Search

Background and objective: In Europe, prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men. Screening may therefore be crucial to lower health care costs, morbidity, and mortality. This systematic review aimed to provide a contemporary overview of the costs and benefits of PCa screening programmes. Methods: A peer-reviewed literature search was conducted, using the PICO method. A detailed search strategy was developed in four databases based on the following key search terms: “PCa”, “screening”, and “cost effectiveness”. Any type of economic evaluation was included. The search strategy was restricted to European countries, but no restrictions were set on the year of publication. Key findings and limitations: A total of 7484 studies were identified initially. Of these, 19 studies described the cost effectiveness of PCa screening in Europe. Among the studies using an initially healthy study population, most focussed on risk- and/or age- and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based screening in addition to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and compared this with no screening. Incremental cost ratios (ICERs) varied from €5872 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) to €372 948/QALY, with a median of €56 487/QALY. Risk-based screening followed by MRI testing seemed to be a more cost-effective strategy than no screening. Conclusions and clinical implications: This systematic review indicates that screening programmes incorporating a risk-based approach and MRI have the potential to be cost effective. Patient summary: In this review, we looked at the cost effectiveness of prostate cancer screening in Europe. We found that a risk-based approach and incorporation of magnetic resonance imaging has the potential to be cost effective. However, there remains a knowledge gap regarding cost effectiveness of prostate cancer screening. Therefore, determinants of cost effectiveness require further investigation.

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a major public health concern for men globally and the most commonly diagnosed cancer among men in the European Union (EU). Despite large trials suggesting benefits from early detection of PCa, risks of overdiagnosis and overtreatment are evident. In 2022, the EU Commission proposed introducing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for men in an organised setting, in combination with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning as a follow-up test to minimise these risks. PRostate cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening Europe (PRAISE-U) is a pilot study evaluating the implementation of a risk-stratified population-based approach to PCa screening in Ireland, Lithuania, Poland, and two areas in Spain (Galicia and Manresa) for feasibility, efficacy, and cost effectiveness. As per the protocol designed for the pilots, men aged 50–69 yr residing within the catchment area of the study sites will be invited to participate. Those consenting to participate will undergo PSA testing, and men with PSA >3 ng/ml will undergo risk stratification before MRI and, if necessary, after MRI before undergoing biopsy. A collaborative user board comprising health care professionals, patients, and decision-makers will be formed to provide stakeholder input throughout the study. PRAISE-U will be evaluated on three major pillars: analysis of clinical and programme outcomes, psychosocial impact, and cost effectiveness. A set of key performance indicators (KPIs) has been developed to be piloted in the PRAISE-U pilot sites. The KPIs will serve to assess the performance and outcomes of risk-stratified PCa screening at each site. A REDCap database will be used to collect and manage pseudoanonymised data from the pilot sites. Ethics approval was obtained from each pilot site. The PRAISE-U pilot implementation is expected to commence in the 3rd quarter of 2024 for 12 mo and provide valuable data on the implementation outcomes of a risk-stratified screening approa

In 2022, the European Commission updated its recommendation on cancer screening, inviting the Member States (MSs) to explore the feasibility of stepwise implementation of population-based screening for prostate cancer (PCa). In line with this recommendation, the PRAISE-U (Prostate Cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union (EU)) project was initiated. As part of the PRAISE-U, we aim to understand the current practice towards early detection in the EU MSs, the barriers to implementing or planning population-based screening programmes, and potential solutions to overcome these barriers. Methods: We adapted the Barriers to Effective Screening Tool (BEST) survey to the PCa context. However, it has not been validated in this context. We translated it into all spoken languages in the EU27 and disseminated it to different stakeholders across the EU using a snowballing approach. Results: We received 410 responses from 55 countries, of which 301 (73%) were from the 27 EU MSs. The most represented stakeholder group was urologists (218 (54%)), followed by general practitioners (GPs) (83 (21%)), patient representatives (35 (9%)), policy stakeholders (27 (7%)), researchers (23 (6%)), oncologists, pathologists, radiologists, nurses, and others (16 (4%)) and one industry representative. Among all respondents, 286 (69%) reported the absence of a population-based screening programme, mainly attributed to resource limitations and a lack of political and medical society support. Out of these 286 respondents, 196 (69%) indicated that opportunistic screening is being applied in their country, and 199 (70%) expressed their support for population-based screening programmes (which was highest amongst patient representatives and urologists and lowest amongst GPs and policy stakeholders). The highest scored barriers were lack of political support, insufficient operational resources, and inadequate participation. Suggested solutions to overcome these included aware

Background:: Patients with cancer often have to make complex decisions about treatment, with the options varying in risk profiles and effects on survival and quality of life. Moreover, inefficient care paths make it hard for patients to participate in shared decision-making. Data-driven decision-support tools have the potential to empower patients, support personalized care, improve health outcomes and promote health equity. However, decision-support tools currently seldom consider quality of life or individual preferences, and their use in clinical practice remains limited, partly because they are not well integrated in patients’ care paths. Aim and objectives:: The central aim of the 4D PICTURE project is to redesign patients’ care paths and develop and integrate evidence-based decision-support tools to improve decision-making processes in cancer care delivery. This article presents an overview of this international, interdisciplinary project. Design, methods and analysis:: In co-creation with patients and other stakeholders, we will develop data-driven decision-support tools for patients with breast cancer, prostate cancer and melanoma. We will support treatment decisions by using large, high-quality datasets with state-of-the-art prognostic algorithms. We will further develop a conversation tool, the Metaphor Menu, using text mining combined with citizen science techniques and linguistics, incorporating large datasets of patient experiences, values and preferences. We will further develop a promising methodology, MetroMapping, to redesign care paths. We will evaluate MetroMapping and these integrated decision-support tools, and ensure their sustainability using the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework. We will explore the generalizability of MetroMapping and the decision-support tools for other types of cancer and across other EU member states. Ethics:: Through an embedded ethics approach, we will address social and et

