Anxiety level of early- and late-stage prostate cancer patients

Department of Urology, Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Faculty of Medicine University of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
Prostate international 12/2013; 1(4):177-82. DOI: 10.12954/PI.13027
Source: PubMed


Anxiety can worsen prostate cancer patients' decision making and quality of life. Early identification of anxiety disorders is thus very important for excellent prostate cancer treatment. This study aimed to determine the levels of anxiety in patients with early-stage prostate cancer compared with advanced-stage disease.
This cross-sectional study was performed at the Department of Urology, 'Cipto Mangunkusumo' Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, University of Indonesia. The subjects were early-stage prostate cancer patients and advanced-stage prostate cancer patients with bone metastatic lesions proved by bone scan. Comparative analysis was done to analyze anxiety scores assessed by use of an 11-item modified Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer (MAX-PC) questionnaire. We also assessed the relationship of the MAX-PC score with age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value, number of bone metastases, and pain. Data were analyzed by using SPSS ver. 17 (SPSS Inc.).
There were 34 subjects with early-stage prostate cancer and 34 subjects with advanced-stage prostate cancer. We found that the mean anxiety score was significantly lower (P=0.0001) in the early-stage prostate cancer group (8.32±3.65) than in the advanced-stage prostate cancer group (12.61±4.56). Nine subjects had a pathological MAX-PC score (≥16), of whom 1 subject had early-stage disease and 8 subjects had advanced-stage disease. Furthermore, there were significant positive correlations (P<0.001) between MAX-PC score and visual analogue scale pain score (r=0.633), PSA value (r=0.263), and number of bone metastatic lesions (r=0.464). However, the correlation between age and anxiety score was not significant (P=0.170).
The MAX-PC anxiety score was significantly associated with the stage of prostate cancer. Furthermore, visual analogue scale pain score, PSA value, and number of bone metastatic lesions can also affect the MAX-PC anxiety score.

Download full-text


Available from: Rainy Umbas, Jun 02, 2015
18 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: To identify clinical variables associated with a positive computed tomography (CT) scan and estimate the performance of imaging recommendations in patients from a diverse sample of urology practices. Materials and methods: This study comprised 2380 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer seen at 28 practices in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative from March 2012 through September 2013. Data included age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, Gleason score (GS), clinical T stage, total number of positive biopsy cores, whether or not the patient received a staging abdominal and/or pelvic CT scan, and CT scan result. We fit a multivariate logistic regression model to identify clinical variables associated with metastases detected by CT scan. We estimated the sensitivity and specificity of existing imaging recommendations. Results: Among 643 men (27.4%) who underwent a staging CT scan, 62 men (9.6%) had a positive study. In the multivariate analysis, PSA, GS, and clinical T stage were independently associated with the occurrence of a positive CT scan (all P values <.05). The American Urological Association's Best Practice Statements' recommendations for imaging when PSA level >20 ng/mL or GS ≥ 8 or locally advanced cancer had a sensitivity of 87.3% and specificity of 82.6%. Compared with current practice, implementing this recommendation in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative population was estimated to result in approximately 0.5% of positive study results being missed, and 26.1% of fewer study results overall. Conclusion: Successful implementation of CT imaging criterion of PSA level >20, GS ≥ 8, or clinical stage ≥ T3 would ensure that CT scans are performed for almost all men who would have positive study results while reducing the number of negative study results.
    Urology 10/2014; 84(6). DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2014.07.051 · 2.19 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND Substance use disorder in patients with cancer has implications for outcomes. The objective of this study was to analyze the effects of the type and timing of substance use on outcomes in elderly Medicare recipients with advanced prostate cancer. METHODS This was an observational cohort study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data from 2000 to 2009. Among men who were diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer between 2001 and 2004, we identified those who had a claim for substance use disorder in the year before cancer diagnosis, 1 year after cancer diagnosis, and an additional 4 years after diagnosis. The outcomes investigated were use of health services, costs, and mortality. RESULTS The prevalence of substance use disorder was 10.6%. The category drug psychoses and related had greater odds of inpatient hospitalizations (odds ratio [OR], 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-2.8), outpatient hospital visits (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.9-3.6), and emergency room visits (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.4). Substance use disorder in the follow-up phase was associated with greater odds of inpatient hospitalizations (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.8-2.2), outpatient hospital visits (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.7-2.4), and emergency room visits (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.5-2.1). Compared with men who did not have substance use disorder, those in the category drug psychoses and related had 70% higher costs, and those who had substance use disorder during the follow-up phase had 60% higher costs. The hazard of all-cause mortality was highest for patients in the drug psychoses and related category (hazard ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7) and the substance use disorder in treatment phase category (hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.7). CONCLUSIONS The intersection of advanced prostate cancer and substance use disorder may adversely affect outcomes. Incorporating substance use screening and treatments into prostate cancer care guidelines and coordination of care is desirable.
    Cancer 11/2014; 120(21). DOI:10.1002/cncr.28861 · 4.89 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Non-communicable diseases, including cancer, start to become more common in Indonesia. According to the government statement, incidence of malignant diseases increased annually up to 8% in the last decade and these diseases become the seventh leading cause of death in Indonesia. On the basis of the latest Globocan report on cancer incidence in Indonesia, prostate cancer ranks sixth; followed by bladder (12th) and kidney (18th). More than half of patients with kidney cancer are diagnosed in the advanced stage. Besides renal cell carcinoma, there are significant number of people affected with squamous cell and transitional cell carcinoma because of kidney stones. Radical nephrectomy or cytoreductive nephrectomy was the primary treatment, mostly done as an open procedure. Transitional cell carcinoma is the commonest histology type in bladder cancer cases followed by squamous cell carcinoma, which almost always related to bladder stones. Unfortunately, >70% of our cases were diagnosed with muscle invasive bladder cancer, and ∼60% of these patients refused further radical treatment. Incidence of prostate cancer is increasing rapidly and it becomes the third most common cancer in men. However, most of our patients are diagnosed in the advanced stage. Radical prostatectomy or external beam radiotherapy is the treatment of choice in localized disease. Nearly 40% of the elderly patients are treated with primary androgen deprivation therapy. Therefore, it requires more research by the Indonesian urologists and other healthcare providers to diagnose these cancers in earlier stage as well as community education for prevention. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email:
    Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology 06/2015; 45(8). DOI:10.1093/jjco/hyv066 · 2.02 Impact Factor