Understanding how interventions reduce psychological distress in patients with prostate cancer is crucial for improving patient care. This study examined the roles of self-efficacy, illness perceptions, and heart rhythm coherence in mediating the effects of the Prostate Cancer Patient Empowerment Program (PC-PEP) on psychological distress compared to standard care. In a randomized controlled trial, 128 patients were assigned to either the PC-PEP intervention or standard care. The PC-PEP, a six-month program emphasizing daily healthy living habits, included relaxation and stress management, diet, exercise, pelvic floor muscle exercises, and strategies to improve relationships and intimacy, with daily activities supported by online resources and live sessions. Participants in the intervention group showed significant improvements in self-efficacy and specific illness perceptions, such as personal control and emotional response, compared to the control group. These factors mediated the relationship between the intervention and its psychological benefits, with self-efficacy accounting for 52% of the reduction in psychological distress. No significant differences in heart rhythm coherence were observed. This study highlights the critical role of self-efficacy and illness perceptions in enhancing psychological health in prostate cancer patients through the PC-PEP. The results underscore this program’s effectiveness and the key mechanisms through which it operates. Given the high rates of distress among men undergoing prostate cancer treatments, these findings emphasize the importance of integrating the PC-PEP into clinical practice. The implementation of the PC-PEP in clinical settings can provide a structured approach to reducing psychological distress and improving overall patient well-being.

Background/Objectives: Psychological distress is a significant concern among cancer patients, negatively affecting their quality of life and adherence to treatment. The Cancer Patient Empowerment Program (CancerPEP) was developed as a comprehensive, home-based intervention aimed at reducing psychological distress by incorporating physical activity, dietary guidance, and social support. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, accrual and attrition rates, safety, and effectiveness of the CancerPEP intervention, with and without the biofeedback device, on psychological distress from baseline to 6 months, specifically focusing on the effects of group randomization and the difference between pre- and post-intervention results. Methods: This single-site, crossover randomized clinical trial included 104 cancer patients who were randomized to receive the CancerPEP intervention, with or without a Heart Rate Variability (HRV) biofeedback monitor. At 6 months, participants who did not receive the device were allowed to use one until the end of the year, while those who did receive the device were followed up to 12 months. Randomization was stratified by the presence or absence of clinically significant psychological distress and metastatic status. Psychological distress was assessed using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. The primary endpoint was the presence of nonspecific psychological distress, as measured by the K10 scale at 6 months from the trial start, based on group randomization. A secondary exploratory analysis assessed psychological distress at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months for both groups, while controlling for group randomization and prognostic covariates. Prognostic covariates included age; comorbidities; time between diagnosis and randomization; treatment modality; relationship status; and use of prescribed medications for anxiety, depression, or both. An exploratory sub-analysis was conducted for the breast cancer subgroup, based on the sample size available after recruitment. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05508412). Results: The provision of the HRV biofeedback monitor in conjunction with the CancerPEP intervention did not significantly affect the primary outcome in either the full sample or the breast cancer subgroup, indicating that the HRV biofeedback provision was not beneficial in this trial. No self-reported or otherwise discovered adverse events at the 6-month mark were observed. About 10% of participants were lost to follow-up in both the early and late HRV monitor provision groups. Participation in the CancerPEP program led to a significant reduction in psychological distress over time. The odds of psychological distress were significantly higher at the start of the trial than at the end of the intervention (aOR = 2.64, 95% CI: 1.53–4.56) or 6 months after the intervention (aOR = 2.94, 95% CI: 1.62–5.30). Similarly, in the breast cancer subgroup, distress was higher at the trial’s start than at 6 months, i.e., after the intervention (aOR = 2.25, 95% CI: 1.24–4.08), or at the end of the trial at 12 months (aOR = 2.73, 95% CI: 1.35–5.52). Conclusions: CancerPEP significantly reduces psychological distress in cancer patients, with consistent improvements noted across various cancer types and stages, including benefits specifically for breast cancer patients. These findings build upon the success of the Prostate Cancer Patient Empowerment Program (PC-PEP), indicating that a similar comprehensive intervention can be advantageous for all cancer patients and may be further tailored to address specific needs. With its holistic approach—encompassing physical, dietary, and psychosocial support—CancerPEP shows promise as a vital component of survivorship care. Ongoing 24-month evaluations will yield critical data on its long-term benefits. Additionally, a randomized trial with a control group (usual care without intervention) for breast cancer patients is currently under way and could potentially guide the integration of CancerPEP into standard oncology care to enhance patient outcomes and quality of life.

