Abstract
Objective
To investigate whether prostate cancer (PCa) patients’ coping strategies (i.e., fighting spirit, anxious preoccupation, fatalism, helplessness/hopelessness, and avoidance) significantly change during the first 3-year follow-up period of active surveillance (AS).
Materials and methods
Altogether, 104 patients on AS completed the Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer (Mini-MAC) at baseline (T0), at 10 and 12 months after diagnostic biopsy (T1 and T2, respectively) and then at 24- (T3) and 36-month (T4) follow-up. Paired samples T test was used to detect statistically significant changes over time. Changes ≥ 1 point (or ≤ − 1) were hypothesized to be clinically relevant.
Results
During the first 3 years on AS, men experienced decreased anxiety, avoidance thoughts/behaviors, and fight-against-cancer attitudes, and these changes were found to be statistically significant. When considering clinically significant changes between inclusion in AS (T0) and 3-year follow-up (T4), avoidance decreased in 19% of patients.
Conclusions
Most patients were observed to have adopted functional coping strategies at baseline, which were maintained through the first 3 years on AS. Overall, men on AS may perceive increasing control over their cancer and comfort with the AS protocol over time and experience slight decreases in anxious preoccupation, cancer-related avoidance thoughts and behaviors, and fight-against-cancer reactions. For those men who find it difficult to cope with AS, psychological monitoring and interventions could be helpful throughout the monitoring journey.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Prostate cancer (PCa) is a malignant disease that is often associated with challenging and complication-ridden therapies, pain and death [1, 2]. A diagnosis of PCa can trigger consequences involving life adjustment, emotional baggage, and life-altering decisions [3]. In fact, patients diagnosed with PCa constantly navigate a complex journey while managing psychological suffering and overthinking [4, 2]. The constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands, such as the diagnosis of cancer, has been conceptualized as coping [5]. The most commonly used categorization of coping strategies used by cancer patients is as follows: (1) fighting spirit, i.e., the tendency to confront and actively face the illness; (2) anxious preoccupation, i.e., the inclination to experience the illness as an event causing marked anxiety; (3) fatalism, i.e., the propensity to have a resigned and passive acceptance attitude towards the illness; (4) hopelessness/helplessness, i.e., the tendency to adopt a pessimistic attitude about the illness; and (5) avoidance, i.e., the propensity to avoid direct confrontation with illness-related issues [6]. Each coping strategy may be adaptive or based on the context. That is, each coping strategy should be evaluated according to its impact on the relevant outcomes [7] (for a complete meta-analytic review of coping in PCa, see [8]). However, it has been suggested that patients who adopt a fighting spirit in response to their cancer diagnosis may improve their odds of survival [9]; likewise, a fighting spirit strategy seems to be associated with an improvement in quality of life (QoL), while a hopeless/helpless coping strategy seems to be associated with increased distress [10]. Roesch et al. [8] showed that men with PCa with an avoidant coping style reported worse psychological adjustment and physical health.
Usually, men diagnosed with low volume, potentially indolent PCa are candidates for both radical treatments (radiation therapy and prostatectomy) or observational protocols (i.e., active surveillance (AS)). Radical treatments can have a lifelong impact on patients’ quality of life (e.g., erectile, rectal, and urinary dysfunction) [11]. AS is considered to be a clinical option to limit the risk of overtreatment and of treatment-related impairment in QoL [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. Men who choose AS may find it hard to adjust to living “with an untreated cancer” [24, 25]. Coping strategies may predict trajectories of psychological well-being and QoL during AS [25]. As previous publication suggests [25], the psychological adjustment of men on AS could be particularly complex given the potential “unpredictable” trajectory of PCa; some men may remain on AS for many years over a long life, and some may drop out of AS sooner or later during the AS journey. Consequently, individual coping strategies are important factors in AS management [26] since good adjustment to PCa has been shown to be related to higher QoL levels [12]. Nevertheless, few studies have investigated the role of coping during the AS protocol [12, 25, 27, 28].
The present study aims to investigate whether coping strategies (i.e., fighting spirit, anxious preoccupation, fatalism, helplessness/hopelessness, and avoidance) of men on AS significantly change, both statistically and clinically, during the first 3-year follow-up period.
