Heather Orom1, Willie Underwood2, Caitlin Biddle2. 1. University at Buffalo (CB), Buffalo, New York; Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York. Electronic address: horom@buffalo.edu. 2. University at Buffalo (CB), Buffalo, New York; Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We determined whether among men with clinically localized prostate cancer, particularly men with low risk disease, greater emotional distress increases the likelihood of undergoing surgery vs radiation or active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were 1,531 patients recruited from 2 academic and 3 community facilities (nonHispanic white 83%, nonHispanic black 11% and Hispanic 6%; low risk 36%, intermediate risk 49% and high risk 15%; choice of active surveillance 24%, radiation 27% and surgery 48%). Emotional distress was assessed shortly after diagnosis and after men made a treatment decision with the Distress Thermometer. We used multinomial logistic regression with robust standard errors to test if emotional distress at either point predicted treatment choice in the sample as a whole and after stratifying by D'Amico risk score. RESULTS: In the sample as a whole the participants who were more emotionally distressed at diagnosis were more likely to choose surgery over active surveillance (RRR 1.07; 95% CI 1.01, 1.14; p=0.02). Men who were more distressed close to the time they made a treatment choice were more likely to have chosen surgery over active surveillance (RRR 1.16; 95% CI 1.09, 1.24; p <0.001) or surgery over radiation (RRR 1.12; 95% CI 1.05, 1.19; p=0.001). This pattern was also found in men with low risk disease. CONCLUSIONS: Emotional distress may motivate men with low risk prostate cancer to choose more aggressive treatment. Addressing emotional distress before and during treatment decision making may reduce a barrier to the uptake of active surveillance.
PURPOSE: We determined whether among men with clinically localized prostate cancer, particularly men with low risk disease, greater emotional distress increases the likelihood of undergoing surgery vs radiation or active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Participants were 1,531 patients recruited from 2 academic and 3 community facilities (nonHispanic white 83%, nonHispanic black 11% and Hispanic 6%; low risk 36%, intermediate risk 49% and high risk 15%; choice of active surveillance 24%, radiation 27% and surgery 48%). Emotional distress was assessed shortly after diagnosis and after men made a treatment decision with the Distress Thermometer. We used multinomial logistic regression with robust standard errors to test if emotional distress at either point predicted treatment choice in the sample as a whole and after stratifying by D'Amico risk score. RESULTS: In the sample as a whole the participants who were more emotionally distressed at diagnosis were more likely to choose surgery over active surveillance (RRR 1.07; 95% CI 1.01, 1.14; p=0.02). Men who were more distressed close to the time they made a treatment choice were more likely to have chosen surgery over active surveillance (RRR 1.16; 95% CI 1.09, 1.24; p <0.001) or surgery over radiation (RRR 1.12; 95% CI 1.05, 1.19; p=0.001). This pattern was also found in men with low risk disease. CONCLUSIONS: Emotional distress may motivate men with low risk prostate cancer to choose more aggressive treatment. Addressing emotional distress before and during treatment decision making may reduce a barrier to the uptake of active surveillance.
Authors: L C Harlan; A Potosky; F D Gilliland; R Hoffman; P C Albertsen; A S Hamilton; J W Eley; J L Stanford; R A Stephenson Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2001-12-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: James Mohler; Robert R Bahnson; Barry Boston; J Erik Busby; Anthony D'Amico; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Daniel George; Eric Mark Horwitz; Robert P Huben; Philip Kantoff; Mark Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Paul H Lange; Gary Macvicar; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; Mack Roach; Eric Rohren; Bruce J Roth; Dennis C Shrieve; Matthew R Smith; Sandy Srinivas; Przemyslaw Twardowski; Patrick C Walsh Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Steven B Zeliadt; Scott D Ramsey; David F Penson; Ingrid J Hall; Donatus U Ekwueme; Leonard Stroud; Judith W Lee Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Carmel N Anandadas; Noel W Clarke; Susan E Davidson; Patrick H O'Reilly; John P Logue; Lynne Gilmore; Ric Swindell; Richard J Brough; Guy D Wemyss-Holden; Maurice W Lau; Pradip M Javle; Vijay A C Ramani; James P Wylie; Gerald N Collins; Stephen Brown; Richard A Cowan Journal: BJU Int Date: 2010-11-17 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: David M Latini; Stacey L Hart; Sara J Knight; Janet E Cowan; Phillip L Ross; Janeen Duchane; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-07-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Suzanne K Chambers; Leah Zajdlewicz; Danny R Youlden; Jimmie C Holland; Jeff Dunn Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2013-09-12 Impact factor: 3.894
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: Michael A Diefenbach; Catherine Benedict; Suzanne M Miller; Annette L Stanton; Mary E Ropka; Kuang-Yi Wen; Linda G Fleisher; Nihal E Mohamed; Simon J Hall Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2018-11-21 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Andreas Ihrig; I Maatouk; H C Friederich; M Baunacke; C Groeben; R Koch; C Thomas; J Huber Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 1.771