Rhea Mundle1, Evans Afenya2, Neeraj Agarwal3. 1. College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA. 2. Department of Mathematics, Elmhurst University, Elmhurst, IL, USA. 3. Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. neeraj.agarwal@hci.utah.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The increasing incidence and declining mortality rates seen in prostate cancer will result in a growing survivorship with a burden of health conditions, warranting attention to psychological health. Depression, anxiety, and distress have prognostic significance; attempts have been made to reduce them with psychological interventions using cognitive- and/or education-based approaches. The review of literature attempted to measure a clinically meaningful difference between pre- and post-intervention scores that were previously reported in randomized clinical trials. METHODS: Using the PRISMA-checklist, we identified 22 studies that assessed psychological interventions by randomizing against care as usual (CAU). We calculated a percent change between pre- and post-trial mean scores for depression, anxiety, and distress in each study and analyzed effectiveness of intervention versus CAU. RESULTS: The patient group receiving intervention showed significantly greater improvement in depression, anxiety, as well as general and cancer-specific distress as compared to CAU. The effectiveness of intervention was retained even in subgroups upon limiting analysis to seven studies that used one single assessment tool, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), or to 14 studies with localized prostate cancer (LPC). Improvement in depression did not correlate with anxiety but correlated significantly with a reduction in distress. Lastly, improvement in all three parameters was numerically greater in three studies that combined cognitive- and education-based approaches versus studies using either approach alone. CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis underscores the utility of psychological intervention for depression, anxiety, and distress related to prostate cancer. Future research should ascertain their impact on long-term clinical outcomes, like disease progression and survival.
BACKGROUND: The increasing incidence and declining mortality rates seen in prostate cancer will result in a growing survivorship with a burden of health conditions, warranting attention to psychological health. Depression, anxiety, and distress have prognostic significance; attempts have been made to reduce them with psychological interventions using cognitive- and/or education-based approaches. The review of literature attempted to measure a clinically meaningful difference between pre- and post-intervention scores that were previously reported in randomized clinical trials. METHODS: Using the PRISMA-checklist, we identified 22 studies that assessed psychological interventions by randomizing against care as usual (CAU). We calculated a percent change between pre- and post-trial mean scores for depression, anxiety, and distress in each study and analyzed effectiveness of intervention versus CAU. RESULTS: The patient group receiving intervention showed significantly greater improvement in depression, anxiety, as well as general and cancer-specific distress as compared to CAU. The effectiveness of intervention was retained even in subgroups upon limiting analysis to seven studies that used one single assessment tool, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), or to 14 studies with localized prostate cancer (LPC). Improvement in depression did not correlate with anxiety but correlated significantly with a reduction in distress. Lastly, improvement in all three parameters was numerically greater in three studies that combined cognitive- and education-based approaches versus studies using either approach alone. CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis underscores the utility of psychological intervention for depression, anxiety, and distress related to prostate cancer. Future research should ascertain their impact on long-term clinical outcomes, like disease progression and survival.
Authors: Valentin H Meissner; Kathleen Herkommer; Birgitt Marten-Mittag; Jürgen E Gschwend; Andreas Dinkel Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2017-05-21 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Sam Watts; Geraldine Leydon; Caroline Eyles; Caroline M Moore; Alison Richardson; Brian Birch; Philip Prescott; Catrin Powell; George Lewith Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-05-22 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Athene Lane; Chris Metcalfe; Grace J Young; Tim J Peters; Jane Blazeby; Kerry N L Avery; Daniel Dedman; Liz Down; Malcolm D Mason; David E Neal; Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan Journal: BJU Int Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Reka Schweighoffer; Andrea M Schumacher; Richard Blaese; Silke Walter; Sandra Eckstein Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 4.614