Materials and methods
Study sample
All patients included in the “Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance” (PRIAS) study were invited to participate in the “QoL Study,” an ancillary study approved by the local Independent Ethics Committee at Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori (Milan) (Approval number INT 46/07). The inclusion criteria for the PRIAS were as follows: prostate-specific antigen at diagnosis (iPSA) ≤ 10 ng/mL, PSA density (PSAD) ≤ 0.2 ng/mL/cc, clinical stage T1c or T2a at digital rectal exploration (DRE), Gleason Pattern Score (GPS) 3+3 or grade grouping 1 (GG1), age ≤ 80 years, and one or two biopsy cores invaded with prostate cancer (if an MRI, including targeted biopsies on positive lesions, was performed at inclusion, there was no limit on the number of positive cores). The “QoL Study” aimed to investigate patients on AS’ quality of life (such as sexual functioning, coping strategies, PCa-related anxiety, decisional conflict).
Patients who agreed to participate in the QoL study provided written informed consent after receiving detailed information from physicians. Patients filled up the questionnaire first at baseline when entering on AS. To safeguard patients’ identity, an identification number was assigned at enrolment. Successively, the questionnaire was sent by mail at each time point follow-up. Patients hand back data and a data manager archived them.
Between September 2007 and September 2017, 597 patients were enrolled in PRIAS. A total of 449/597 (81%) patients agreed to participate in the QoL study. About 130/449 (29%) dropped out from the QoL study, while 117/450 (26%) did not reach T3 yet. A total of 104/449 (23%) completed the questionnaire at all time points between T0 and T4. Their median age was 63.9 years (range 42–76 year). Clinical data at diagnosis (T0) of patients who completed all time points were shown in Fig. B (Supplementary material), while Table B (Supplementary material) shows the comparison of diagnostic characteristics between patients who did and did not dropped out from QoL study.
Coping strategies
The standard version of the Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer (Mini-MAC) [29] 29-item scale was administered to measure patients’ styles of coping with cancer. Five coping strategies were listed: fighting spirit, helplessness-hopelessness, fatalism, anxious preoccupation, and avoidance. The raw scores ranged from 1 (“definitely does not apply to me”) to 4 (“definitely applies to me”), with a high score representing a higher level of the respective adjustment style. Originally, the five subscales showed acceptable levels of reliability (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from 0.55 to 0.80) and acceptable validity [29]. The Mini-MAC was completed at enrolment in the QoL study (T0), 10 months after diagnostic biopsy (T1), immediately after the first re-biopsy (only patients still suitable for AS; T2), and then once a year after the first re-biopsy (T3, T4).
Statistical analyses
Descriptive analyses were performed to identify the presence of specific coping strategies (i.e., fighting spirit, anxious preoccupation, fatalism, helplessness/hopelessness, and avoidance) using a cutoff > 2.5 points. A paired samples T test was used to explore statistically significant differences between T0 and T4. In addition, subscales were successively tested for their possible clinical significance. The choice of threshold to be used to define changes in coping which are clinically significant was based on a conservative evaluation. Men who changed their score ≥ 1 or ≤ − 1 point were likely to have switched Likert point categories (from “it definitely does not apply to me” to “it does not apply to me,” from “it applies to me” to “it definitely applies to me,” or vice versa). Hence, we hypothesized that differences ≥ 1 or ≤ − 1 point represent the cutoff that identifies a clear change in adjustment style. The relationship between change of 1 point is subscales of Mini-MAC and quality of life was also found in the analysis of a previous cohort of prostate cancer patients undergoing active surveillance (the population of the study Bellardita L, Rancati T, Alvisi MF, Villani D, Magnani T, Marenghi C, Nicolai N, Procopio G, Villa S, Salvioni R, Valdagni R. “Predictors of health-related quality of life and adjustment to prostate cancer during active surveillance.” Eur Urol. 2013 Jul;64 (1):30–6.), where coping was significantly associated with quality of life. A summary of main results of that analysis (Spearman correlation test between subscales of Mini-MAC and subscales of Fact-P is reported in Table A and Fig. A in Supplementary Material). Analyses were performed using MedCalc software version 12.1.4 (MedCalc Software, Mariakerke, Belgium).
