Protocol-based active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: anxiety levels in both men and their partners

The emerging landscape of tumor marker panels for the identification of aggressive prostate cancer: the perspective through bibliometric analysis of an Italian translational working group in uro-oncology

Molecular heterogeneity and availability of different therapeutic strategies are relevant clinical features of prostate cancer. On this basis, there is an urgent need to identify prognostic and predictive biomarkers for an individualized therapeutic approach. In this context, researchers focused their attention on biomarkers able to discriminate potential life-threatening from organ-confined disease. Such biomarker could provide aid in clinical decision making, helping to choose the treatment which ensures the best results in terms of patient survival and quality of life. To address this need, many new laboratory tests have been proposed, with a clear tendency to use panels of combined biomarkers. In this review we evaluate current data on the application in clinical practice of the most promising laboratory tests: Phi, 4K score and Stockholm 3 as circulating biomarkers, Mi-prostate score, Exo DX Prostate and Select MD-X as urinary biomarkers, Confirm MDx, Oncotype Dx, Prolaris and Decipher as tissue biomarkers. In particular, the ability of these tests in the identification of clinically significant PCa and their potential use for precision medicine have been explored in this review.

The psychological impact of being on a monitoring pathway for localised prostate cancer: A UK-wide mixed methods study

OBJECTIVE

To address concerns over the psychological impact of being on a monitoring pathway following prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis, this study compared the psychological status of men on active surveillance (AS) or watchful waiting (WW) with men on active treatment (AT) and explored psychological adjustment in men on AS/WW.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey of UK men diagnosed with PCa 18 to 42 months previously (n = 16 726, localised disease at diagnosis) and telephone interviews with 24 men on AS/WW. Psychological outcomes were measured using two validated scales (Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale [SWEMWBS] and Kessler Psychological Distress Scale). Univariable and multivariable analyses compared outcomes between men on AS/WW and AT. Thematic analysis of interviews was undertaken, informed by a previously developed theory of adjustment to cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 3986 (23.8%) respondents were on AS/WW. Overall, psychological outcomes were similar or better in men on AS/WW compared with those receiving AT (SWEMWBS: Poor well-being; 12.3% AS/WW vs 13.9% AT, adjusted OR = 0.86, 95% CI, 0.76-0.97; K6: severe psychological distress; 4.6% vs 5.4%, adjusted OR = 0.90, 95% CI, 0.74-1.08). Interviews indicated that most men on AS/WW had adjusted positively. Men with poorer well-being were less able to accept, reframe positively and normalise their diagnosis, described receiving insufficient information and support, and reported a lack of confidence in their health care professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

Most men on AS/WW cope well psychologically. Men making treatment decisions should be given this information. Psychological health should be assessed to determine suitability for AS/WW, and at monitoring appointments. A clear action plan and support from health care professionals is important.

The Quality of Life among Men Receiving Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: An Integrative Review

Prostate cancer is very common among men in the United States. The current literature on active surveillance (AS) suggests that it is a promising treatment option for men with low-risk prostate cancer. The purpose of this manuscript is to provide a thorough integrative review regarding the effects of AS on the quality of life (QoL) of men with prostate cancer. Utilizing a methodological strategy, electronic databases were reviewed for empirical articles during the time frame of January 2006 to December 2016. A total of 37 articles met the inclusion criteria wherein 20 focused on the QoL among men only receiving AS and 16 reported QoL among men undergoing AS and other forms of treatment for prostate cancer. The review highlights the purpose, common instruments, race and ethnicity, and strengths and limitations of each article. The majority of articles indicated low levels of anxiety and depression and decreased incidences of bladder, bowel and sexual functioning among men undergoing AS in comparison to men who received other treatment modalities. The results indicated that additional research is needed to determine the QoL among men receiving AS on a longitudinal basis. The results support previous literature that indicated the positive impact of AS on low-risk prostate cancer.

