MP80-03 DISTRESS SCREENING IN PATIENTS WITH UROGENITAL MALIGNANCIES

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologySexual Function/Dysfunction: Penis/Testis/Urethra: Benign Disease & Malignant Disease III1 Apr 2017MP80-03 DISTRESS SCREENING IN PATIENTS WITH UROGENITAL MALIGNANCIES Pia Paffenholz, Maria Angerer-Shpilenya, Johannes Salem, David Pfister, and Axel Heidenreich Pia PaffenholzPia Paffenholz More articles by this author , Maria Angerer-ShpilenyaMaria Angerer-Shpilenya More articles by this author , Johannes SalemJohannes Salem More articles by this author , David PfisterDavid Pfister More articles by this author , and Axel HeidenreichAxel Heidenreich More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.2508AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Malignant tumors do not only have a somatic but also a psychological impact on patients. To date, only a few studies are available which evaluated the potential psychological burden of patients suffering from urogenital cancers. In this prospective, longitudinal study we examine the baseline psychological distress of patients treated for urogenital malignancies focussing on testicular cancer (TC) and prostate cancer (PCA). METHODS Psychological distress of 192 inpatients treated for urogenital malignancies was evaluated using the distress thermometer (DT), a well-established clinical tool for the detection of distress, at admission to the hospital prior to any surgical or systemic therapy. The DT consists of a visual analogue scale ranging from 0 to 10 resulting in a low (0-3), moderate (4-6) or high (7-10) stress level. Furthermore, it contains a 36-item list of problems subdivided into 5 categories (practical, family, emotional, spiritual/religious, physical). RESULTS Of the eligible 192 patients, 103 (54%) patients were diagnosed with PCA, 40 (21%) with TC, 22 (11%) with urothelial cancer, 21 (11%) with renal cell cancer and 6 (3%) with penile cancer. The mean DT score was 5 (interquartile range (IQR) 3-7) with the most common stressors being of emotional origin, namely fear (95/192, 50%), worry (85/192, 44%), nervousness (80/192, 42%), sleep disorders (75/192, 39%) and fatigue (61/192, 32%). DT analysis did not reveal any difference between the tumor entities but 64% of all patients displayed a moderate to high stress level requiring psycho-oncological support. The comparison of PCA and TC demonstrated a higher distress level in PCA patients in the subgroups of metastatic disease (median 5.5, IQR 4-8 vs. median 4, IQR 2-6; p = 0.018), secondary therapy (median 6, IQR 5-8 vs. median 4.5, IQR 2.75-6; p = 0.023) and salvage treatment (median 7, IQR 4.5-9 vs. 5, IQR 2.75-6; p = 0.021). Furthermore, PCA patients receiving salvage treatment displayed significantly higher distress levels compared to non-salvage treated patients (median 7, IQR 4.5-9 vs. median 5, IQR 2-7; p 0.028). CONCLUSIONS Our study shows that 64% of urological tumor patients should be offered psycho-oncological support. Especially patients suffering from advanced stage PCA seem to have a high stress level. Thus, physicians in the field of urologic oncology should be aware of their patients' psychological distress in order to identify high-risk patients and provide them with an appropriate psycho-oncological support. © 2017FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 197Issue 4SApril 2017Page: e1081-e1082 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2017MetricsAuthor Information Pia Paffenholz More articles by this author Maria Angerer-Shpilenya More articles by this author Johannes Salem More articles by this author David Pfister More articles by this author Axel Heidenreich More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...