapiwala N. Radiation Therapy Summary of the AUA/ASTRO Guideline on Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2024;14(1):47-56. [PubMed ID: 38182303]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2023.09.007.
-
22.
Lee JW, Chung MJ. Prostate only radiotherapy using external beam radiotherapy: A clinician's perspective. World J Clin Cases. 2022;10(29):10428-34. [PubMed ID: 36312490]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9602254]. https://doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v10.i29.10428.
-
23.
Hall WA, Deshmukh S, Bruner DW, Michalski JM, Purdy JA, Bosch W, et al. Quality of Life Implications of Dose-Escalated External Beam Radiation for Localized Prostate Cancer: Results of a Prospective Randomized Phase 3 Clinical Trial, NRG/RTOG 0126. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2022;112(1):83-92. [PubMed ID: 34919884]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8789217]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.07.004.
-
24.
Mahmood J, Shamah AA, Creed TM, Pavlovic R, Matsui H, Kimura M, et al. Radiation-induced erectile dysfunction: Recent advances and future directions. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2016;1(3):161-9. [PubMed ID: 28740886]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5514009]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2016.05.003.
-
25.
Yamazaki H, Nakamura S, Nishimura T, Yoshida K, Yoshioka Y, Koizumi M, et al. Transitioning from conventional radiotherapy to intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: changing focus from rectal bleeding to detailed quality of life analysis. J Radiat Res. 2014;55(6):1033-47. [PubMed ID: 25204643]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC4229926]. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rru061.
-
26.
Walker LM, Santos-Iglesias P. On the Relationship Between Erectile Function and Sexual Distress in Men with Prostate Cancer. Arch Sex Behav. 2020;49(5):1575-88. [PubMed ID: 32072396]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01603-y.
-
27.
Nukala V, Incrocci L, Hunt AA, Ballas L, Koontz BF. Challenges in Reporting the Effect of Radiotherapy on Erectile Function. J Sex Med. 2020;17(6):1053-9. [PubMed ID: 32312661]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.03.008.
-
28.
Dyer A, Kirby M, White ID, Cooper AM. Management of erectile dysfunction after prostate cancer treatment: cross-sectional surveys of the perceptions and experiences of patients and healthcare professionals in the UK. BMJ Open. 2019;9(10). e030856. [PubMed ID: 31585974]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6797309]. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030856.
-
29.
Cahlon O, Zelefsky MJ, Shippy A, Chan H, Fuks Z, Yamada Y, et al. Ultra-high dose (86.4 Gy) IMRT for localized prostate cancer: toxicity and biochemical outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71(2):330-7. [PubMed ID: 18164858]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.10.004.
-
30.
Thor M, Olsson CE, Oh JH, Alsadius D, Pettersson N, Deasy JO, et al. Radiation Dose to the Penile Structures and Patient-Reported Sexual Dysfunction in Long-Term Prostate Cancer Survivors. J Sex Med. 2015;12(12):2388-97. [PubMed ID: 26564611]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5070375]. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.13031.
-
31.
Chasseray M, Dissaux G, Bourbonne V, Boussion N, Goasduff G, Malloreau J, et al. Dose to the penile bulb and individual patient anatomy are predictive of erectile dysfunction in men treated with (125)I low dose rate brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer. Acta Oncol. 2019;58(7):1029-35. [PubMed ID: 30761939]. https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2019.1574981.
-
32.
Fisch BM, Pickett B, Weinberg V, Roach M. Dose of radiation received by the bulb of the penis correlates with risk of impotence after three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Urol. 2001;57(5):955-9. [PubMed ID: 11337302]. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(01)00940-2.
-
33.
Mangar SA, Sydes MR, Tucker HL, Coffey J, Sohaib SA, Gianolini S, et al. Evaluating the relationship between erectile dysfunction and dose received by the penile bulb: using data from a randomised controlled trial of conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer (MRC RT01, ISRCTN47772397). Radiother Oncol. 2006;80(3):355-62. [PubMed ID: 16949694]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2006.07.037.
-
34.
Rasmusson E, Gunnlaugsson A, Wieslander E, Hoglund P, Widmark A, Fransson P, et al. Erectile Dysfunction and Absorbed Dose to Penile Base Structures in a Randomized Trial Comparing Ultrahypofractionated and Conventionally Fractionated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020;107(1):143-51. [PubMed ID: 32004582]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.01.022.
-
35.
Rivin del Campo E, Thomas K, Weinberg V, Roach M. Erectile dysfunction after radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a model assessing the conflicting literature on dose-volume effects. Int J Impot Res. 2013;25(5):161-5. [PubMed ID: 23784555]. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2013.28.
-
36.
Ailloud A, Udrescu C, Horn S, Enachescu C, Crehange G, Sargos P, et al. [Relationship between doses to anatomical structures and erectile dysfunction after radiotherapy for prostate cancer: A systematic review]. Cancer Radiother. 2023;27(6-7):548-61. [PubMed ID: 37596125]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canrad.2023.07.010.
-
37.
van der Wielen GJ, Hoogeman MS, Dohle GR, van Putten WL, Incrocci L. Dose-volume parameters of the corpora cavernosa do not correlate with erectile dysfunction after external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer: results from a dose-escalation trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71(3):795-800. [PubMed ID: 18164862]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.10.052.
-
38.
Selek U, Cheung R, Lii M, Allen P, Steadham RE, Vantreese TR, et al. Erectile dysfunction and radiation dose to penile base structures: a lack of correlation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59(4):1039-46. [PubMed ID: 15234037]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2003.12.028.
-
39.
Kimura M, Rabbani ZN, Zodda AR, Yan H, Jackson IL, Polascik TJ, et al. Role of oxidative stress in a rat model of radiation-induced erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med. 2012;9(6):1535-49. [PubMed ID: 22489731]. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02716.x.
-
40.
Labate C, Panunzio A, De Carlo F, Zacheo F, Matteis S, Barba M, et al. Current Knowledge on Radiation-Therapy-Induced Erectile Dysfunction in Prostate-Cancer Patients: A Narrative Review. Uro. 2023;3:104-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/uro3020013.
-
41.
Watts S, Leydon G, Birch B, Prescott P, Lai L, Eardley S, et al. Depression and anxiety in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence rates. BMJ Open. 2014;4(3). e003901. [PubMed ID: 24625637]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC3963074]. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003901.
-
42.
Mainwaring JM, Walker LM, Robinson JW, Wassersug RJ, Wibowo E. The Psychosocial Consequences of Prostate Cancer Treatments on Body Image, Sexuality, and Relationships. Front Psychol. 2021;12:765315. [PubMed ID: 34744944]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8568796]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.765315.
-
43.
Bowie J, Brunckhorst O, Stewart R, Dasgupta P, Ahmed K. Body image, self-esteem, and sense of masculinity in patients with prostate cancer: a qualitative meta-synthesis. J Cancer Surviv. 2022;16(1):95-110. [PubMed ID: 33963973]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8881246]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-021-01007-9.