SynthesisBritish journal of cancer2026
Prevalence, risk factors, and interventions for female sexual dysfunction after radiotherapy for anal cancer: a systematic review.
Synthesis in British journal of cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite high survival after radiotherapy (RT) for anal cancer (AC), its impact on female sexual dysfunction (FSD) and vaginal toxicity remains poorly defined.
methodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL for studies on women treated with curative-intent RT for anal cancer, addressing prevalence, risk factors, and interventions. Eligibility criteria were defined a priori; prevalence was restricted to studies using modern techniques (IMRT/VMAT), whereas studies of risk factors and interventions were included regardless of modality. Data were extracted using a Cochrane-adapted form, and risk of bias assessed with AXIS. Due to heterogeneity, evidence was synthesized using a narrative approach.
resultsOf 3764 records, 32 reported prevalence estimates, 23 examined risk factors, and 8 evaluated interventions. FSD prevalence ranged from 0.9 to 85%. Dyspareunia (0.3-79%), vaginal stenosis (1-88%), and dryness (up to 98%) were frequent and persistent. Higher vaginal doses were associated with worse outcomes, though thresholds varied. Intervention evidence was limited: two studies linked dilator use to less stenosis, and nurse-led or multidisciplinary programs showed promise.
conclusionsFSD is a prevalent, long-term consequence of RT for AC. This review provides symptom-specific evidence for patient counseling. It underscores the need for standardized assessment, dose optimization, and integrated follow-up strategies for female AC survivors. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024592088.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.