Strategies adopted by men to deal with uncertainty and anxiety when following an active surveillance/monitoring protocol for localised prostate cancer and implications for care: a longitudinal qualitative study embedded within the ProtecT trial
Open Access
- 9 September 2020
- Vol. 10 (9), e036024
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036024
Abstract
Objectives Active surveillance (AS) enables men with low risk, localised prostate cancer (PCa) to avoid radical treatment unless progression occurs; lack of reliable AS protocols to determine progression leaves uncertainties for men and clinicians. This study investigated men’s strategies for coping with the uncertainties of active monitoring (AM, a surveillance strategy within the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment, ProtecT trial) over the longer term and implications for optimising supportive care. Design Longitudinal serial in-depth qualitative interviews every 2–3 years for a median 7 (range 6–14) years following diagnosis. Setting Four centres within the UK Protect trial. Participants Purposive sample of 20 men with localised PCa: median age at diagnosis 64 years (range 52–68); 15 (75%) had low-risk PCa; 12 randomly allocated to, 8 choosing AM. Eleven men continued with AM throughout the study period (median 7 years). Nine received radical treatment after a median 4 years (range 0.8–13.8 years). Intervention AM: 3-monthly serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-level assessment (year 1), 6–12 monthly thereafter; increase in PSA ≥50% during previous 12 months or patient/clinician concern triggered review. Main outcomes Thematic analysis of 73 interviews identified strategies to accommodate uncertainty and anxiety of living with untreated cancer; implications for patient care. Results Men sought clarity, control or reassurance, with contextual factors mediating individual responses. Trust in the clinical team was critical for men in balancing anxiety and facilitating successful management change/continued monitoring. Only men from ProtecT were included; men outside ProtecT may have different experiences. Conclusion Men looked to clinicians for clarity, control and reassurance. Where provided, men felt comfortable continuing AM or having radical treatments when indicated. Clinicians build patient trust by clearly describing uncertainties, allowing patients control wherever possible and being aware of how context influences individual responses. Insights indicate need for supportive services to build trust and patient engagement over the long term. Trial registration number ISRCTN20141297; Pre-results.Funding Information
- Health Technology Assessment Programme (96/20/99, 96/20/06)
This publication has 35 references indexed in Scilit:
- How Does Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer Affect Quality of Life? A Systematic ReviewEuropean Urology, 2015
- Wellbeing during Active Surveillance for localised prostate cancer: A systematic review of psychological morbidity and quality of lifeCancer Treatment Reviews, 2014
- Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy, or radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: study design and diagnostic and baseline results of the ProtecT randomised phase 3 trialThe Lancet Oncology, 2014
- Standards for Reporting Qualitative ResearchAcademic Medicine, 2014
- Depression and anxiety in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence ratesBMJ Open, 2014
- Radical Prostatectomy or Watchful Waiting in Early Prostate CancerThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2014
- Men with prostate cancer make positive dietary changes following diagnosis and treatmentCancer Causes & Control, 2013
- Impact of prostate cancer testing: an evaluation of the emotional consequences of a negative biopsy resultBritish Journal of Cancer, 2010
- The Self-Management of Uncertainty Among Men Undertaking Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate CancerQualitative Health Research, 2009
- Quality improvement report Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficultBMJ, 2002