Eimear Ruane-McAteer1, Sam Porter2, Joe M O'Sullivan3,4, Olinda Santin1, Gillian Prue1. 1. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Medical Biology Centre, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK. 2. Department of Social Sciences and Social Work, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, UK. 3. Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology (CCRCB), Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK. 4. The Northern Ireland Cancer Centre (NICC), Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Active surveillance (AS) allows men with favorable-risk prostate cancer to avoid or postpone active treatment and hence spares potential adverse effects for a significant proportion of these patients. Active surveillance may create an additional emotional burden for these patients. The aim of the review was to determine the psychological impact of AS to inform future study in this area and to provide recommendations for clinical practice. METHODS: Studies were identified through database searching from inception to September 2015. Quantitative or qualitative noninterventional studies published in English that assessed the psychological impact of AS were included. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess methodological quality. RESULTS: Twenty-three papers were included (20 quantitative and 3 qualitative). Quantitatively, the majority of patients do not report psychological difficulties; however, when appropriateness of study design is considered, the conclusion that AS has minimal impact on well-being may not be accurate. This is due to small sample sizes, inappropriately timed baseline, and inappropriate/lack of comparison groups. In addition, a mismatch in outcome was noted between the outcome of quantitative and qualitative studies in uncertainty, with qualitative studies indicating a greater psychological impact. CONCLUSIONS: Because of methodological concerns, many quantitative studies may not provide a true account of the burden of AS. Further mixed-methods studies are necessary to address the limitations highlighted and to provide clarity on the impact of AS. Practitioners should be aware that despite findings of previous reviews, patients may require additional emotional support.
OBJECTIVE: Active surveillance (AS) allows men with favorable-risk prostate cancer to avoid or postpone active treatment and hence spares potential adverse effects for a significant proportion of these patients. Active surveillance may create an additional emotional burden for these patients. The aim of the review was to determine the psychological impact of AS to inform future study in this area and to provide recommendations for clinical practice. METHODS: Studies were identified through database searching from inception to September 2015. Quantitative or qualitative noninterventional studies published in English that assessed the psychological impact of AS were included. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess methodological quality. RESULTS: Twenty-three papers were included (20 quantitative and 3 qualitative). Quantitatively, the majority of patients do not report psychological difficulties; however, when appropriateness of study design is considered, the conclusion that AS has minimal impact on well-being may not be accurate. This is due to small sample sizes, inappropriately timed baseline, and inappropriate/lack of comparison groups. In addition, a mismatch in outcome was noted between the outcome of quantitative and qualitative studies in uncertainty, with qualitative studies indicating a greater psychological impact. CONCLUSIONS: Because of methodological concerns, many quantitative studies may not provide a true account of the burden of AS. Further mixed-methods studies are necessary to address the limitations highlighted and to provide clarity on the impact of AS. Practitioners should be aware that despite findings of previous reviews, patients may require additional emotional support.
Authors: John G Hughes; Geraldine M Leydon; Sam Watts; Stephanie Hughes; Lucy A Brindle; Emily Arden-Close; Roger Bacon; Brian Birch; Lallita Carballo; Hilary Plant; Caroline M Moore; Beth Stuart; Guiqing Yao; George Lewith; Alison Richardson Journal: Cancer Rep (Hoboken) Date: 2019-12-09
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: Claire Kim; Frances C Wright; Nicole J Look Hong; Gary Groot; Lucy Helyer; Pamela Meiers; May Lynn Quan; Robin Urquhart; Rebecca Warburton; Anna R Gagliardi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Melissa S Y Thong; Eva-Maria Wolschon; Lena Koch-Gallenkamp; Annika Waldmann; Mechthild Waldeyer-Sauerland; Ron Pritzkuleit; Heike Bertram; Hiltraud Kajüter; Andrea Eberle; Bernd Holleczek; Sylke R Zeissig; Hermann Brenner; Volker Arndt Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2018-07-05
Authors: Julia Wade; Jenny Donovan; Athene Lane; Michael Davis; Eleanor Walsh; David Neal; Emma Turner; Richard Martin; Chris Metcalfe; Tim Peters; Freddie Hamdy; Roger Kockelbergh; James Catto; Alan Paul; Peter Holding; Derek Rosario; Howard Kynaston; Edward Rowe; Owen Hughes; Prasad Bollina; David Gillatt; Alan Doherty; Vincent J Gnanapragasam; Edgar Paez Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Tim J Hartung; Ida Rask Moustsen; Signe Benzon Larsen; Elisabeth A Wreford Andersen; Nis P Suppli; Christoffer Johansen; Anne Tjønneland; Anne S Friberg; Susanne K Kjær; Klaus Brasso; Lars V Kessing; Anja Mehnert; Susanne Oksbjerg Dalton Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 4.442