Factors Influencing Men's Choice of and Adherence to Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer: A Mixed-method Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Despite support for active surveillance (AS) as a first treatment choice for men with low-risk prostate cancer (PC), this strategy is largely underutilised.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review barriers and facilitators to selecting and adhering to AS for low-risk PC.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We searched PsychINFO, PubMed, Medline 2000-now, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central databases between 2002 and 2017 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. The Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings and Significance (PREFS) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) quality criteria were applied. Forty-seven studies were identified.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Key themes emerged as factors influencing both choice and adherence to AS: (1) patient and tumour factors (age, comorbidities, knowledge, education, socioeconomic status, family history, grade, tumour volume, and fear of progression/side effects); (2) family and social support; (3) provider (speciality, communication, and attitudes); (4) healthcare organisation (geography and type of practice); and (5) health policy (guidelines, year, and awareness).

CONCLUSIONS

Many factors influence men's choice and adherence to AS on multiple levels. It is important to learn from the experience of other chronic health conditions as well as from institutions/countries that are making significant headway in appropriately recruiting men to AS protocols, through standardised patient information, clinician education, and nationally agreed guidelines, to ultimately decrease heterogeneity in AS practice.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed the scientific literature for factors affecting men's choice and adherence to active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer. Our findings suggest that the use of AS could be increased by addressing a variety of factors such as information, psychosocial support, clinician education, and standardised guidelines.

Long-Term Cancer Specific Anxiety in Men Undergoing Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: Findings from a Large Prospective Cohort

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.

Patient and provider experiences with active surveillance: A scoping review

Objective

Active surveillance (AS) represents a fundamental shift in managing select cancer patients that initiates treatment only upon disease progression to avoid overtreatment. Given uncertain outcomes, patient engagement could support decision-making about AS. Little is known about how to optimize patient engagement for AS decision-making. This scoping review aimed to characterize research on patient and provider communication about AS, and associated determinants and outcomes.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library were searched from 2006 to October 2016. English language studies that evaluated cancer patient or provider AS views, experiences or behavioural interventions were eligible. Screening and data extraction were done in duplicate. Summary statistics were used to describe study characteristics and findings.

Results

A total of 2,078 studies were identified, 1,587 were unique, and 1,243 were excluded based on titles/abstracts. Among 344 full-text articles, 73 studies were eligible: 2 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 4 chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), 6 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and 61 prostate cancer. The most influential determinant of initiating AS was physician recommendation. Others included higher socioeconomic status, smaller tumor size, comorbid disease, older age, and preference to avoid adverse treatment effects. AS patients desired more information about AS and reassurance about future treatment options, involvement in decision-making and assessment of illness uncertainty and supportive care needs during follow-up. Only three studies of prostate cancer evaluated interventions to improve AS communication or experience.

Conclusions

This study revealed a paucity of research on AS communication for DCIS, RCC and CLL, but generated insight on how to optimize AS discussions in the context of routine care or clinical trials from research on AS for prostate cancer. Further research is needed on AS for patients with DCIS, RCC and CLL, and to evaluate interventions aimed at patients and/or providers to improve AS communication, experience and associated outcomes.

The Impact of Husbands' Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Participation in a Behavioral Lifestyle Intervention on Spouses' Lives and Relationships With Their Partners

BACKGROUND

A prostate cancer diagnosis affects the patient and his spouse. Partners of cancer patients are often the first to respond to the demands related to their husband's illness and thus are likely to be the most supportive individuals available to the patients. It is therefore important to examine how spouses react and handle their husband's prostate cancer diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore how the prostate cancer diagnosis and the participation in their partners' behavioral lifestyle intervention program influenced the spouses' life, their relationship with their partner, and how they handle the situation.

METHODS

Interviews were recorded with 8 spouses of potential low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance as part of a clinical self-management lifestyle trial.

RESULTS

We identified 3 phases that the spouses went through: feeling insecure about their situation, coping strategies to deal with these insecurities, and feeling reassured.

CONCLUSIONS

The framework of a clinical trial should include mobilizing spousal empowerment so that they can take on an active and meaningful role in relation to their husband's disease. The observations here substantiate that the framework of active surveillance in combination with a lifestyle intervention in 1 specific prostate cancer clinical trial can mobilize spousal empowerment.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Creating well-designed clinical patient programs that actively involve the spouse appears to promote empowerment (meaning, self-efficacy, positive impact, and self-determination) in spouses. Spousal participation in clinical patient programs can give spouses relief from anxieties while recognizing them as a vital support for their husband.

