BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men in the Western world with well-described negative effects from treatments. However, outcomes are highly heterogeneous. A Phase 3 trial of a psycho-educational intervention was undertaken, aiming to reduce cancer-specific and decision-related distress and improve quality of life for men newly diagnosed with localised prostate cancer. METHODS:Seven hundred forty (81.7%) men were recruited after diagnosis and before treatment and randomised to a tele-based nurse-delivered five-session psycho-educational intervention (N = 372) or usual care (N = 368). Participants were assessed before treatment and 2, 6, 12 and 24 months post-treatment. Outcome measures included cancer-specific and decision-related distress, cognitive judgmental adjustment, subjective well-being, and domain-specific and health-related quality of life. Social support was assessed as a potential moderator. RESULTS: No unconditioned effects were found. Classification analyses on pre-randomisation measures distinguished three subgroups: younger, higher education and income men (N = 90); younger, lower education and income men (N = 106); and older men (N = 344). Younger, higher education and income men showed positive intervention effects for cancer-specific distress (p = 0.008) and mental health (p = 0.042). By contrast, for younger, lower education men, participation in the intervention was associated with decreases in cognitive judgmental adjustment over time (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Response to intervention and adjustment over time varied according to previous sexual functioning, age, educational level and income. How to best intervene with younger, low education, low income men with prostate cancer is a critical future research question.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men in the Western world with well-described negative effects from treatments. However, outcomes are highly heterogeneous. A Phase 3 trial of a psycho-educational intervention was undertaken, aiming to reduce cancer-specific and decision-related distress and improve quality of life for men newly diagnosed with localised prostate cancer. METHODS: Seven hundred forty (81.7%) men were recruited after diagnosis and before treatment and randomised to a tele-based nurse-delivered five-session psycho-educational intervention (N = 372) or usual care (N = 368). Participants were assessed before treatment and 2, 6, 12 and 24 months post-treatment. Outcome measures included cancer-specific and decision-related distress, cognitive judgmental adjustment, subjective well-being, and domain-specific and health-related quality of life. Social support was assessed as a potential moderator. RESULTS: No unconditioned effects were found. Classification analyses on pre-randomisation measures distinguished three subgroups: younger, higher education and income men (N = 90); younger, lower education and income men (N = 106); and older men (N = 344). Younger, higher education and income men showed positive intervention effects for cancer-specific distress (p = 0.008) and mental health (p = 0.042). By contrast, for younger, lower education men, participation in the intervention was associated with decreases in cognitive judgmental adjustment over time (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Response to intervention and adjustment over time varied according to previous sexual functioning, age, educational level and income. How to best intervene with younger, low education, low income men with prostate cancer is a critical future research question.
Authors: Joep van Agteren; Matthew Iasiello; Laura Lo; Jonathan Bartholomaeus; Zoe Kopsaftis; Marissa Carey; Michael Kyrios Journal: Nat Hum Behav Date: 2021-04-19
Authors: Charles Kamen; Karen M Mustian; Charles Heckler; Michelle C Janelsins; Luke J Peppone; Supriya Mohile; James M McMahon; Raymond Lord; Patrick J Flynn; Matthias Weiss; David Spiegel; Gary R Morrow Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Daniel A Galvão; Dennis R Taaffe; Nigel Spry; Robert A Gardiner; Renea Taylor; Gail P Risbridger; Mark Frydenberg; Michelle Hill; Suzanne K Chambers; Phillip Stricker; Tom Shannon; Dickon Hayne; Eva Zopf; Robert U Newton Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2016-03-08 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Lauren Matheson; Mary Boulton; Verna Lavender; Andrew Protheroe; Sue Brand; Marta Wanat; Eila Watson Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2015-07-10 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Terry A Badger; Chris Segrin; Aurelio J Figueredo; Joanne Harrington; Kate Sheppard; Stacey Passalacqua; Alice Pasvogel; Maria Bishop Journal: Psychol Health Date: 2012-10-09
Authors: Suzanne K Chambers; Leslie Schover; Lisa Nielsen; Kim Halford; Samantha Clutton; Robert A Gardiner; Jeff Dunn; Stefano Occhipinti Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-06-12 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Bronwyn A Morris; Stephen J Lepore; Bridget Wilson; Morton A Lieberman; Jeff Dunn; Suzanne K Chambers Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2014-04-05 Impact factor: 4.442