Gregory Carter1, Kerrie Clover2, Ben Britton2, Alex J Mitchell3, Martin White4, Nicholas McLeod5, Jim Denham6, Sylvie D Lambert7. 1. Centre for Translational Neuroscience and Mental Health, School of Medical Practice and Population Health, Faculty of Health, University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: gregory.carter@newcastle.edu.au. 2. Psycho-Oncology Service, Calvary Mater Newcastle, School of Psychology, Faculty of Science and Information Technology, Centre for Translational Neuroscience & Mental Health Research, University of Newcastle, Australia. 3. Depart of Cancer & Molecular Medicine, Leicester Royal Infirmary & University of Leicester, Leicester LE5 1WW, United Kingdom. 4. Consultant Urologist, New Lambton, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. 5. John Hunter Hospital, New Lambton, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. 6. Faculty of Health and Medicine, Prostate Cancer Trials Group, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia. 7. Ingram School of Nursing, McGill University, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Active Surveillance (AS) is recommended for the treatment of localised prostate cancer; however this option may be under-used, at least in part because of expectations of psychological adverse events in those offered or accepting AS. OBJECTIVE: (1) Determine the impact on psychological wellbeing when treated with AS (non-comparative studies). (2) Compare AS with active treatments for the impact on psychological wellbeing (comparative studies). METHOD: We used the PRISMA guidelines and searched Medline, PsychInfo, EMBASE, CINHAL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Scopus for articles published January 2000-2014. Eligible studies reported original quantitative data on any measures of psychological wellbeing. RESULTS: We identified 34 eligible articles (n=12,497 individuals); 24 observational, eight RCTs, and two other interventional studies. Studies came from North America (16), Europe (14) Australia (3) and North America/Europe (1). A minority (5/34) were rated as high quality. Most (26/34) used validated instruments, whilst a substantial minority (14/34) used watchful waiting or no active treatment rather than Active Surveillance. There was modest evidence of no adverse impact on psychological wellbeing associated with Active Surveillance; and no differences in psychological wellbeing compared to active treatments. CONCLUSION: Patients can be informed that Active Surveillance involves no greater threat to their psychological wellbeing as part of the informed consent process, and clinicians need not limit access to Active Surveillance based on an expectation of adverse impacts on psychological wellbeing.
BACKGROUND: Active Surveillance (AS) is recommended for the treatment of localised prostate cancer; however this option may be under-used, at least in part because of expectations of psychological adverse events in those offered or accepting AS. OBJECTIVE: (1) Determine the impact on psychological wellbeing when treated with AS (non-comparative studies). (2) Compare AS with active treatments for the impact on psychological wellbeing (comparative studies). METHOD: We used the PRISMA guidelines and searched Medline, PsychInfo, EMBASE, CINHAL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Scopus for articles published January 2000-2014. Eligible studies reported original quantitative data on any measures of psychological wellbeing. RESULTS: We identified 34 eligible articles (n=12,497 individuals); 24 observational, eight RCTs, and two other interventional studies. Studies came from North America (16), Europe (14) Australia (3) and North America/Europe (1). A minority (5/34) were rated as high quality. Most (26/34) used validated instruments, whilst a substantial minority (14/34) used watchful waiting or no active treatment rather than Active Surveillance. There was modest evidence of no adverse impact on psychological wellbeing associated with Active Surveillance; and no differences in psychological wellbeing compared to active treatments. CONCLUSION:Patients can be informed that Active Surveillance involves no greater threat to their psychological wellbeing as part of the informed consent process, and clinicians need not limit access to Active Surveillance based on an expectation of adverse impacts on psychological wellbeing.
Authors: Robin Wm Vernooij; Michelle Lancee; Anne Cleves; Philipp Dahm; Chris H Bangma; Katja Kh Aben Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-06-04
Authors: Grace C Haser; R Michael Tuttle; Henry K Su; Eran E Alon; Donald Bergman; Victor Bernet; Elise Brett; Rhoda Cobin; Eliza H Dewey; Gerard Doherty; Laura L Dos Reis; Jeffrey Harris; Joshua Klopper; Stephanie L Lee; Robert A Levine; Stephen J Lepore; Ilya Likhterov; Mark A Lupo; Josef Machac; Jeffrey I Mechanick; Saral Mehra; Mira Milas; Lisa A Orloff; Gregory Randolph; Tracey A Revenson; Katherine J Roberts; Douglas S Ross; Meghan E Rowe; Robert C Smallridge; David Terris; Ralph P Tufano; Mark L Urken Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2016-01-22 Impact factor: 3.443
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: Konstantina G Yiannopoulou; Aikaterini I Anastasiou; Konstantinos Kontoangelos; Charalambos Papageorgiou; Ioannis P Anastasiou Journal: Curr Urol Date: 2020-12-18
Authors: Ghalib Jibara; Daniel D Sjoberg; Gillian L Stearns; Yariv Stabholz; Ali Fathollahi; Laura S Leddy; Nicole Benfante; Behfar Ehdaie; Jonathan A Coleman; James A Eastham; Jaspreet S Sandhu Journal: Urology Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 2.633