MP28-08 BURDEN OF DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY IN MEN WITH HIGH-RISK, INTERMEDIATE-RISK OR LOW-RISK PROSTATE CANCER

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 May 2022MP28-08 BURDEN OF DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY IN MEN WITH HIGH-RISK, INTERMEDIATE-RISK OR LOW-RISK PROSTATE CANCER Sumedha Chhatre, S. Bruce Malkowicz, and Ravishankar Jayadevappa Sumedha ChhatreSumedha Chhatre More articles by this author , S. Bruce MalkowiczS. Bruce Malkowicz More articles by this author , and Ravishankar JayadevappaRavishankar Jayadevappa More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002571.08AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: While psychological difficulties such as depression and anxiety facing men with prostate cancer are acknowledged widely, they remain understudied. Objective was to assess the short-term and log-term burden of depression and anxiety by treatment type across different risk categories of prostate cancer. METHODS: We used data from a multi-centered randomized controlled study among localized prostate cancer patients. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, and at 3, 6, 12 and 24-month follow-up. Treatments were robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy and active surveillance. Participants were categorized into risk groups as: low risk (PSA <10 ng/ml, Gleason ≤ 6, clinical stage T1-2a), intermediate risk (PSA 10 -20 ng/ml, Gleason 7, clinical stage T2b), and high risk (PSA > 20, Gleason ≥8, clinical stage T2c-3a). Depression was assessed using Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale. CES-D score > 16 indicates depression. Anxiety was assessed using Scale for Prostate Cancer (MAX-PC). MAX-PC score > 27 indicates anxiety. Proportion of participants with depression and anxiety were compared by treatment type, for each prostate cancer risk category. RESULTS: Total of 743 localized prostate cancer patients were recruited for the study. Retention rate was > 75% during follow-up. 34% patients were low-risk, 32% were intermediate-risk and 34% were high-risk. For all risk groups, proportion of patients with depression increased between baseline and 24-month, for all treatment types. For low-risk group, at 24-month, proportion of patients on active surveillance who were depressed was lower than surgery and radiation groups (25% vs. 46% and 43%). For intermediate-risk and high risk-group, at 24-month, proportion of patients with depression was comparable between surgery and radiation. Similar pattern was observed for burden of anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Ours is one of the largest randomized controlled study that has assessed the burden of depression and anxiety in localized prostate cancer patients. In our study, we observed that a substantial proportion of localized prostate cancer patients experienced depression and anxiety. Especially, in the follow-up period, the proportion of patients with depression and anxiety increased significantly. Future studies need to examine the effects of depression and anxiety on process of care and outcomes; and the pathways. Patient-centered survivorship care strategies are needed for reducing depression and anxiety and improving outcomes in prostate cancer care. Source of Funding: Patient-centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) CE-12-11-4973 © 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 207Issue Supplement 5May 2022Page: e463 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Sumedha Chhatre More articles by this author S. Bruce Malkowicz More articles by this author Ravishankar Jayadevappa More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...