Investigating the psychological impact of active surveillance or active treatment in newly diagnosed favorable‐risk prostate cancer patients: A 9‐month longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective This study aimed to explore the psychological impact of favorable‐risk prostate cancer (PCa) and associated treatment (active surveillance [AS] or active treatment [AT]), comparing prevalence and temporal variability of generalized anxiety, PCa‐specific anxiety, and depression symptoms. Methods PCa patients were recruited at diagnosis prior to treatment decision‐making and completed questionnaires assessing anxiety (State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory short form [STAI‐6] and Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer [MAX‐PC]) and depression symptoms (Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale [CES‐D]) at four timepoints for 9 months. Non‐cancer controls were recruited via university staff lists and community groups. Results were analyzed using analysis of variance. Results Fifty‐four PCa (AS n = 11, AT n = 43) and 53 non‐cancer participants were recruited. The main effect of time or treatment group were not statistically significant for CES‐D scores ( P > .05). The main effect of treatment on STAI‐6 scores was significant ( F 2,73 = 4.678, .012) with AS patients reporting highest STAI‐6 scores (T1 M = 36.56; T2 M = 36.89, T3 M = 38.46; T4 M = 38.89). There was a significant main effect for time since diagnosis on MAX‐PC ( F 3,123 = 3.68, .01); AS patient scored higher than AT at all timepoints (T1 M = 10.33 vs 10.78; T2 M = 11.11 vs 11.30; T3 M = 13.44 vs 10.55; T4 M = 11.33 vs 8.88); however, both groups declined overall with time. Conclusions Men undergoing AS had significantly higher anxiety symptoms than AT and non‐cancer participants, contradicting previous literature. This may be due to perceived inactivity of AS relative to traditional narratives of cancer treatment. Participant experiences appear to be less favorable relative to other international centers. Recommendations for future research and clinical practice include the need to improve diagnosis and treatment information provision particularly for lower risk patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".