Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Cancer
Published in: BMC Cancer 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Study protocol

An exploration of men’s experiences of undergoing active surveillance for favourable-risk prostate cancer: A mixed methods study protocol

Authors: Eimear Ruane-McAteer, Joe O’Sullivan, Sam Porter, Lionne Venderbos, Gillian Prue

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Prostate cancer is one of the most common male cancers worldwide. Active Surveillance (AS) has been developed to allow men with lower risk disease to postpone or avoid the adverse side effects associated with curative treatments until the disease progresses. Despite the medical benefits of AS, it is reported that living with untreated cancer can create a significant emotional burden for patients.

Methods/design

The aim of this study is to gain insight into the experiences of men eligible to undergo AS for favourable-risk PCa.
This study has a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design consisting of two phases: quantitative followed by qualitative. Phase 1 has a multiple point, prospective, longitudinal exploratory design. Ninety men diagnosed with favourable-risk prostate cancer will be assessed immediately post-diagnosis (baseline) and followed over a period of 12 months, in intervals of 3 month. Ninety age-matched men with no cancer diagnosis will also be recruited using peer nomination and followed up in the same 3 month intervals. Following completion of Phase 1, 10–15 AS participants who have reported both the best and worst psychological functioning will be invited to participate in semi-structured qualitative interviews. Phase 2 will facilitate further exploration of the quantitative results and obtain a richer understanding of participants’ personal interpretations of their illness and psychological wellbeing.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to utilise early baseline measures; include a healthy comparison group; calculate sample size through power calculations; and use a mixed methods approach to gain a deeper more holistic insight into the experiences of men diagnosed with favourable-risk prostate cancer.
Literature
1.
Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2013; doi:10.​1002/​ijc.​29210.
2.
3.
Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, Barry MJ, Aronson WJ, Fox S, Wheeler T. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Eng J Med. 2012;367:203–13.CrossRef
4.
Bailey DE, Wallace M, Mishel MH. Watching, waiting and uncertainty in prostate cancer. J Clin Nurs. 2007;16:734–41.CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
Kazer MW. Conversion from active surveillance to active treatment for prostate cancer: A qualitative analysis. J Nurs Educ Pract. 2012;2(2):80–8. doi:10.​5430/​jnep.​v2n2p80.
7.
Bellardita L, Valdagni R, van den Bergh R, Randsdorp H, Repetto C, Venderbos LDF, … Korfage IJ. How Does Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer Affect Quality of Life? A Systematic Review. Eur Urol. 2014; 1–9. doi:10.​1016/​j.​eururo.​2014.​10.​028.
8.
Carter G, Clover K, Britton B, Mitchell AJ, White M, McLeod N, Denham J, Lambert SD. Wellbeing during Active Surveillance for localised prostate cancer: A systematic review of psychological morbidity and quality of life. Cancer Treat Rev. 2015;41:46–60.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL, Gutmann ML, Hanson WE. Advanced mixed methods research designs. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. 2003. p. 209–40.
10.
Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. CA: Sage Publications; 2007.
11.
Tashakkori A, Teddlie C. Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1998.
12.
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175–91.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Marteau TM, Bekker H. The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Br J Clin Psychol. 1992;31:301–6.CrossRefPubMed
14.
van den Bergh RCN, Essink-Bot M-L, Roobol MJ, Wolters T, Schröder FH, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW. Anxiety and distress during active surveillance for early prostate cancer. Cancer. 2009; doi:10.​1002/​cncr.​24446.
15.
Venderbos LDF, Korfage IJ, Roobol MJ. Quality of life of men on active surveillance for prostate cancer versus men without prostate cancer: are there any differences? Eur Urol Supplement. 2015;14(7):162.
16.
17.
Jacobsen PB, Hann DM, Azzarello LM, Horton J, Balducci L, Lyman GH. Fatigue in women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: characteristics, course, and correlates. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1999;18:233–42.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Logan HL, Tomar SL, Chang M, Turner GE, Mendenhall WM, Riggs CE. Selecting a comparison group for 5-year oral and pharyngeal cancer survivors: Two methods. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):1.CrossRef
19.
Prue G, Allen J, Gracey J, Rankin J, Cramp F. Fatigue in gynecological cancer patients during and after anticancer treatment. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2010;39:197–210.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Eysenck HJ, Eysenck SBG. Manual of the Eysenck Personality Scales (EPS Adult). London: Hodder & Stoughton; 1991.
21.
Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: A self report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas. 1977;1:385–401.CrossRef
22.
Roth AJ, Rosenfeld B, Kornblith AB, Gibson C, Scher HI, Curley‐Smart T, Breitbart W. The memorial anxiety scale for prostate cancer. Cancer. 2003;97(11):2910–8.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Mishel MH. Uncertainty in Illness Scales manual. Available from M Mishel at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Chapel Hill: School of Nursing; 1997.
24.
25.
The EuroQol Group. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.CrossRef
26.
Wei J, Dunn R, Litwin M, Sandler H, Sanda M. Development and Validation of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology. 2000;56:899–905.CrossRefPubMed
27.
28.
Roth A, Nelson CJ, Rosenfeld B, Warshowski A, O’Shea N, Scher H, Breitbart W. Assessing anxiety in men with prostate cancer: further data on the reliability and validity of the Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer (MAX–PC). Psychosomatics. 2006;47(4):340–7.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Brehaut JC, O’Connor AM, Wood TJ, Hack TF, Siminoff L, Gordon E, Feldman-Stewart D. Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Making. 2003;23(4):281–92.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Szymanski KM, Wei JT, Dunn RL, Sanda MG. Development and validation of an abbreviated version of the expanded prostate cancer index composite instrument for measuring health-related quality of life among prostate cancer survivors. Urology. 2010;76(5):1245–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Bailey DE, Wallace M, Latini DM, Hegarty J, Carroll PR, Klein EA, Albertsen PC. Measuring illness uncertainty in men undergoing active surveillance for prostate cancer. Appl Nurs Res. 2011;24(4):193–9.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Mishel M, Epstein D. Uncertainty in illness scales: manual. Tucson: University of Arizona; 1990.
33.
Janssen MF, Birnie E, Haagsma JA, Bonsel GJ. Comparing the standard EQ-5D three level system with a five-level version. Value Health. 2008;11(2):275–84.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, Busschbach J. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5 L compared to the EQ-5D-3 L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1717–27.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Group Oxford. A structured review of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for prostate cancer. Report to the Dept of health. 2009.
36.
Davey H, Barratt AL, Butow PN, Deeks JJ. A one-item question with a Likert or Visual Analog Scale adequately measured current anxiety. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:356–60.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Bindhim NF, Shaman AM, Alhawassi TM. Confirming the one-item question likert scale to measure anxiety. Internet J Epidemiol. 2013;11:2.
38.
Creswell JW. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2013.
39.
Goodwin D. Ethical issues in qualitative research in health care. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2006.
40.
McSorley O, McCaughan E, Prue G, Bunting B, Parahoo K, O’Sullivan J. A longitudinal study of coping strategies in men receiving radiotherapy and neo-adjuvant androgen deprivation for prostate cancer: a quantitative and qualitative study. J Adv Nurs. 2013;70:625–38.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Corp IBM. IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 22.0. Armonk: IBM Corp; 2013.
42.
Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS. Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods. Secondth ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2002.
43.
Lininger M, Spybrook J, Cheatham CC. Hierarchical linear model: thinking outside the traditional repeated-measures analysis-of-variance box. J Athl Train. 2015;50(4):438.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.CrossRef
45.
Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1994.
46.
47.
Richards L. Using NVivo in Qualitative Research. London & Los Angeles: Sage; 1999.
48.
O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. BMJ. 2010;341:1147–50.
49.
Metadata
Title
An exploration of men’s experiences of undergoing active surveillance for favourable-risk prostate cancer: A mixed methods study protocol
Authors
Eimear Ruane-McAteer
Joe O’Sullivan
Sam Porter
Lionne Venderbos
Gillian Prue
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-016-2605-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Cancer 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research article

A genetic variant of the NTCP gene is associated with HBV infection status in a Chinese population

Research article

The triptolide derivative MRx102 inhibits Wnt pathway activation and has potent anti-tumor effects in lung cancer

Case report

Primary diffuse leptomeningeal gliomatosis as a rare cause of pain in cervical spine

Research article

Relevance of miR-21 in regulation of tumor suppressor gene PTEN in human cervical cancer cells

Research article

Epigenetic silencing of miR-181c by DNA methylation in glioblastoma cell lines

Research article

Dynamic modulation of phosphoprotein expression in ovarian cancer xenograft models
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits