Advertisement

Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 567–571 | Cite as

Examining trajectories of anxiety in men with prostate cancer faced with complex treatment decisions

  • Daniel S. J. Costa
  • Puma Sundaresan
  • Brittany Ager
  • Sandra Turner
  • Phyllis Butow
Original Article
  • 93 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To examine changes in anxiety over time (trajectories) in men with prostate cancer faced with a decision to participate in a clinical trial and to identify demographic and study variables that predict these trajectories.

Methods

Our data come from a larger study examining the efficacy of a decision aid on decisional conflict in men with prostate cancer who were deciding whether to participate in a prostate cancer clinical trial. We used latent growth mixture models to identify ‘classes’ (i.e. groups) of participants with different trajectories of anxiety, as assessed by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory state scale, and binary logistic regression to determine predictors of anxiety ‘class’.

Results

In 128 men with prostate cancer (mean age = 63), growth mixture modelling identified two classes defined by different anxiety trajectories. One class (n = 27) started with a higher mean anxiety score and did not change over time (stable high), whereas the second class (n = 101) started with lower anxiety and significantly reduced over time (low and recovering). None of the demographic and study variables (including age, education, marital status, and decision to join the trial) was predictive of anxiety class.

Conclusions

Men treated for prostate cancer who have high levels of anxiety after surgery may continue to have persistent high anxiety levels which do not reduce naturally over time. Patient or disease characteristics do not appear to predict anxiety. It is important, therefore, to monitor for anxiety in this population and refer for psychological interventions where required.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Anxiety Trajectories Latent growth mixture model Patient decision-making 

Notes

Funding information

This study was supported by Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia (Young Investigator Grant No. YI 0112) and Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists Research Grant awarded to PS.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval was obtained from the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee and from site-specific research governance bodies at each participating site (HREC/11/RPAH/433).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Balderson N, Towell T (2003) The prevalence and predictors of psychological distress in men with prostate cancer who are seeking support. Br J Health Psychol 8:125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Steginga SK et al (2004) Prospective study of men’s psychological and decision-related adjustment after treatment for localized prostate cancer. Urology 63(4):751–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Watts S et al (2013) Depression and anxiety in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence rates. BMJ Open 4:3Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Korfage IJ et al (2006) Anxiety and depression after prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment: 5-year follow-up. Br J Cancer 94(8):1093–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dunn LB et al (2012) Trajectories of anxiety in oncology patients and family caregivers during and after radiation therapy. Eur J Oncol Nurs 16(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lam WWT et al (2010) Trajectories of psychological distress among Chinese women diagnosed with breast cancer. Psychooncology 19:1044–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lam WWT, Ye M, Fielding R (2013) Trajectories of quality of life among Chinese patients diagnosed with nasopharyngeal cancer. PLoS One 7(9):e440022Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parker PA et al (2016) Relationship between illness uncertainty, anxiety, fear of progression and quality of life in men with favourable-risk prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance. BJU Int 117(3):469–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dieperink KB et al (2017) Male coping through a long-term cancer trajectory. Secondary outcomes from a RTC examining the effect of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program (RePCa) among radiated men with prostate cancer. Acta Oncol 56(2):254–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dale W et al (2005) The role of anxiety in prostate carcinoma. Cancer 104(3):467–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pearse M et al (2014) A phase III trial to investigate the timing of radiotherapy for prostate cancer with high-risk features: background and rationale of the radiotherapy—Adjuvant Versus Early Salvage (RAVES) trial. BJU Int 113:7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sundaresan P et al (2017) A randomised controlled trial evaluating the utility of a patient decision aid to improve clinical trial (RAVES 08.03) related decision-making. Radiother Oncol 125(1):124–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spielberger CD et al (1983) Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Duncan TE, Duncan SC, Strycker LA (2006) An introduction to latent variable growth curve modeling, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Muthén LK, Muthén BO (1998-2011) Mplus User's Guide. Sixth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & MuthénGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Butow P et al (2015) Clinical pathway for the screening, assessment and management of anxiety and depression in adult cancer patients: Australian guidelines. Psycho-Oncology 24(9):987–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Khoja L et al (2016) Does clinical trial participation improve outcomes in patients with ovarian cancer? ESMO Open 1(4):e000057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chambers SK et al (2014) The validity of the distress thermometer in prostate cancer populations: the distress thermometer in prostate cancer. Psychooncology 23(2):195–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pain Management Research InstituteRoyal North Shore HospitalSt LeonardsAustralia
  2. 2.Sydney Medical SchoolUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Sydney West Cancer NetworkWestern Sydney Local Health DistrictSydneyAustralia
  4. 4.Psycho-Oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG)University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  5. 5.Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), School of PsychologyThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations