Search

PIONEER is a European network of excellence for big data in prostate cancer consisting of 37 private and public stakeholders from 9 countries across Europe. Many progresses have been done in prostate cancer management, but unanswered questions in the field still exist, and big data could help to answer these questions. The PIONEER consortium conducted a two-round modified Delphi survey aiming at building consensus between two stakeholder groups - health-care professionals and patients with prostate cancer - about the most important questions in the field of prostate cancer to be answered using big data. Respondents were asked to consider what would be the effect of answering the proposed questions on improving diagnosis and treatment outcomes for patients with prostate cancer and to score these questions on a scale of 1 (not important) to 9 (critically important). The mean percentage of participants who scored each of the proposed questions as critically important was calculated across the two stakeholder groups and used to rank the questions and identify the highest scoring questions in the critically important category. The identification of questions in prostate cancer that are important to various stakeholders will help the PIONEER consortium to provide answers to these questions to improve the clinical care of patients with prostate cancer., (© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: Active surveillance (AS) is recommended for low-risk and some intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Uptake and practice of AS vary significantly across different settings, as does the experience of surveillance-from which tests are offered, and to the levels of psychological support., Objective: To explore the current best practice and determine the most important research priorities in AS for prostate cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: A formal consensus process was followed, with an international expert panel of purposively sampled participants across a range of health care professionals and researchers, and those with lived experience of prostate cancer. Statements regarding the practice of AS and potential research priorities spanning the patient journey from surveillance to initiating treatment were developed., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Panel members scored each statement on a Likert scale. The group median score and measure of consensus were presented to participants prior to discussion and rescoring at panel meetings. Current best practice and future research priorities were identified, agreed upon, and finally ranked by panel members., Results and Limitations: There was consensus agreement that best practice includes the use of high-quality magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which allows digital rectal examination (DRE) to be omitted, that repeat standard biopsy can be omitted when MRI and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics are stable, and that changes in PSA or DRE should prompt MRI ± biopsy rather than immediate active treatment. The highest ranked research priority was a dynamic, risk-adjusted AS approach, reducing testing for those at the least risk of progression. Improving the tests used in surveillance, ensuring equity of access and experience across different patients and settings, and improving information and communication between and within clinicians and patients were also high priorities. Limitations include the use of a limited number of panel members for practical reasons., Conclusions: The current best practice in AS includes the use of high-quality MRI to avoid DRE and as the first assessment for changes in PSA, with omission of repeat standard biopsy when PSA and MRI are stable. Development of a robust, dynamic, risk-adapted approach to surveillance is the highest research priority in AS for prostate cancer., Patient Summary: A diverse group of experts in active surveillance, including a broad range of health care professionals and researchers and those with lived experience of prostate cancer, agreed that best practice includes the use of high-quality magnetic resonance imaging, which can allow digital rectal examination and some biopsies to be omitted. The highest research priority in active surveillance research was identified as the development of a dynamic, risk-adjusted approach., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) may enable more focused and highly personalized cancer treatment, with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines now recommending NGS for daily clinical practice for several tumor types. However, NGS implementation, and therefore patient access, varies across Europe; a multi-stakeholder collaboration is needed to establish the conditions required to improve this discrepancy. In that regard, we set up European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM)-led expert panels during the first half of 2021, including key stakeholders from across 10 European countries covering medical, economic, patient, industry, and governmental expertise. We describe the outcomes of these panels in order to define and explore the necessary conditions for NGS implementation into routine clinical care to enable patient access, identify specific challenges in achieving them, and make short- and long-term recommendations. The main challenges identified relate to the demand for NGS tests (governance, clinical standardization, and awareness and education) and supply of tests (equitable reimbursement, infrastructure for conducting and validating tests, and testing access driven by evidence generation). Recommendations made to resolve each of these challenges should aid multi-stakeholder collaboration between national and European initiatives, to complement, support, and mutually reinforce efforts to improve patient care.