Active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer: Is there a greater psychological impact than previously thought? A systematic, mixed studies literature review

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.

[Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer]

Autopsy studies have confirmed the high prevalence of latent prostate cancer; however, only a certain portion of patients require definite treatment. Active surveillance is one of the treatment options which, according to national and international guidelines, should be offered to patients with newly diagnosed low-risk prostate cancer. Prostate cancer-specific survival is high in these patients; therefore, curative treatment, such as radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy may be initially deferred in order to avoid therapy-related side effects. In order to qualify for active surveillance, strict inclusion criteria have to be met; nevertheless, the reliable identification of low-risk prostate cancer patients is not always possible. Patients under active surveillance are followed up regularly with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, digital rectal examination (DRE) and repeat prostate biopsies. Due to the heterogeneity of primary prostate tumors precise molecular diagnostic techniques could allow individualized treatment strategies in the future.

Responses and relationship dynamics of men and their spouses during active surveillance for prostate cancer: health literacy as an inquiry framework

BACKGROUND

Early stage prostate cancer patients may be allocated to active surveillance, where the condition is observed over time with no intervention. Living with a cancer diagnosis may impose stress on both the men and their spouses. In this study we explore whether the scores of and verbal responses to a Health Literacy Questionnaire can be used to identify individuals in need of information and support and to reveal differences in perception and understanding in health related situations within couples.

METHODS

We used the nine-domain Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) as a framework to explore health literacy in eight couples where the men were on active surveillance for prostate cancer progression. Scores were calculated for each domain for both individuals. For each couple differences in scores were also calculated and related to the informants' self-reported experiences and reflections in relation to participating in an active surveillance program. Also an inductive analysis was performed to identify themes in the responses and these themes were compared to those of HLQ.

RESULTS

The men tended to score higher than their spouses. There was no consistent relation between scores and the reported experiences and reflections. However, some interesting patterns emerged, e.g. in two of the three couples with the largest within couple differences in HLQ scores, responses revealed discrepancies in how the men and their spouses perceived their situation. Also, three themes emerged which related to six of the HLQ domains, i.e. involvement of spouses and other people around the men; support from and interaction with healthcare professionals; and use of the Internet for information retrieval.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the HLQ as an interview framework provided insight into the differences within couples and provided new perspectives on their experiences, including their contact with health professionals and the patient-spouse interaction when dealing with prostate cancer. The HLQ used as a dialogue tool may be an adjunct to assist healthcare providers to understand the need for support and information of men with prostate cancer on active surveillance and the dynamics within couples.

Expectant management for men with early stage prostate cancer

Since the dissemination of prostate-specific antigen screening, most men with prostate cancer are now diagnosed with localized, low-risk prostate cancer that is unlikely to be lethal. Nevertheless, nearly all of these men undergo primary treatment with surgery or radiation, placing them at risk for longstanding side effects, including erectile dysfunction and impaired urinary function. Active surveillance and other observational strategies (ie, expectant management) have produced excellent long-term disease-specific survival and minimal morbidity for men with prostate cancer. Despite this, expectant management remains underused for men with localized prostate cancer. In this review, various approaches to the expectant management of men with prostate cancer are summarized, including watchful waiting and active surveillance strategies. Contemporary cancer-specific and health care quality-of-life outcomes are described for each of these approaches. Finally, contemporary patterns of use, potential disparities in care, and ongoing research and controversies surrounding expectant management of men with localized prostate cancer are discussed.

Development, validation and evaluation of an instrument for active monitoring of men with clinically localised prostate cancer: systematic review, cohort studies and qualitative study

Background

Active surveillance [(AS), sometimes called active monitoring (AM)],is a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended management option for men with clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). It aims to target radical treatment only to those who would benefit most. Little consensus exists nationally or internationally about safe and effective protocols for AM/AS or triggers that indicate if or when men should move to radical treatment.

