4.6 Review

Interventions for prostate cancer survivorship: A systematic review of reviews

Journal

PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY
Volume 27, Issue 10, Pages 2339-2348

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pon.4888

Keywords

cancer; interventions; oncology; prostate cancer; randomised controlled trial; survivorship; systematic review

Funding

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council [APP1098042]
  2. Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To systematically review the evidence for interventions addressing key domains of the American Cancer Society (ACS) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Prostate Cancer Survivorship Care Guidelines: health promotion, surveillance, physical side effects, psychosocial management, and care coordination. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of interventions targeting ACS/ASCO guideline domains. All titles and abstracts were independently assessed for inclusion based on predetermined criteria. Relevant data were extracted, and assessment of methodological quality was performed. Results: Forty-four systematic reviews of interventions targeting ACS prostate cancer guideline domains were included for review. Exercise and psychosocial interventions were effective for improving men's survivorship outcomes in the domains of health promotion, physical side effects, and psychosocial management. Across the domains, evidence quality varied and there was a limited diversity of participants. No reviews of interventions addressing surveillance and cancer care coordination were identified. Conclusions: There are substantive knowledge gaps in prostate cancer survivorship research that are a barrier to real improvements in men's outcomes across the breadth of the survivorship experience. A targeted research and implementation agenda in prostate cancer survivorship is urgently needed if we are to meet the current and future burden of this disease on individuals, families, and communities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available