Rapid and continuing advances in biomarker testing are not being matched by take-up in health systems, and this is hampering both patient care and innovation. It also risks costing health systems the opportunity to make their services more efficient and, over time, more economical. This paper sets out the potential of biomarker testing, the unfolding precision and range of possible diagnosis and prediction, and the many obstacles to adoption. It offers case studies of biomarker testing in breast, ovarian, prostate, lung, thyroid and colon cancers, and derives specific lessons as to the potential and actual use of each of them. It also draws lessons about how to improve access and alignment, and to remedy the data deficiencies that impede development. And it suggests solutions to outstanding issues - notably including funding and the tangled web of obtaining reimbursement or equivalent coverage that Europe's fragmented health system implies. It urges a European evolution towards an initial minimum testing scenario, which would guarantee universal access to a suite of biomarker tests for the currently most common conditions, and, further into the future, to an optimum testing scenario in which a much wider range of biomarker tests would be introduced and become part of a more sophisticated health system articulated around personalised medicine. For exploiting genomics to the full, it argues the need for a new policy framework for Europe. Biomarker testing is not an issue that can be treated in isolation, since the purpose of testing is to improve health. Its use is therefore always closely linked to specific health challenges and needs to be viewed in the broader policy context in the EU and more widely. The paper is the result of extensive engagement with experts and decision makers to develop the framework, and consequently represents a wide consensus of views on how healthcare systems should respond from push and pull factors at local, national and cross-border and EU level. It contains strong views and clear recommendations springing from the convictions of patients, clinicians, academics, medicines authorities, HTA bodies, payers, the diagnostic, pharmaceutical and ICT industries, and national policy makers., Competing Interests: Benjamin Horbach is a Roche employee and has stock options in Roche. Stephen Hall is a Novartis employee and has stock options in Novartis. Benjamin Gannon is a Myriad Genetics employee and has stock options in Myriad. Rocio Varea Menendezis Eli Lilly employee and has stock options in Eli Lilly. Sarah Mee is an AstraZeneca employee and has stock options in AstraZeneca. Susana Banerjee receives grants from Astrazeneca, GSK & Honoraria − Astrazeneca/MSD, Amgen, Clovis, GSK, Mersana, Seattle Genetics, Merck Sereno, Genmab, Roche, Immunogen., (Copyright © 2020 by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: ECCO Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) are written by experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care in Europe. They give oncology teams, patients, policymakers and managers an overview of essential care throughout the patient journey., Prostate Cancer: Prostate cancer is the second most common male cancer and has a wide variation in outcomes in Europe. It has complex diagnosis and treatment challenges, and is a major healthcare burden. Care must only be a carried out in prostate/urology cancer units or centres that have a core multidisciplinary team (MDT) and an extended team of health professionals. Such units are far from universal in European countries. To meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest for this paper., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: High-quality management of prostate cancer is needed in the fields of clinics, research, and education., Objective: The objective of this project was to develop the concept of "European Prostate Cancer Centres of Excellence" (EPCCE), with the specific aim of identifying European centres characterised by high-quality cancer care, research, and education., Design, Setting, and Participants: A task force of experts aimed at identifying the general criteria to define the EPCCE. Discussion took place in conference calls and by e-mail from March 2017 to November 2017, and the final consensus meeting named "European Association of Urology (EAU) Prostate Cancer Centre Consensus Meeting" was held in Barcelona on November 16, 2017., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The required criteria were grouped into three main steps: (1) clinics, (2) research, and (3) education. A quality control approach for the three steps was defined., Results and Limitations: The definition of EPCCE consisted of the following steps: (1) clinical step-five items were identified and classified as core team, associated services, multidisciplinary approach, diagnostic pathway, and therapeutic pathway; (2) research step-internal monitoring of outcomes was required; clinical data had to be collected through a prespecified database, clinical outcomes had to be periodically assessed, and prospective trials had to be conducted; (3) educational step-it consists of structured fellowship programmes of 1yr, including 6mo of research and 6mo of clinics; and (4) quality assurance and quality control procedures, related to the quality assessment of the previous three steps. A limitation of this project was that the definition of standards and items was mainly based on a consensus among experts rather than being an evidence-based process., Conclusions: The EAU Prostate Cancer Centre Consensus Meeting defined the criteria for the identification of the EPCCE in the fields of clinics, research, and education. The inclusion of a quality control approach represents the novelty that supports the excellence of these centres., Patient Summary: A task force of experts defined the criteria for the identification of European Prostate Cancer Centres of Excellence, in order to certify the high-quality centres for prostate cancer management., (Copyright © 2019 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Bone metastases in men with prostate cancer are often initially asymptomatic, resulting in delayed identification, diagnosis, and appropriate treatment. To assess how patients with advanced prostate cancer (aPC) communicate symptoms to health care providers, an international patient survey was conducted., Methods: An online and phone survey was conducted by Harris Poll in 11 countries (Brazil, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Netherlands, Singapore, Spain, Taiwan, United Kingdom, United States) from February 12 to October 27, 2015, in men with aPC (ie, those who reported as having PC beyond the prostate [metastatic]) and their caregivers. Cell weighting was used to ensure equal weight of data across countries. Percentages are based