Results
Figure 1 shows trends of subscales over time (T0, T1, T2, T3, and T4), while Table 1 summarizes means at each time point (T0, T1, T2, T3, and T4) and the results of the paired samples T test (T0–T4). Statistically significant differences were found for anxious preoccupation (P < 0.001), avoidance (P < 0.001), and fighting spirit (P = 0.02).
The number and rate of patients reporting clinically significant changes for all the Mini-MAC subscales between T0 and T4 are highlighted in the distributions reported in Fig. 2 and summarized in Table 2. The highest rate of change was observed in the avoidance subscale, with 20/104 patients (19.2%) reporting a decrease in avoidance between inclusion in AS and 3-year follow-up. This result was also confirmed by the statistical significance analyses. Furthermore, 10/104 patients (9.6%) showed a decrease in fatalism coping between baseline and T4.
Furthermore, as showed in Table B (Supplementary materials), men who remained in the study had different clinical information at inclusion in AS (number of positive cores, number of total cores, % of positive cores at diagnostic biopsy, age at diagnostic biopsy) from those who dropped out from it.
Discussion
This study presents for the first time a comprehensive psychological assessment of the coping strategies of PCa patients on AS. Our findings provide a scenario of how PCa patients cope with cancer, showing how they adapt during the AS period and how they further cope during 3 years of “living with an untreated cancer.” Overall, our findings show that men enter AS with adaptive coping strategies and tend to maintain these strategies during the first 3 years of follow-up, with a decrease in anxious preoccupation about the disease, avoidance, and fighting spirit attitude. Our results suggest that assessment of patients’ coping strategies at the beginning of the observational protocol may be helpful to better understand how patients will cope during the AS period. When relevant, psychological interventions could be offered to help patients better face “living with an untreated cancer,” thus improving adherence to the AS protocol.
In detail, very limited changes were noted for fighting spirit, fatalism, anxious preoccupation, and helplessness/hopelessness style, while approximately 20% of patients reported a clinically significant decrease in avoidance scores over time, suggesting a positive adjustment during the observational protocol. Patients tend to slightly reduce cancer-related thoughts and behaviors (i.e., distracting themselves when they start to think about their illness; deliberately clearing their mind of all thoughts about cancer) during the first 3-year period. This could be considered as a functional adaptation to “life on AS” (i.e., living with an untreated cancer). In fact, men on AS may try to reduce the focus on cancer (cancer-related thoughts) and try to live life as it was before the diagnosis. As time goes by, men then may start perceiving increasing control over cancer and a sense of confidence in the AS protocol. Hence, when perceiving cancer to be more controllable, patients may shift from emotion-focused to problem-focused coping. Individuals usually use “problem-focused coping” in situations that are controllable, while “emotion-focused coping” is more frequent in situations in which nothing can be done. Altering the person–environment relationship causing the distress by modifying or eliminating the stressful situation (so called problem-focused coping) and regulating stressful emotions stimulated by situations (so called emotion-focused coping) are the two major functions of coping strategies [7, 30]. Usually, the “emotion-focused coping” is less effective and more likely to be associated with psychological distress [31,32,33]. However, an array of coping strategies work in real-life situations, where people switch among different coping strategies when the one they are using does not have the desired effect [7, 30, 34]. That is, understanding how patients drive their coping strategies after diagnosis might have the potential to help them better handle the whole cancer experience. Finally, these results may account for men on AS reporting good QoL levels and limited psychological distress [12]. In fact, good psychological health is associated with the adoption of a problem-focused coping strategy [31,32,33].
Our findings are consistent with Lazarus and Folkman’s [5] statements suggesting that the use of coping is motivated by how people appraise a situation. It is plausible that men on AS cognitively appraise PCa diagnosis in a more stressful way immediately after diagnosis (so that they react with a fighting spirit and slight avoidance behaviors) in comparison with the first 3-year follow-up period during which time they may become more comfortable with the observational protocol and with the idea of having a cancer.
Additionally, our results also highlighted that a scarce portion of patients changed coping strategies during the first 3-year follow-up period of Active Surveillance. Future tailored psychological interventions are recommended in order to target patients who are at risks for increasing the use of negative coping.
Further longitudinal research should investigate the changes in adjustment responses in men who have discontinued AS since it could be expected they will face further stressful events after the stress of diagnosis.
