OBJECTIVE: Approximately 5-10% of prostate cancer cases are caused by dominantly inherited susceptibility to the disease. Although advances have been made in research concerning the genetic mechanisms of hereditary prostate cancer, little is known about the psychological consequences. The aim of this study was to assess possible negative psychological effects of screening for prostate cancer in a high-risk population. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study was based on a previous study of risk perception, screening practice and interest in genetic testing among unaffected men in families with hereditary prostate cancer. The present study included 87 men from the previous study who were screened regularly for prostate cancer. Of these, 74 men agreed to receive two further questionnaires, both of which included the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HAD) and the Impact of Event Scale (IES), one of which was filled in on the day of the next screening visit and the other 4-6 weeks later. RESULTS: The response rate was 77% (57/74). There were no statistically significant differences in total or subscale HAD or IES scores between the two points of measurement. There was a trend towards slightly higher HAD scores on the day of the screening visit, but the difference was so small that we did not consider it clinically relevant. In an attempt to identify risk factors for a negative impact of screening several subgroup analyses were performed, but none of these subgroups had significantly higher scores on the day of the visit than afterwards. CONCLUSION: Most men with a high hereditary risk of developing prostate cancer do not experience severe psychological adverse effects resulting from attendance for screening.
OBJECTIVE: Approximately 5-10% of prostate cancer cases are caused by dominantly inherited susceptibility to the disease. Although advances have been made in research concerning the genetic mechanisms of hereditary prostate cancer, little is known about the psychological consequences. The aim of this study was to assess possible negative psychological effects of screening for prostate cancer in a high-risk population. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study was based on a previous study of risk perception, screening practice and interest in genetic testing among unaffected men in families with hereditary prostate cancer. The present study included 87 men from the previous study who were screened regularly for prostate cancer. Of these, 74 men agreed to receive two further questionnaires, both of which included the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HAD) and the Impact of Event Scale (IES), one of which was filled in on the day of the next screening visit and the other 4-6 weeks later. RESULTS: The response rate was 77% (57/74). There were no statistically significant differences in total or subscale HAD or IES scores between the two points of measurement. There was a trend towards slightly higher HAD scores on the day of the screening visit, but the difference was so small that we did not consider it clinically relevant. In an attempt to identify risk factors for a negative impact of screening several subgroup analyses were performed, but none of these subgroups had significantly higher scores on the day of the visit than afterwards. CONCLUSION: Most men with a high hereditary risk of developing prostate cancer do not experience severe psychological adverse effects resulting from attendance for screening.
Authors: J Sweetman; M Watson; A Norman; Z Bunstead; P Hopwood; J Melia; S Moss; R Eeles; D Dearnaley; C Moynihan Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2006-02-27 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Elizabeth K Bancroft; Sibel Saya; Elizabeth C Page; Kathryn Myhill; Sarah Thomas; Jennifer Pope; Anthony Chamberlain; Rachel Hart; Wayne Glover; Jackie Cook; Derek J Rosario; Brian T Helfand; Christina Hutten Selkirk; Rosemarie Davidson; Mark Longmuir; Diana M Eccles; Neus Gadea; Carole Brewer; Julian Barwell; Monica Salinas; Lynn Greenhalgh; Marc Tischkowitz; Alex Henderson; David Gareth Evans; Saundra S Buys; Rosalind A Eeles; Neil K Aaronson Journal: BJU Int Date: 2018-06-22 Impact factor: 5.588