Karim Marzouk1, Melissa Assel2, Behfar Ehdaie2, Andrew Vickers2. 1. Urology Service, Department of Surgery and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (MA, AV), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. Electronic address: marzoukk@mskcc.org. 2. Urology Service, Department of Surgery and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (MA, AV), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Active surveillance is the preferred management of low risk prostate cancer. Cancer specific anxiety during active surveillance remains under studied. We evaluated long-term anxiety in men on active surveillance to determine whether interventions must be tailored to improve adherence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 413 men enrolled in active surveillance at a single tertiary care center completed quality of life surveys as part of routine care. A modified version of the MAX-PC (Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer) was used to determine cancer specific anxiety. Generalized estimating equations were applied to evaluate the association between anxiety and the duration on surveillance. Additionally, we examined associations between anxiety and patient age, marital status, Gleason score, the number of positive cores, family history and overall health. RESULTS: Median patient age was 61 years, median prostate specific antigen at diagnosis was 4.4 ng/ml and 95% of the patients had Gleason 6 disease. Median time from the initiation of active surveillance to the last survey was 3.7 years. There was a 29% risk of reporting cancer specific anxiety within year 1. Anxiety significantly decreased with time (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.95, p = 0.003). Pathological and demographic characteristics were not associated with anxiety after adjusting for time on surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: In men undergoing active surveillance we observed a moderate risk of cancer specific anxiety which significantly decreases with time. Those considering conservative management can be informed that, although it is common to experience some anxiety initially, most patients rapidly adjust and report low anxiety levels within 2 years.
PURPOSE: Active surveillance is the preferred management of low risk prostate cancer. Cancer specific anxiety during active surveillance remains under studied. We evaluated long-term anxiety in men on active surveillance to determine whether interventions must be tailored to improve adherence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 413 men enrolled in active surveillance at a single tertiary care center completed quality of life surveys as part of routine care. A modified version of the MAX-PC (Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer) was used to determine cancer specific anxiety. Generalized estimating equations were applied to evaluate the association between anxiety and the duration on surveillance. Additionally, we examined associations between anxiety and patient age, marital status, Gleason score, the number of positive cores, family history and overall health. RESULTS: Median patient age was 61 years, median prostate specific antigen at diagnosis was 4.4 ng/ml and 95% of the patients had Gleason 6 disease. Median time from the initiation of active surveillance to the last survey was 3.7 years. There was a 29% risk of reporting cancer specific anxiety within year 1. Anxiety significantly decreased with time (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.95, p = 0.003). Pathological and demographic characteristics were not associated with anxiety after adjusting for time on surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: In men undergoing active surveillance we observed a moderate risk of cancer specific anxiety which significantly decreases with time. Those considering conservative management can be informed that, although it is common to experience some anxiety initially, most patients rapidly adjust and report low anxiety levels within 2 years.
Authors: Elizabeth Palmer Kelly; J Madison Hyer; Amblessed E Onuma; Anghela Z Paredes; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Luke P O'Connor; Alex Z Wang; Nitin K Yerram; Amir H Lebastchi; Michael Ahdoot; Sandeep Gurram; Johnathan Zeng; Sherif Mehralivand; Stephanie Harmon; Maria J Merino; Howard L Parnes; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: Urology Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Peter S Kirk; Kehao Zhu; Yingye Zheng; Lisa F Newcomb; Jeannette M Schenk; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Atreya Dash; William J Ellis; Christopher P Filson; Martin E Gleave; Michael Liss; Frances Martin; Jesse K McKenney; Todd M Morgan; Peter S Nelson; Ian M Thompson; Andrew A Wagner; Daniel W Lin; John L Gore Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-09-13 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Matthew B Clements; Xin Lin; Caroline Gmelich; Emily A Vertosick; Andrew J Vickers; Michael K Manasia; Natalie C Wolchasty; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Vincent P Laudone; Karim A Touijer; Behfar Ehdaie Journal: Urol Pract Date: 2021-09-01
Authors: Gregory T Chesnut; Piotr Zareba; Daniel D Sjoberg; Maha Mamoor; Sigrid Carlsson; Taehyoung Lee; Jonathan Fainberg; Emily Vertosick; Michael Manasia; Mary Schoen; Behfar Ehdaie Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2019-11-29 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Eleonora Molinaro; Maria Cristina Campopiano; Letizia Pieruzzi; Antonio Matrone; Laura Agate; Valeria Bottici; David Viola; Virginia Cappagli; Laura Valerio; Carlotta Giani; Luciana Puleo; Loredana Lorusso; Paolo Piaggi; Liborio Torregrossa; Fulvio Basolo; Paolo Vitti; R Michael Tuttle; Rossella Elisei Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 5.958