Study limitation
The present study has some limitations in terms of generalizability due to the lack of a control group and a single institution study design. In fact, it would be possible that patients not included in the QoL study might have different coping strategies. In a similar vein, patients who remained in the study are different from those who dropped out from it. That may suggests that those men may be more likely to show coping strategies. Further research is necessary to compare results within different datasets, e.g., including patients undergoing AS in different centers, patients undergoing radical treatments or focal therapy, and patients not included in the QoL study. Due to the fact that a limited portion of our baseline data have been collected in the past, further researches are recommended in order to update our findings.
Clinical implications
Although our findings reveal that good coping strategies are already present at the beginning of AS, longitudinal psychological assessment should be recommended to promptly detect changes in coping strategies needing intervention. We suggest applying follow-up monitoring on a routine basis to support all men, particularly during the first year after diagnosis [24]. Interventions aimed at promoting and increasing good coping strategies could be effective in different circumstances during AS follow-up. For instance, psycho-educational focus groups or self-help groups could be helpful for patients both in terms of receiving information about how to “surf over waves” and obtaining emotional support if needed.
In conclusion, our study suggests that AS does not seem to challenge patients’ coping strategies either at the beginning of AS or at the first 3-year follow-up. However, in light of the very important role of coping strategies in the QoL of AS men, it is essential to monitor coping strategy trajectories and to longitudinally assess coping throughout the monitoring journey.
References
Best M, Aldridge L, Butow P, Olver I, Webster F (2015) Conceptual analysis of suffering in cancer: a systematic review. Psycho-oncology 24(9):977–986
Sharpley CF, Bitsika V, Christie DR (2018) “The Worst Thing Was…”: prostate cancer patients’ evaluations of their diagnosis and treatment experiences. Am J Mens Health 12(5):1503–1509
Davison BJ, Degner LF (1997) Empowerment of men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer. Cancer Nurs 20:187–196
Linden W, Vodermaier A, MacKenzie R, Greig D (2012) Anxiety and depression after cancer diagnosis: prevalence rates by cancer type, gender, and age. J Affect Disord 141(2):343–351
Folkman S, Lazarus RS (1984) Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company, New York, pp 150–153
Watson M, Young J, Inayat Q, Burgess C, Robertson B (1988) Development of a questionnaire measure of adjustment to cancer: the MAC scale. Psychol Med 18(1):203–209
Folkman S, Lazarus RS (1980) An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. J Health Soc Behav 21(3):219–239
Roesch SC, Adams L, Hines A, Palmores A, Vyas P, Tran C, Pekin S, Vaughn AA (2005) Coping with prostate cancer: a meta-analytic review. J Behav Med 28(3):281–293
Greer S, Moorey S, Watson M (1989) Patients’ adjustment to cancer: the mental adjustment to cancer (MAC) scale vs clinical ratings. J Psychosom Res 33(3):373–377
O’Brien CW, Moorey S (2010) Outlook and adaptation in advanced cancer: a systematic review. Psychooncology 19(12):1239–1249
Steineck G, Helgesen F, Adolfsson J, Dickman PW, Johansson JE, Norlén BJ, Holmberg L, Scandinavian Prostatic Cancer Group Study Number 4 (2002) Quality of life after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting. N Engl J Med 347:790–796
Bellardita L, Valdagni R, Van Den Bergh R, Randsdorp H, Repetto C, Venderbos LDF et al (2015) How does active surveillance for prostate cancer affect quality of life? A systematic review. Eur Urol 67(4):637–645
Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A, Kakehi Y, Pickles T, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ (2016) A decade of active surveillance in the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 70(6):954–960
Marenghi C, Alvisi MF, Palorini F, Avuzzi B, Badenchini F, Bedini N et al (2017) Eleven-year management of prostate cancer patients on active surveillance: what have we learned? Tumori 103(5):464–474
Bangma CH, Valdagni R, Carroll PR, Van Poppel H, Klotz L, Hugosson J (2015) Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: developments to date. Eur Urol 67(4):646–648
Venderbos LD, Brandhof SD, Korfage IJ (2018) How does QoL compare between surveillance and active treatment? In: Klotz L (ed) Active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. Humana Press, Cham, pp 169–181