Objective

The aims of this project were to review how prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has been used in AM/AS programmes; to develop and test the validity of a new model for predicting future PSA levels; to develop an instrument, based on PSA, that would be acceptable and effective for men and clinicians to use in clinical practice; and to design a robust study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the instrument.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted to investigate how PSA is currently used to monitor men in worldwide AM/AS studies. A model for PSA change with age was developed using Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) data and validated using data from two PSA-era cohorts and two pre-PSA-era cohorts. The model was used to derive 95% PSA reference ranges (PSARRs) across ages. These reference ranges were used to predict the onset of metastases or death from PCa in one of the pre-PSA-era cohorts. PSARRs were incorporated into an active monitoring system (AMS) and demonstrated to 18 clinicians and 20 men with PCa from four NHS trusts. Qualitative interviews investigated patients’ and clinicians’ views about current AM/AS protocols and the acceptability of the AMS within current practice.

Results

The systematic review found that the most commonly used triggers for clinical review of PCa were PSA doubling time (PSADT) < 3 years or PSA velocity (PSAv) > 1 ng/ml/year. The model for PSA change (developed using ProtecT study data) predicted PSA values in AM/AS cohorts within 2 ng/ml of observed PSA in up to 79% of men. Comparing the three PSA markers, there was no clear optimal approach to alerting men to worsening cancer. The PSARR and PSADT markers improved the modelc-statistic for predicting death from PCa by 0.11 (21%) and 0.13 (25%), respectively, compared with using diagnostic information alone [PSA, age, tumour stage (T-stage)]. Interviews revealed variation in clinical practice regarding eligibility and follow-up protocols. Patients and clinicians perceive current AM/AS practice to be framed by uncertainty, ranging from uncertainty about selection of eligible AM/AS candidates to uncertainty about optimum follow-up protocols and thresholds for clinical review/radical treatment. Patients and clinicians generally responded positively to the AMS. The impact of the AMS on clinicians’ decision-making was limited by a lack of data linking AMS values to long-term outcomes and by current clinical practice, which viewed PSA measures as one of several tools guiding clinical decisions in AM/AS. Patients reported that they would look to clinicians, rather than to a tool, to direct decision-making.

Limitations

The quantitative findings were severely hampered by a lack of clinical outcomes or events (such as metastases). The qualitative findings were limited through reliance on participants’ reports of practices and recollections of events rather than observations of actual interactions.

Conclusions

Patients and clinicians found that the instrument provided additional, potentially helpful, information but were uncertain about the current usefulness of the risk model we developed for routine management. Comparison of the model with other monitoring strategies will require clinical outcomes from ongoing AM/AS studies.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Wellbeing during Active Surveillance for localised prostate cancer: a systematic review of psychological morbidity and quality of life

BACKGROUND

Active Surveillance (AS) is recommended for the treatment of localised prostate cancer; however this option may be under-used, at least in part because of expectations of psychological adverse events in those offered or accepting AS.

OBJECTIVE

(1) Determine the impact on psychological wellbeing when treated with AS (non-comparative studies). (2) Compare AS with active treatments for the impact on psychological wellbeing (comparative studies).

METHOD

We used the PRISMA guidelines and searched Medline, PsychInfo, EMBASE, CINHAL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Scopus for articles published January 2000-2014. Eligible studies reported original quantitative data on any measures of psychological wellbeing.

RESULTS

We identified 34 eligible articles (n=12,497 individuals); 24 observational, eight RCTs, and two other interventional studies. Studies came from North America (16), Europe (14) Australia (3) and North America/Europe (1). A minority (5/34) were rated as high quality. Most (26/34) used validated instruments, whilst a substantial minority (14/34) used watchful waiting or no active treatment rather than Active Surveillance. There was modest evidence of no adverse impact on psychological wellbeing associated with Active Surveillance; and no differences in psychological wellbeing compared to active treatments.

CONCLUSION

Patients can be informed that Active Surveillance involves no greater threat to their psychological wellbeing as part of the informed consent process, and clinicians need not limit access to Active Surveillance based on an expectation of adverse impacts on psychological wellbeing.

Does active surveillance lead to anxiety and stress?

