The association between sexual dysfunction and prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: Journal of sexual medicine Vol. 20; no. 2; pp. 184 - 193
• Main Authors: Dilixiati, Diliyaer, Kadier, Kaisaierjiang, Laihaiti, Duolikun, Lu, Jian-De, Azhati, Baihetiya, Rexiati, Mulati
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands 14.02.2023
• Subjects: Humans; Male; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological - etiology; meta-analysis; prostate cancer; risk; sexual dysfunction
• DOI: 10.1093/jsxmed/qdac025
• ISSN: 1743-6095; 1743-6109

Whether there is a connection between sexual dysfunction (SD) and prostate cancer (PCa) is controversial. We sought to review the interrelationship between SD and PCa and to determine whether there is a definitive risk of men developing PCa after suffering from SD. A complete search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed to search for eligible studies published up to October 2022. The protocol for this meta-analysis is available from PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022342381). The associations between SD and the risk of PCa were assessed by calculating pooled ORs with 95% CIs, and the standard mean difference (SMD) and its 95% CI were used to assess the relationship between SD and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels or prostate volume (PV). Random-effects models were used to account for potential heterogeneity, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Twenty studies involving 215,626 individuals were included in our meta-analysis. Compared with controls, subjects with SD had a 1.62-fold increased risk of PCa (OR = 1.62, 95% CI, 1.77-2.23, P = .003; heterogeneity: I2 = 97.8%, P < .001). Patients with SD had higher PSA levels than controls (SMD =0.07, 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.13, P = .041; heterogeneity: I2 = 55.6%, P = .027). However, there was no association between SD and PV (SMD = 0.03, 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.11, P = .122; heterogeneity: I2 = 48.5%, P = .100). Current evidence confirms a potential link between SD and the risk of PCa and that SD in PCa patients should be of concern to clinicians. The strength of this study is that it is to our knowledge the first meta-analysis of studies on the risk of PCa in men with SD. A limitation is that most of the studies included in this meta-analysis focused on ED. Our systematic review and meta-analysis results suggest that men with SD have a higher risk of PCa and higher PSA levels than men without SD. However, this is merely inferential, and causality cannot be determined based on the current data. Further longitudinal studies should be performed to validate our preliminary findings.