Search

Objective: To examine the associations between pharmaceutically treated anxiety and depression and incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) among 1‐year prostate cancer survivors. Patients and methods: A registry‐based cohort study design was used to describe the risk of incident CVD in adult 1‐year prostate cancer survivors without a history of CVD. Patients with prostate cancer diagnosed between 1999 and 2011 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Drug dispenses were retrieved from the PHARMO Database Network and were used as proxy for CVD, anxiety, and depression. Data were analysed using Cox regression analysis to examine the risk associations between pharmaceutically treated anxiety and depression entered as a time‐varying predictor with incident CVD in 1‐year prostate cancer survivors, while controlling for age, traditional CVD risk factors, and clinical characteristics. Results: Of the 5262 prostate cancer survivors, 327 (6%) developed CVD during the 13‐year follow‐up period. Prostate cancer survivors who were pharmaceutically treated for depression had an increased risk of incident CVD after full adjustment compared to prostate cancer survivors who were not pharmaceutically treated for depression (hazard ratio [HR] 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06–2.15). The increased risk of incident CVD amongst those pharmaceutically treated for depression compared to those who were not pharmaceutically treated for depression, was only valid among: prostate cancer survivors who were aged ≤65 years (HR 2.91; 95% CI 1.52–5.55); those who were not treated with radiotherapy (HR 1.63; 95% CI 1.01–2.65); those who were treated with hormones (HR 1.76; 95% CI 1.09–2.85); those who were not operated upon (HR 1.55; 95% CI 1.07–2.25); and those with tumour stage III (HR 2.21; 95% CI 1.03–4.74) and stage IV (HR 2.47; 95% CI 1.03–5.89). Conclusion: Patients with prostate cancer who were pharmaceutically treated for depression had a 51% increased risk of incident CVD after adjustment for anxiety, age, traditional CVD risk factors, and clinical characteristics. The results emphasise the need to pay attention to (pharmaceutically treated) depressed patients with prostate cancer prior to deciding on prostate cancer treatment and for a timely detection and treatment of CVD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate general practitioners' (GPs) experiences with providing cancer survivorship care and explore readiness for implementation., Methods: This cross-sectional survey study was nested within two randomized-controlled trials conducted in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2023, comparing GP- with specialist-led survivorship care for patients with colon or prostate cancer. An adapted version of the normalisation measure development (NoMAD) survey was distributed among participating GPs. NoMAD assesses the implementation of complex interventions and includes seven items on experiences (score ranges, 0-10) and 19 core items (expressed as % agreement). Higher scores indicate greater normalization, that is, embedding in primary care., Results: In total, 214 GPs participated (response rate, 69%). The overall experience with providing survivorship care was 7.0 ± 1.6 for prostate cancer and 6.4 ± 1.8 for colon cancer. Lowest scores were seen for willingness to provide care (5.9 ± 2.4 and 5.0 ± 2.5, respectively), expected future involvement (6.6 ± 2.0 and 5.6 ± 2.5), and appropriateness of involvement (6.4 ± 2.1 and 5.6 ± 2.7). GPs in both trials agreed (±75%) there was potential value for patients, but not for their own work (±50%). Survivorship care for colon cancer was often perceived as different from usual care (74%). GPs' self-reported knowledge of care was high in the prostate cancer trial (62%), but not in the colon cancer trial (41%). GPs from both trials agreed that they could easily integrate management of physical and psychosocial effects into their work (±70%), but integrating routine check-ups was rated less positively (±55%). Financial compensation was deemed necessary (±80% agreed). Twenty-one percent was willing to provide care for other cancer types., Conclusion: GPs recognize value of providing survivorship care for patients, but experiences differ on the basis of cancer type. Implementation of prostate versus colon cancer survivorship care appears more feasible.