PURPOSE: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is a significant source of distress in men with prostate cancer and could affect clinical decision-making, especially in those with positive margins following radical prostatectomy (RP). We examined the influence of positive surgical margin status on fear of cancer recurrence in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. METHODS: Five hundred eight-four men underwent RP from 1999 to 2002 in CaPSURE, a prospective, longitudinal, national cohort. All men had both baseline and follow-up assessment of FCR using a validated Kornblith scale. Statistical analysis included chi(2) test, Wald test, and linear as well as repeated measures ANOVA mixed model. RESULTS: One hundred sixty (27%) men had positive surgical margins. Baseline FCR and clinical variables did not differ based on margin status. Men with positive margins experienced greater FCR after RP than negative margins (OR, 1.94, 95% CI, 1.22-3.07). Men who had received adjuvant therapy experienced greater FCR (OR, 2.78, 95% CI, 1.21-6.39). Repeated measures analysis showed greater FCR over time (14-month mean follow-up, range 2-31 months) for positive vs. negative margins (P = 0.02). This difference in fear widened over time. There were no significant differences in health-related quality of life scores based on margin status. CONCLUSION: Positive surgical margin status is associated with greater fear of cancer recurrence, a difference not alleviated by adjuvant therapy use. Men with positive margins remain more fearful over the course of several years compared with those with negative margins. Clinicians should be aware of the potential stressful impact of positive surgical margins. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is a significant source of distress in men with prostate cancer and could affect clinical decision-making, especially in those with positive margins following radical prostatectomy (RP). We examined the influence of positive surgical margin status on fear of cancer recurrence in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. METHODS: Five hundred eight-four men underwent RP from 1999 to 2002 in CaPSURE, a prospective, longitudinal, national cohort. All men had both baseline and follow-up assessment of FCR using a validated Kornblith scale. Statistical analysis included chi(2) test, Wald test, and linear as well as repeated measures ANOVA mixed model. RESULTS: One hundred sixty (27%) men had positive surgical margins. Baseline FCR and clinical variables did not differ based on margin status. Men with positive margins experienced greater FCR after RP than negative margins (OR, 1.94, 95% CI, 1.22-3.07). Men who had received adjuvant therapy experienced greater FCR (OR, 2.78, 95% CI, 1.21-6.39). Repeated measures analysis showed greater FCR over time (14-month mean follow-up, range 2-31 months) for positive vs. negative margins (P = 0.02). This difference in fear widened over time. There were no significant differences in health-related quality of life scores based on margin status. CONCLUSION: Positive surgical margin status is associated with greater fear of cancer recurrence, a difference not alleviated by adjuvant therapy use. Men with positive margins remain more fearful over the course of several years compared with those with negative margins. Clinicians should be aware of the potential stressful impact of positive surgical margins. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Ioannis Anastasiou; Stavros I Tyritzis; Ioannis Adamakis; Dionysios Mitropoulos; Konstantinos G Stravodimos; Ioannis Katafigiotis; Antonios Balangas; Anastasios Kollias; Kitty Pavlakis; Constantinos A Constantinides Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2010-10-30 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: H Wadhwa; M K Terris; W J Aronson; C J Kane; C L Amling; M R Cooperberg; S J Freedland; M R Abern Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2016-10-04 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Michael J Donovan; Faisal M Khan; Douglas Powell; Valentina Bayer-Zubek; Carlos Cordon-Cardo; Jose Costa; James Eastham; Peter Scardino Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-07-19 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Jacob E Tallman; Vignesh T Packiam; Kristen E Wroblewski; Gladell P Paner; Scott E Eggener Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2017-03-13 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Ronald C Chen; Peter Chang; Richard J Vetter; Himansu Lukka; William A Stokes; Martin G Sanda; Deborah Watkins-Bruner; Bryce B Reeve; Howard M Sandler Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Tomasz Golabek; Jaroslaw Jaskulski; Piotr Jarecki; Przemysław Dudek; Tomasz Szopiński; Piotr Chłosta Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2014-09-05 Impact factor: 1.195
Authors: Rasmus Nilsson; Thomas F Næss-Andresen; Tor Åge Myklebust; Tomm Bernklev; Hege Kersten; Erik Skaaheim Haug Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2021-02-03