What are the unmet supportive care needs of men affected by penile cancer? A systematic review of the empirical evidence

Catherine Paterson*, Charlotte Primeau, Mallory Bowker, Bente Jensen, Steven MacLennan, Yuhong Yuan, James N'Dow

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To systematically evaluate evidence regarding the unmet supportive care needs of men affected by penile cancer and their partners to create a holistic model of care and inform clinical practice guidelines. Methods: We searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (CCRT and CDSR) controlled trials databases and clinicaltrial.gov from 1990 to April 2020. This review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. Results: 18 articles were included, reporting the results from 17 studies. Included reports used qualitative (seven studies) and survey (ten studies). Across these studies, men reported that the diagnosis and subsequent treatment of penile cancer affected physical, psychological and sexual well-being with each facet impacting and being intertwined with the other at varying degrees. There was varying complexity of unmet needs in men and partners pre-surgery, post-surgery and into survivorship. Conclusions: Moderate evidence exists that men affected by penile cancer experience a range of unmet supportive care needs across the international literature. Further work to evaluate the impact of penile cancer on partners is required.

Original languageEnglish
Article number101805
Number of pages16
JournalEuropean Journal of Oncology Nursing
Volume48
Early online date14 Aug 2020
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2020

Keywords

  • Evidence synthesis
  • Penile cancer
  • Supportive care
  • Systematic review
  • Unmet needs

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'What are the unmet supportive care needs of men affected by penile cancer? A systematic review of the empirical evidence'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this