BACKGROUND: Cancer‐related sexual dysfunction has been reported among adolescents and young adults (AYAs); however, its prevalence over time has not been examined. This longitudinal study investigated sexual dysfunction in AYAs over the course of 2 years after the initial diagnosis.METHODS: Young adult patients (18‐39 years old) completed the Medical Outcomes Study Sexual Functioning Scale within the first 4 months of their diagnosis (n = 123) and again 6 (n = 107) and 24 months later (n = 95). An ordered multinomial response model analyzed changes in the probability of reporting sexual dysfunction over time and the independent effects of demographic, clinical, and psychosocial variables.RESULTS: More than half of the participants reported sexual functioning to be problematic at each assessment. The probability of reporting sexual dysfunction increased over time (P < .01) and was greater for cancer patients who were female (P < .001), older (P < .01), married or in a committed relationship (P < .001), treated with chemotherapy (P < .05), and reporting comorbid psychological distress (P < .001) and lower social support (P < .05). For women, being in a relationship increased the likelihood of reporting sexual problems over time; for men, the likelihood of reporting sexual problems increased regardless of their relationship status.CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of young adults report ongoing problems with sexual functioning in the first 2 years after their cancer diagnosis. These findings justify the need to evaluate and monitor sexual functioning throughout a continuum of care. Cancer 2018;124:398‐405. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Objective: The study examined how a couple’s capacity for mutuality as conceptualized by the Relational-Cultural Theory plays a role in their managing the stresses accompanying breast cancer. Methods: Eighty-six women treated for a primary, non-metastatic breast cancer and their partners completed measures of quality of life, relational mutuality, and dyadic coping. Demographic and clinical factors were self-reported. The relationship between mutuality and dyadic coping was evaluated using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM). Results: Relational mutuality was positively associated with both the patients’ and the caregivers’ scores on common and positive dyadic coping. Similarly, relational mutuality was associated with both patients’ and caregivers’ reduced scores on avoidance of dyadic coping. Conclusions: Relational mutuality emerges as a significant factor in our understanding about dyadic coping in the context of cancer and this study highlights the role it plays in dyadic coping behaviors. Implications: The promotion of relational mutuality in couples coping with cancer-related stress should be a major focus in couple-based interventions.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer frequently encounter financial hardship, yet systematic strategies to identify at-risk patients are not established in care delivery. We assessed sensitivity of distress-based screening to identify patients with cancer-related financial hardship and associated care delivery outcomes. METHODS: A survey of 225 patients at a large cancer center assessed cancer-related financial hardship (0-10 Likert scale; highest quintile scores ≥ 5 defined severe hardship). Responses were linked to electronic medical records identifying patients’ distress screening scores 6 months presurvey (0-10 scale) and outcomes of missed cancer care visits and bad debt charges (unrecovered patient charges) within 6 months postsurvey. A positive screen for distress was defined as score ≥ 4. We analyzed screening test characteristics for identifying severe financial hardship within 6 months and associations between financial hardship and outcomes using logistic models. RESULTS: Although patients with positive distress screens were more likely to report financial hardship (odds ratio [OR], 1.21; 1.08-1.37; P < .001), a positive distress screen was only 48% sensitive and 70% specific for identifying severe financial hardship. Patients with worse financial hardship scores were more likely to miss oncology care visits within 6 months (for every additional point in financial hardship score from 0 to 10, OR, 1.28; 1.12-1.47; P < .001). Of patients with severe hardship, 72% missed oncology visits versus 35% without severe hardship ( P = .006). Patients with worse hardship were more likely to incur any bad debt charges within 6 months (OR, 1.32; 1.13-1.54; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Systematic financial hardship screening is needed to help mitigate adverse care delivery outcomes. Existing distress-based screening lacks sensitivity.