Literature DB >> 33241957

Psychosocial consequences of potential overdiagnosis in prostate cancer a qualitative interview study.

Sigrid Brisson Nielsen1,2, Olivia Spalletta1,3, Mads Aage Toft Kristensen1,4, John Brodersen1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is a frequently diagnosed cancer and made up 6% of male cancer deaths globally in 2008. Its incidence varies more than 25-fold worldwide, which is primarily attributed to the implementation of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test in developed countries. To reduce harm of overdiagnosis, most international guidelines recommend surveillance programmes. However, this approach can entail negative psychosocial consequences from being under surveillance for an (over)diagnosed prostate cancer. AIM: To explore men's feelings and experiences in a surveillance programme. DESIGN AND
SETTING: Qualitative study with Danish men diagnosed with asymptomatic prostate cancer Gleason score ≤ 6, who are in a surveillance programme.
METHODS: 12 semi-structured, individual interviews were conducted and analysed with systematic text condensation and selected theories.
RESULTS: Most informants reported that they were astonished at the time of diagnosis. They were aware of the small likelihood of dying from cancer, but in some cases, the uncertainty created ambivalence between knowing and not knowing. The men expressed their risk awareness in different ways: a realization that life does not last forever, uncertainty towards the future, a feeling of powerlessness, and a need for control.
CONCLUSIONS: The men in this study had substantial psychosocial consequences from being labelled with a cancer diagnosis. Bearing these men's high risk of overdiagnosis in mind, it is important to discuss whether the harms of this diagnosis outweigh the benefits. The psychosocial consequences of being in a prostate cancer surveillance programme should be explored further. KEY POINTS Current awareness: The number of men living with an asymptomatic prostate cancer has increased the last 20 years after the implementation of the PSA test. Main Statements: Men living with an asymptomatic, low-risk prostate cancer experience negative psychocosial consequences GPs should consider the possible negative psychosocial consequences in their decision-making of measuring the PSA level.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Qualitative research; medical overuse; prostate-specific antigen; prostatic neoplasms; quality of life

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33241957      PMCID: PMC7781953          DOI: 10.1080/02813432.2020.1843826

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care        ISSN: 0281-3432            Impact factor:   2.581


  20 in total

Review 1.  The harms of screening: a proposed taxonomy and application to lung cancer screening.

Authors:  Russell P Harris; Stacey L Sheridan; Carmen L Lewis; Colleen Barclay; Maihan B Vu; Christine E Kistler; Carol E Golin; Jessica T DeFrank; Noel T Brewer
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-02-01       Impact factor: 21.873

2.  EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013.

Authors:  Axel Heidenreich; Patrick J Bastian; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Theodor van der Kwast; Malcolm Mason; Vsevolod Matveev; Thomas Wiegel; F Zattoni; Nicolas Mottet
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2013-10-06       Impact factor: 20.096

3.  A qualitative analysis of interviews of men with early stage prostate cancer: the Prostate Cancer Lifestyle Trial.

Authors:  Carol Kronenwetter; Gerdi Weidner; Elaine Pettengill; Ruth Marlin; Lila Crutchfield; Patricia McCormac; Caren J Raisin; Dean Ornish
Journal:  Cancer Nurs       Date:  2005 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.592

4.  Consequences of screening in lung cancer: development and dimensionality of a questionnaire.

Authors:  John Brodersen; Hanne Thorsen; Svend Kreiner
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2010-03-12       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 5.  Overdiagnosis: how cancer screening can turn indolent pathology into illness.

Authors:  John Brodersen; Lisa M Schwartz; Steven Woloshin
Journal:  APMIS       Date:  2014-05-26       Impact factor: 3.205

6.  A longitudinal study on the impact of active surveillance for prostate cancer on anxiety and distress levels.

Authors:  Lionne D F Venderbos; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Monique J Roobol; Fritz H Schröder; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Chris H Bangma; Ewout W Steyerberg; Ida J Korfage
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2014-08-20       Impact factor: 3.894

7.  COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

Authors:  L B Mokkink; H C W de Vet; C A C Prinsen; D L Patrick; J Alonso; L M Bouter; C B Terwee
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-12-19       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 8.  Screening for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Dragan Ilic; Molly M Neuberger; Mia Djulbegovic; Philipp Dahm
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-01-31

9.  Anxiety and distress during active surveillance for early prostate cancer.

Authors:  Roderick C N van den Bergh; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Monique J Roobol; Tineke Wolters; Fritz H Schröder; Chris H Bangma; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2009-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Evaluation of the 2015 Gleason Grade Groups in a Nationwide Population-based Cohort.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Yasin Folkvaljon; David Robinson; Ingela Franck Lissbrant; Lars Egevad; Pär Stattin
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-12-17       Impact factor: 20.096

View more
  4 in total

1.  I would rather be vaguely right than precisely wrong.

Authors:  Reidar Brumer Bratvold; Svein R Kjosavik
Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care       Date:  2022-03-30       Impact factor: 2.581

2.  Application Value of Radiomic Nomogram in the Differential Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer and Hyperplasia.

Authors:  Shaogao Gui; Min Lan; Chaoxiong Wang; Si Nie; Bing Fan
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-04-14       Impact factor: 5.738

3.  Managing lower urinary tract symptoms in primary care: qualitative study of GPs' and patients' experiences.

Authors:  Sarah Milosevic; Natalie Joseph-Williams; Bethan Pell; Elizabeth Cain; Robyn Hackett; Ffion Murdoch; Haroon Ahmed; A Joy Allen; Alison Bray; Emma Thomas-Jones; Chris Harding; Adrian Edwards
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2021-08-26       Impact factor: 6.302

Review 4.  Using theories and frameworks to understand how to reduce low-value healthcare: a scoping review.

Authors:  Gillian Parker; Nida Shahid; Tim Rappon; Monika Kastner; Karen Born; Whitney Berta
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2022-01-20       Impact factor: 7.327

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.