Lara Bellardita1, Riccardo Valdagni2, Roderick van den Bergh3, Hans Randsdorp4, Claudia Repetto5, Lionne D F Venderbos6, J Athene Lane7, Ida J Korfage8. 1. Prostate Cancer Program, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy. Electronic address: lara.bellardita@istitutotumori.mi.it. 2. Prostate Cancer Program, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy; Department of Radiation Oncology 1, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy. 3. Department of Urology, Utrecht University Medical Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Europa Uomo. 5. Prostate Cancer Program, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy. 6. Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 7. School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. 8. Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
CONTEXT: The optimal management of screen-detected, localised prostate cancer remains controversial, related to overtreatment issues of screening and the nonrandomised evidence base. Active surveillance (AS) aims to delay or avoid curative therapy but may potentially harm patients' well-being through living with untreated prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature on quality of life (QoL) in patients undergoing AS. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Embase, Medline, Psychinfo, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and PubMed databases were searched in May 2014 using quality of life, active surveillance, prostate cancer, their synonyms, and targeted manual searches. The psychological dimensions related to health-related QoL (HRQoL) outcomes were anxiety and depression, distress, decisional conflict, and mental health. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Ten clinical and research-based AS studies worldwide measured HRQoL and related psychological facets in six cross-sectional studies and four cohorts (follow-up: 9-36 mo; published: 2006-2014). Six studies were linked to published AS cohorts. In total, 966 men undergoing AS (mean: 102 per study) were assessed (mean age: 66 yr). AS patients had good overall HRQoL scores, which were comparable or better than those of patients undergoing postradical treatment (comparator group in four studies), men's partners (one study) and population-based data (three studies). Anxiety and depression scores were favourable. Selection bias may be present, as none were randomised comparisons. Decreased psychological well-being may be partly predicted by AS patients' baseline and clinical characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing AS reported good QoL and did not appear to suffer major negative psychological impacts. Longer follow-up is required as well as investigation into which patients are predisposed to negative impact and leaving AS prematurely. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed the published evidence for quality-of-life impact on men with prostate cancer being monitored by active surveillance. The men who were on active surveillance usually reported good levels of well-being and did not appear to suffer major negative psychological impacts. The research findings suggest little presence of anxiety and depression and high overall quality of life related to their disease. However, there are few long-term studies, so more high-quality research is needed to make definitive recommendations.
CONTEXT: The optimal management of screen-detected, localised prostate cancer remains controversial, related to overtreatment issues of screening and the nonrandomised evidence base. Active surveillance (AS) aims to delay or avoid curative therapy but may potentially harm patients' well-being through living with untreated prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature on quality of life (QoL) in patients undergoing AS. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Embase, Medline, Psychinfo, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and PubMed databases were searched in May 2014 using quality of life, active surveillance, prostate cancer, their synonyms, and targeted manual searches. The psychological dimensions related to health-related QoL (HRQoL) outcomes were anxiety and depression, distress, decisional conflict, and mental health. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Ten clinical and research-based AS studies worldwide measured HRQoL and related psychological facets in six cross-sectional studies and four cohorts (follow-up: 9-36 mo; published: 2006-2014). Six studies were linked to published AS cohorts. In total, 966 men undergoing AS (mean: 102 per study) were assessed (mean age: 66 yr). AS patients had good overall HRQoL scores, which were comparable or better than those of patients undergoing postradical treatment (comparator group in four studies), men's partners (one study) and population-based data (three studies). Anxiety and depression scores were favourable. Selection bias may be present, as none were randomised comparisons. Decreased psychological well-being may be partly predicted by AS patients' baseline and clinical characteristics. CONCLUSIONS:Patients undergoing AS reported good QoL and did not appear to suffer major negative psychological impacts. Longer follow-up is required as well as investigation into which patients are predisposed to negative impact and leaving AS prematurely. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed the published evidence for quality-of-life impact on men with prostate cancer being monitored by active surveillance. The men who were on active surveillance usually reported good levels of well-being and did not appear to suffer major negative psychological impacts. The research findings suggest little presence of anxiety and depression and high overall quality of life related to their disease. However, there are few long-term studies, so more high-quality research is needed to make definitive recommendations.
Authors: Kathryn L Taylor; George Luta; Richard M Hoffman; Kimberly M Davis; Tania Lobo; Yingjun Zhou; Amethyst Leimpeter; Jun Shan; Roxanne E Jensen; David S Aaronson; Stephen K Van Den Eeden Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Paola Dordoni; Fabio Badenchini; Maria Francesca Alvisi; Julia Menichetti; Letizia De Luca; Teresa Di Florio; Tiziana Magnani; Cristina Marenghi; Tiziana Rancati; Riccardo Valdagni; Lara Bellardita Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-05-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jan Herden; Lena Ansmann; Nicole Ernstmann; Dietrich Schnell; Lotharh Weißbac Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2016-05-13 Impact factor: 5.594
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: J L Donovan; F C Hamdy; J A Lane; D E Neal; M Mason; C Metcalfe; E Walsh; J M Blazeby; T J Peters; P Holding; S Bonnington; T Lennon; L Bradshaw; D Cooper; P Herbert; J Howson; A Jones; N Lyons; E Salter; P Thompson; S Tidball; J Blaikie; C Gray; P Bollina; J Catto; A Doble; A Doherty; D Gillatt; R Kockelbergh; H Kynaston; A Paul; P Powell; S Prescott; D J Rosario; E Rowe; M Davis; E L Turner; R M Martin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan; J Athene Lane; Malcolm Mason; Chris Metcalfe; Peter Holding; Julia Wade; Sian Noble; Kirsty Garfield; Grace Young; Michael Davis; Tim J Peters; Emma L Turner; Richard M Martin; Jon Oxley; Mary Robinson; John Staffurth; Eleanor Walsh; Jane Blazeby; Richard Bryant; Prasad Bollina; James Catto; Andrew Doble; Alan Doherty; David Gillatt; Vincent Gnanapragasam; Owen Hughes; Roger Kockelbergh; Howard Kynaston; Alan Paul; Edgar Paez; Philip Powell; Stephen Prescott; Derek Rosario; Edward Rowe; David Neal Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Sophie M Bruinsma; Chris H Bangma; Peter R Carroll; Michael S Leapman; Antti Rannikko; Neophytos Petrides; Mahesha Weerakoon; Leonard P Bokhorst; Monique J Roobol Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2016-01-27 Impact factor: 14.432