Psychosocial aspects of active surveillance

Current Opinion in Urology

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 273-277

  Kazer, Meredith W ^a   Psutka, Sarah P ^b   Latini, David M ^c   Bailey Jr , Donald E ^d  

^a FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF NURSING   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

anxiety; psychosocial disease burden; self management; support; uncertainty

Indexed keywords

ANXIETY; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION; ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION; HEALTH LITERACY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LIFESTYLE MODIFICATION; LOW RISK POPULATION; MORBIDITY; NEEDLE BIOPSY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT COUNSELING; PATIENT EDUCATION; PATIENT REFERRAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; PSYCHOSOCIAL CARE; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; SELF CARE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL FUNCTION; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; SUPPORT GROUP; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; UNCERTAINTY;

ADAPTATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; ANXIETY; COST OF ILLNESS; DISEASE PROGRESSION; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MALE; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SELF-HELP GROUPS; SOCIAL SUPPORT; TIME FACTORS; UNCERTAINTY; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 84876408654     PISSN: 09630643     EISSN: 14736586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e32835eff24     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Barocas DA, Cowan JE, Smith JA Jr, Carroll PR. and PCaSURE Investigators. What percentage of patients with newly diagnosed carcinoma of the prostate are candidates for surveillance? An analysis of the PCaSURE database. J Urol 2008; 180:1330; 1334-1335.
2. Cooperberg M R, Lubeck DP, Meng MV, et al. The changing face of low-risk prostate cancer: trends in clinical presentation and primary management. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22:2141-2149. (Pubitemid 41095147)
3. Miocinovic R, Jones JS, Pujara AC, et al. Acceptance and durability of & surveillance as a management choice in men with screen-detected, low-risk prostate cancer: improved outcomes with stringent enrollment criteria. Urology 2011; 77:980-984.
4. Dale W, Bilir P, Han M, Meltzer D. The role of anxiety in prostate carcinoma: a structured review of the literature. Cancer 2005; 104:467.
5. Ullrich PM, Carson MR, Lutgendorf SK, Williams RD. Cancer fear and mood disturbance after radical prostatectomy: consequences of biochemical evidence of recurrence. J Urol 2003; 169:1449.
6. van den Bergh RC, Essink-Bot ML, Roobol MJ, et al. Do anxiety and distress increase during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer? J Urol 2010; 183:1786-1791.
7. Patel MI, DeConcini DT, Lopez-Corona E, et al. An analysis of men with clinically localized prostate cancer who deferred definitive therapy. J Urol 2004; 171:1520.
8. Oliffe JL, Davison BJ, Pickles T, Mroz L. The self-management of uncertainty among men undertaking active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Qual Health Res 2009; 19:432-443.
9. Bul M, Zhu X, Rannikko A, et al. Radical prostatectomy for low-risk prostate cancer following initial active surveillance: results from a prospective observational study. Eur J Urol 2012; 62:195-200.
10. Vasarainen H, Lokman U, Ruutu M, et al. Prostate cancer active surveillance and health-related quality of life: results of the Finnish arm of the prospective trial. BJU Int 2012; 109:1614-1619.
11. Davison BJ, Goldenberg SL. Patient acceptance of active surveillance as a treatment option for low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 2011; 108:1787-1793.
12. Seiler D, Randazzo M, Leupold U, et al. Protocol-based active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: anxiety levels in both men and their partners. Urology 2012; 80:564-569.
13. Denberg TD, Beaty BL, Kim FJ, Steiner JF. Marriage and ethnicity predict treatment in localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 2005; 103:1819-1825. (Pubitemid 40563253)
14. Davison BJ, Breckon E. Factors influencing treatment decision making and information preferences of prostate cancer patients on active surveillance. Patient Educ Couns 2012; 87:369-374.
15. Bailey DE Jr, Wallace M, Mishel MH. Watching, waiting and uncertainty in prostate cancer. J Clin Nurs 2007; 16:734-741.
16. Kazer MW, Bailey DE Jr, Colberg J, et al. The needs of men undergoing active surveillance [AS] for prostate cancer: Results of a focus group study. J Clin Nurs 2011; 20:581-586.
17. Ahmed UH, Akin O, Coleman JA, et al. On behalf of the transatlantic consensus group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2011; 109:1636-1647.
18. Pickles T, Ruether JD, Weir L, et al. SCRN communication team. Psychosocial barriers to active surveillance for the management of early prostate cancer and a strategy for increased acceptance. BJU Int 2007; 100:544-551. (Pubitemid 47205450)
19. Bailey DE, Mishel MH, Belyea M, et al. Uncertainty intervention for watchful waiting in prostate cancer. Cancer Nurs 2004; 27:339-346. (Pubitemid 39346525)
20. Bailey DE Jr, Wallace M, Latini DM, et al. Measuring illness uncertainty in men undergoing active surveillance for prostate cancer. Appl Nurs Res 2011; 24:193-199.
21. Gray RE, Fitch MI, Phillips C, et al. Presurgery experiences of prostate cancer patients and their spouses. Cancer Pract 1999; 7:130-135. (Pubitemid 29237285)
22. MaliskiSL, HeilemannMV,McCorkle R. From'death sentence' to 'good cancer': couples' transformation of a prostate cancer diagnosis. Nurs Res 2002; 51:391-397.
23. Srirangam SJ, Pearson E, Grose C, et al. Partner's influence on patient preference for treatment in early prostate cancer. BJU Int 2003; 92:365-369. (Pubitemid 37100509)
24. Goh AC, Kowalkowski MA, Bailey DE Jr, et al. Perception of cancer and inconsistency in medical information are associated with decisional conflict: a pilot study of men with prostate cancer who undergo active surveillance. BJU Int 2012; 110 (2 Pt 2):E50-E56.
25. Fujita K, Landis P, McNeil BK, Pavlovich CP. Serial prostate biopsies are associated with an increased risk of erectile dysfunction in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. J Urol 2009; 182:2664-2669.
26. Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y, et al. Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 2010; 183:963-968.
27. Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, et al. Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-medicare. J Urol 2011; 186:1830-1834.
28. Van den Bergh RCN, Korfage IJ, Roobol MJ, et al. Sexual function with localized prostate cancer: active surveillance vs. radical therapy. BJU Int 2011; 110:1032-1039.
29. Kakehi Y, Kamoto T, Shiraishi T, et al. Prospective evaluation of selection criteria for active surveillance in Japanese patients with stage T1cN0M0 prostate cancer. Japanese J Clin Oncol 2008; 38:122-128. (Pubitemid 351337956)
30. Steineck G, Helgesen F, Adolfsson J, et al. The Scndinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4. Quality of life after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting. N Engl JMed 2002; 347:790-796. (Pubitemid 34988337)
31. Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Eldefrawy A, et al. Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. Eur J Urol 2010; 58:831-835.
32. Carter N, Bryant-Lukosius D, DiCenso A, et al. The supportive care needs of men with advanced prostate cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum 2011; 38:189-198.
33. Katz D, Koppie TM, Wu D, et al. Sociodemographic characteristics and health related quality of life in men attending prostate cancer support groups. J Urol 2002; 168:2092-2096.
34. Nicola J, McPhail G, Eastwood J, James M. Establishing a prostate cancer support group. Cancer Nurs Pract 2005; 4:33-39.
35. Kazer MW, Bailey DE Jr, Sanda M, et al. An internet intervention for management of uncertainty during active surveillance for prostate cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum 2011; 38:561-568.