Purpose: This is a secondary analysis examining a six-month home-based Prostate Cancer-Patient Empowerment Program (PC-PEP) on patient-reported urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal function in men with curative prostate cancer (PC) against standard of care. Methods: In a crossover clinical trial, 128 men scheduled for PC surgery (n = 62) or radiotherapy with/without hormones (n = 66) were randomized to PC-PEP (n = 66) or waitlist-control and received the standard of care for 6 months, and then PC-PEP to the end of the year. PC-PEP included daily emails with video instructions, aerobic and strength training, dietary guidance, stress management, and social support, with an initial PFMT nurse consultation. Over 6 months, participants in the PC-PEP received optional text alerts (up to three times daily) reminding them to follow the PFMT video program, encompassing relaxation, quick-twitch, and endurance exercises; compliance was assessed weekly. Participants completed baseline, 6, and 12-month International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaires. Results: At 6 months, men in the PC-PEP reported improved urinary bother (IPSS, p = 0.004), continence (EPIC, p < 0.001), and irritation/obstruction function (p = 0.008) compared to controls, with sustained urinary continence benefits at 12 months (p = 0.002). Surgery patients in the waitlist-control group had 3.5 (95% CI: 1.2, 10, p = 0.024) times and 2.3 (95% CI: 0.82, 6.7, p = 0.11) times higher odds of moderate to severe urinary problems compared to PC-PEP at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Conclusions: PC-PEP significantly improves lower urinary tract symptoms, affirming its suitability for clinical integration alongside established mental health benefits in men with curative prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer (PCa) patients and survivors are at high risk of mental health illness. Here, we examined the contribution of treatment regret, mental and physical health indicators to the social/family, emotional, functional and spiritual well-being of PCa survivors. The study assessed 367 men with a history of PCa residing in the Maritimes Canada who were surveyed between 2017 and 2021. The outcomes were social/family, emotional, functional and spiritual well-being (FACT-P,FACIT-Sp). Predictor variables included urinary, bowel and sexual function (UCLA-PCI), physical and mental health (SF-12), and treatment regret. Logistic regression analyses were controlled for age, income, and survivorship time. Poor social/family, emotional, functional and spiritual well-being was identified among 54.4%, 26.5%, 49.9% and 63.8% of the men in the sample. Men who reported treatment regret had 3.62, 5.58, or 4.63 higher odds of poor social/family, emotional, and functional well-being, respectively. Men with low household income had 3.77 times higher odds for poor social/well-being. Good mental health was a protective factor for poor social/family, emotional, functional, or spiritual well-being. Better physical and sexual health were protective factors for poor functional well-being. Seeking to promote PCa patients’ autonomy in treatment decisions and recognizing this process’ vulnerability in health care contexts is warranted.

A 28-day Prostate Cancer-Patient Empowerment Program (PC-PEP) developed through patient engagement was successful at promoting mental and physical health. Thirty prostate cancer patients from Halifax, Canada participated in the 28-day PC-PEP intervention in early 2019. PC-PEP encompassed daily patient education and empowerment videos, prescribed physical activities (including pelvic floor exercises), a mostly plant-based diet, stress reduction techniques, intimacy education, social connection, and support. Quantitative exit surveys and semi-structured interviews (conducted in focus groups of ten) were used to assess perceived factors that facilitated or impeded adherence to the program. The program received high praise from the patients and was deemed extremely useful by the participating men, who rated it 9 out of 10. Patients expressed that the multifaceted, online, home-based nature of the program helped them adhere to it better than they would have had to a single or less comprehensive intervention. Feedback from the participants indicated that the program, when viewed as a whole, was perceived as greater than the sum of its individual parts. Furthermore, the program addressed various issues, including emotional vulnerability and distress, physical fitness, urinary incontinence, challenges in expressing emotions, perceived lack of control over healthcare decisions, emotional fragility, and hesitancy to discuss prostate cancer-related matters in social settings. Patients highly (9.6/10) endorsed integrating the program into the standard care regimen from the very beginning of diagnosis. However, challenges such as work commitments were noted. Patients’ high endorsement of PC-PEP suggests that its implementation into the standard of care from day one of diagnosis may be warranted.

Background: The Prostate Cancer—Patient Empowerment Program (PC-PEP) is a six-month daily home-based program shown to improve mental health and urinary function. This secondary analysis explores weight loss in male PC-PEP participants. Methods: In a randomized clinical trial with 128 men undergoing curative prostate cancer (PC) treatment, 66 received ‘early’ PC-PEP, while 62 were assigned to the ‘late’ waitlist-control group, receiving 6 months of standard-of-care treatment followed by 6 months of PC-PEP. PC-PEP comprised 182 daily emails with video-based exercise and dietary (predominantly plant-based) education, live online events, and 30 min strength training routines (using body weight and elastic bands). Weight and height data were collected via online surveys (baseline, 6 months, and 12 months) including medical chart reviews. Adherence was tracked weekly. Results: No attrition or adverse events were reported. At 6 months, the early PC-PEP group experienced significant weight loss, averaging 2.7 kg (p < 0.001) compared to the waitlist-control group. Weight loss was noted in the late intervention group of PC-PEP, albeit less pronounced than in the early group. Early PC-PEP surgery patients lost on average 1.4 kg (SE = 0.65) from the trial’s start to surgery day. High adherence to exercise and dietary recommendations was noted. Conclusions: PC-PEP led to significant weight loss in men undergoing curative prostate cancer treatment compared to standard-of-care.