Venderbos LD, Aluwini S, Roobol MJ, Bokhorst LP, Oomens EH, Bangma CH, Korfage IJ (2017) Long-term follow-up after active surveillance or curative treatment: quality-of-life outcomes of men with low-risk prostate cancer. Qual Life Res 26(6):1635–1645
Venderbos LD, Van Den Bergh RC, Roobol MJ, Schröder FH, Essink-Bot ML, Bangma CH et al (2015) A longitudinal study on the impact of active surveillance for prostate cancer on anxiety and distress levels. Psychooncology 24(3):348–354
Daubenmier JJ, Weidner G, Marlin R, Crutchfield L, Dunn-Emke S, Chi C et al (2006) Lifestyle and health-related quality of life of men with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. Urology 67(1):125–130
Bruinsma SM, Bangma CH, Carroll PR, Leapman MS, Rannikko A, Petrides N et al (2016) Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a narrative review of clinical guidelines. Nat Rev Urol 13(3):151–167
Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V et al (2011) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 59(1):61–71
Klotz L (2012) Active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer: background, patient selection, triggers for intervention, and outcomes. Curr Urol Rep 13(2):153–159
Mohler J, Bahnson RR, Boston B, Busby JE, D'Amico A, Eastham JA, Enke CA, George D, Horwitz EM, Huben RP, Kantoff P, Kawachi M, Kuettel M, Lange PH, Macvicar G, Plimack ER, Pow-Sang JM, Roach M 3rd, Rohren E, Roth BJ, Shrieve DC, Smith MR, Srinivas S, Twardowski P, Walsh PC (2010) NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 8(2):162–200. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2010.0012
Villa S, Alvisi MF, Rancati T, Delor JPM, Avuzzi B, Bosetti D, Marenghi C, Magnani T, Morlino S, Salvioni R, Nicolai N, Torelli T, Valdagni R, Bellardita L (2016) Facing untreated prostate cancer on active surveillance: who is at risk for increased anxiety? Anticancer Res 36(5):2565–2566
Bellardita L, Rancati T, Alvisi MF, Villani D, Magnani T, Marenghi C, Nicolai N, Procopio G, Villa S, Salvioni R, Valdagni R (2013) Predictors of health-related quality of life and adjustment to prostate cancer during active surveillance. Eur Urol 64(1):30–36
Villa S, Kendel F, Venderbos L, Rancati T, Bangma C, Carroll P et al (2017) Setting an agenda for assessment of health-related quality of life among men with prostate cancer on active surveillance: a consensus paper from a European School of Oncology task force. Eur Urol 71(2):274–280
Mader EM, Li HH, Lyons KD, Morley CP, Formica MK, Perrapato SD et al (2017) Qualitative insights into how men with low-risk prostate cancer choosing active surveillance negotiate stress and uncertainty. BMC Urol 17(1):1–8
Yanez B, Bustillo NE, Antoni MH, Lechner SC, Dahn J, Kava B, Penedo FJ (2015) The importance of perceived stress management skills for patients with prostate cancer in active surveillance. J Behav Med 38(2):214–223
Grassi L, Buda P, Cavana L, Annunziata MA, Torta R, Varetto A (2005) Styles of coping with cancer: the Italian version of the Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer (Mini-MAC) scale. Psychooncology 14(2):115–124
Folkman S, Lazarus RS, Dunkel-Schetter C, DeLongis A, Gruen RJ (1986) Dynamics of a stressful encounter. Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. J Pers Soc Psychol 50(5):992–1003
Billings AG, Moos RH (1984) Coping, stress, and social resources among adults with unipolar depression. J Pers Soc Psychol 46(4):877–891
Billings AG, Moos RH (1981) The role of coping responses and social resources in attenuating the stress of life events. J Behav Med 4(2):139–157
Pearlin LI, Schooler C (1978) The structure of coping. J Health Soc Behav 19(1):2–21
Lashbrook MP, Valery PC, Knott V, Kirshbaum MN, Bernardes CM (2018) Coping strategies used by breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors: a literature review. Cancer Nurs 41(5):E23–E39
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Fondazione Italo Monzino for support for the project “Per un sentire condiviso: l’uomo e il tumore alla prostrate.”
Funding
The study was financially supported by the Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC IG16087).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 291 kb).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dordoni, P., Badenchini, F., Alvisi, M.F. et al. How do prostate cancer patients navigate the active surveillance journey? A 3-year longitudinal study. Support Care Cancer 29, 645–651 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05524-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05524-8