on weighted n values., Results: A total of 927 men with aPC (weighted n = 664) and 400 caregivers completed the survey. Most commonly reported symptoms were fatigue (73%), urinary symptoms (63%), sexual function symptoms (62%), and bone pain (52%). Of 568 patients with bone metastases (weighted n = 421), most (73%) noticed pain before receiving a diagnosis of metastatic PC. Most patients with aPC (56%) were uncertain if their pain was cancer related, 55% felt they had to live with daily pain, 45% sometimes ignored pain, and 39% had difficulty talking about pain. Patients who had a caregiver were more likely than those without to discuss pain at every visit (45% vs. 32%, P < .05)., Conclusions: Disease symptoms in aPC are often underrecognized. Tools encouraging effective communication among patients, caregivers, and health care providers on early symptom reporting may lead to enhanced symptom and disease management., (Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Prostate cancer (PCa) patients selected for active surveillance (AS) have received information on prostate cancer PCa, treatment, knew their serum prostate specific antigen (PSA), a digital rectal examination (DRE) done and could rely on their set of biopsies to be labelled as low grade, low volume disease (by adding a radiographic/ultrasonic measurement). They usually react euphoric to the selection hoping to escape invasive curative treatment and its side-effects. Unfortunately, this positive feeling waivers in front of uncertainty in the follow-up including biopsies. Improvements on prognostics are needed. The patients need reassuring information and confidence building to keep his choice to AS based on evidence and confidence., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

One of the key goals in the personalised medicine era is to improve communication between front-line healthcare professionals and their patients. The latter should have an equal role in any decisions made about their treatment, and this requires them to be able to input vital information, such as lifestyle and work circumstances, as well as to be properly informed from the other side. Discussions should be a two-way street. To help facilitate this, it is more important than ever to bring Europe together in a way that improves the already significant skills that healthcare professionals possess to permit co-decision-making which will effectively empower the patient. Clearly, the healthcare professional is trained to be an expert in diagnosing conditions and suggesting treatments. And yet the patient also knows more about his or her own lifestyle, work environment and how much he can rely on family-care resources, for example, so co-decision is a growing part of modern-day medicine. Ultimately, the two must work together to produce the optimal result., (Copyright © 2017 by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Literature on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for men with localized prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS) shows a need for methodological guidance regarding HRQoL issues and how to address them., Objective: The European School of Oncology Task Force (ESO TF) aimed to identify a core set of research questions and related measures to include in AS HRQoL studies., Design, Setting, and Participants: A modified Delphi study was used to reach consensus on AS HRQoL research topics and tools between 2014 and 2015. Data were collected by engaging a multidisciplinary team of 15 experts., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: An open-ended questionnaire was used to collect information from ESO TF members regarding issues in AS HRQoL research. Then a structured questionnaire was used to collect ratings on the usefulness/importance of different AS HRQoL aspects. Items that ≥80% of ESO TF members rated as useful/important were retained. Items with a 50-80% rating were discussed to reach final agreement., Results and Limitations: Six main research questions concerning the selection of outcome measures, measurement tools, and comparison groups were identified as relevant. The core set of measures identified were related to individual characteristics, psychological dimensions; decision-making-related issues, and physical functioning. The multidisciplinary expertise of ESO TF members was a significant asset, even if bringing different backgrounds to the discussion table represented a challenge., Conclusions: HRQoL measures have to be sensitive to the specific needs of men on AS. The definition of HRQoL outcomes will enhance a broader understanding of the HRQoL of men on AS and sustain patient-centered medicine., Patient Summary: An international panel agreed on a set of health-related quality-of-life aspects to be assessed among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Valid relevant questionnaires were identified. The experts' indications lay a foundation for future research and clinical practice., (Copyright © 2016 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

In this implementation phase of the European Cancer Patient's Bill of Rights (BoR), we confirm the following three patient-centred principles that underpin this initiative:The right of every European citizen to receive the most accurate information and to be proactively involved in his/her care.The right of every European citizen to optimal and timely access to a diagnosis and to appropriate specialised care, underpinned by research and innovation.The right of every European citizen to receive care in health systems that ensure the best possible cancer prevention, the earliest possible diagnosis of their cancer, improved outcomes, patient rehabilitation, best quality of life and affordable health care. The key aspects of working towards implementing the BoR are:Agree our high-level goal. The vision of 70% long-term survival for patients with cancer in 2035, promoting cancer prevention and cancer control and the associated progress in ensuring good patient experience and quality of life.Establish the major mechanisms to underpin its delivery. (1) The systematic and rigorous sharing of best practice between and across European cancer healthcare systems and (2) the active promotion of Research and Innovation focused on improving outcomes; (3) Improving access to new and established cancer care by sharing best practice in the development, approval, procurement and reimbursement of cancer diagnostic tests and treatments.Work with other organisations to bring into being a Europe based centre that will (1) systematically identify, evaluate and validate and disseminate best practice in cancer management for the different countries and regions and (2) promote Research and Innovation and its translation to maximise its impact to improve outcomes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.