For men with prostate cancer (PC), patient care and treatment recommendations should not focus solely on the disease but should also take into account the views of the patient. The diagnosis and consequences of monitoring or treatment should be fully explained. Recommending Active Surveillance (AS) for the monitoring of a proven low-risk, low-volume prostate cancer should ensure that the psychological impact of AS is taken into account and included in a holistic approach to patient and disease management. This article is a rapid literature search relating to AS, and how the psychological impact of a cancer diagnosis may influence patient choice.

Anxiety and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in patients undergoing active surveillance of prostate cancer in an Australian centre

OBJECTIVE

To assess anxiety, health-related quality of life (HRQL) and understanding of active surveillance (AS) in a cohort of patients enrolled in AS of prostate cancer in an Australian setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Survey of 61 men currently enrolled in AS for prostate cancer, which included validated measures of sexual function using the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5), voiding using the International Prostate Symptom Severity Score (IPSS) and the Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer (MAX-PC), a measure of prostate cancer specific anxiety. Three novel questions to assess patients' Understanding of AS (UAS). IIEF-5 and IPSS scores obtained through the present survey were compared with patients' scores at initiation of AS.

RESULTS

In all, 47 of 61 (77%) patients responded to the survey. There was no significant difference in patients' IIEF-5 and IPSS scores at commencement of AS compared with the survey results. Our patients' on AS MAX-PC scores were consistent with other published cohorts and did not suggest high rates of clinically significant anxiety amongst this cohort. Most (89%) of the patients' responses to the UAS indicated a correct understanding of AS.

CONCLUSION

Our patients on AS maintained their HRQL with low levels of anxiety, which did not differ from those reported in other groups of men with prostate cancer and most had an appropriate understanding of AS. This study represents one of the first Australasian investigations on HRQL and anxiety in men on AS of prostate cancer.

'What is this active surveillance thing?' Men's and partners' reactions to treatment decision making for prostate cancer when active surveillance is the recommended treatment option

OBJECTIVE

In the past decade, localised prostate cancer (LPC) management has been shifting from three radical treatment options (radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, or brachytherapy) to also include active surveillance (AS). This study examines men with LPC and partners' experiences of choosing between AS and radical treatments, and their experiences of AS when selected.

METHODS

A qualitative descriptive research design was used. Interviewed participants were men, and partners of men, who either had chosen radical treatment immediately following diagnosis or had been on AS for at least 3 months. AS was the recommended treatment. Transcribed interviews were thematically analysed and inter-rater reliability integrated.

RESULTS

Twenty-one men and 14 partners participated. Treatment decisions reflected varied reactions to prostate cancer information, regularly described as contradictory, confusing, and stressful. Men and partners commonly misunderstood AS but could describe monitoring procedures. Partners often held the perception that they were also on AS. Men and partners usually coped with AS but were sometimes encumbered by treatment decision-making memories, painful biopsies, ongoing conflicting information, and unanswered medical questions. Radical treatment was selected when cancer progression was feared or medically indicated. Some preferred doctors to select treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

To reduce distress frequently experienced by men diagnosed with LPC and their partners during treatment decision making and ongoing AS monitoring, the following are needed: improved community and medical awareness of AS; consistent information about when radical treatment is required; and consistent, unbiased information on treatment options, prognostic indicators, and side effects. Regularly updated decisional support information/aids incorporating men's values are imperative.

Psychosocial aspects of active surveillance

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the literature on psychosocial responses to active surveillance as well as educational and support strategies to promote adherence.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are two prevalent responses among men undergoing active surveillance; anxiety and uncertainty. The education of a patient about low-risk prostate cancer as well as the inquiry by the physician into patient's priorities and goals with respect to their prostate cancer diagnosis provide opportunities to facilitate a collaborative relationship between the physician and the patient. Supplemental support services for men undergoing active surveillance, including support groups and Internet-based interventions continue to be researched in relation to their role in promoting adherence to active surveillance.

SUMMARY

Active surveillance continues to remain a highly valued management approach for men with early stage prostate cancer. However, it is suggested that the psychosocial burden of living with prostate cancer plays a substantial role in adherence to active surveillance and outcomes of men with the disease. Effective clinician education and counseling, as well as the referral for supplemental support services must be implemented and documented in future research studies and clinical practice.