Cancer survivorship was recently identified as a prostate cancer (PCa) research priority by PIONEER, a European network of excellence for big data in PCa. Despite being a research priority, cancer survivorship lacks a clear and agreed definition, and there is a distinct paucity of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data available on the subject. Data collection on cancer survivorship depends on the availability and implementation of (validated) routinely collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). There have been recent advances in the availability of such PROMs. For instance, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group (EORTC QLG) is developing survivorship questionnaires. This provides an excellent first step in improving the data available on cancer survivorship. However, we propose that an agreed, standardised definition of (prostate) cancer survivorship must first be established. Only then can real-world data on survivorship be collected to strengthen our knowledge base. With more men than ever surviving PCa, this type of research is imperative to ensure that the quality of life of these men is considered as much as their quantity of life. Patient summary: As there are more prostate cancer survivors than ever before, research into cancer survivorship is crucial. We highlight the importance of such research and provide recommendations on how to carry it out. The first step should be establishing agreement on a standardised definition of survivorship. From this, patient-reported outcome measures can then be used to collect important survivorship data.

With the new policy recommendation in 2022 to explore the possibilities of screening for prostate cancer by the European Commission, the landscape for prostate cancer early detection is evolving. In line with this recommendation, the PRAISE-U project aims to evaluate the early detection and diagnosis of prostate cancer through customised and risk-based screening programmes, with the goal to align protocols across European Union member states. This systematic review is part of the PRAISE-U project, with the goal to review the policy, medical guideline recommendations, and the current level of opportunistic screening presented in the scientific literature on prostate cancer early detection from 2016 to 2023 in European Union member states. An extensive literature search was performed on 1 June 2023 in a large number of databases, including Embase.com, Medline (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, Google Scholar, and Policy Commons. We identified 318 articles (qualitative, quantitative, and reviews), of which 41 were included in the full-text screening. Seventeen articles were ultimately identified as eligible for inclusion. The included articles revealed significant variations towards PSA-based early detection policies for prostate cancer in nine European countries. Despite official recommendations, opportunistic screening was prevalent across all nine countries regardless of recommendations for or against PSA-based early detection. This systematic review suggests that the current early detection policies are not fit for purpose. High levels of opportunistic screening and overdiagnosis persist, prompting policy recommendations for standardised guidelines, informed decision making, and increased awareness to improve efficiency and effectiveness in early detection.

Over the last three decades, the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the US-based Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening have steered the conversation around the early detection of prostate cancer. These two randomized trials assessed the effect of screening on prostate cancer disease-specific mortality. Elevated PSA levels were followed by a systematic sextant prostate biopsy. Standard repeat testing intervals were applied. After controversies from 2009 to 2016 due to contradicting results of the two trials, the results aligned in 2016 and showed that early PSA detection reduces prostate cancer-specific mortality. However, overdiagnosis rates of up to 50% were reported, and this sparked an intense debate on harms and benefits for almost 20 years. The balance between harms and benefits is highly debated and has initiated further research to investigate new ways of early detection. In the meantime, the knowledge and tools for the diagnostic algorithm improved. This is a continuously ongoing effort which focuses on individual risk-based screening algorithms that preserve the benefits of the purely PSA-based screening algorithms, while reducing the side effects. An important push towards investigating new techniques for early detection came from the European Commission on the 20th of September 2022. The European Commission published its updated recommendation to investigate prostate, lung, and gastric cancer early detection programs. This opened a new window of opportunity to move away from the trial setting to population-based early detection settings. With this review, we aim to review 30 years of historical evidence of prostate cancer screening, which led to the initiation of the 'The Prostate Cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union' (PRAISE-U) project, which aims to encourage the early detection and diagnosis of PCa through customized and risk-based screening programs.

Background: Lymphoceles, lymph fluid-filled collections within the body lacking epithelial lining, are a common complication after pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). In this study, we investigate the incidence of imaging confirmed symptomatic lymphoceles (SLC) in a centralized high-volume operating centre and assess predictive factors and treatment.Methods: We retrospectively analysed the incidence, risk factors and treatment of a consecutive series of patients who underwent PLND during RARP between September 2018 and January 2021 in a specialised operation clinic. We compared baseline patients’ characteristics and pathological data between men who developed an SLC and those who did not. A multivariable model for the occurrence of an SLC was created using predetermined, clinically relevant variables to investigate predictive factors. Results: We analysed the records of 404 patients. The median follow-up length was 29 months. A total of 30 (7.4%) patients with an SLC were identified. The median time until SLC presentation was 12 weeks [interquartile range (IQR), 4–31 weeks], one-third of SLCs presented after 180 days. Percutaneous drainage was performed in 17 patients (57%). On multivariable analysis, only body mass index (BMI) significantly increased the odds of an SLC [per 5 odds ratio (OR) =1.7; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.0–3.0, P=0.04]. Conclusions: SLCs present significant consequences, as more than half of patients with an SLC were treated with percutaneous drainage. Many patients presented later than the centralized surgeons’ postoperative follow-up, a drawback of centralized care. An increased BMI was a significant predictor for SLC.

Background and Objective: Active surveillance (AS) has been established as an important treatment option for patients with localised prostate cancer (PCa). Current evidence suggests that health literacy is an important facilitator or barrier to choosing and adhering to AS. We aim to understand how the level of health literacy has an impact on choosing and adhering to AS for PCa patients. Methods: We performed a narrative literature review in accordance with the Narrative Review guidelines through the MEDLINE online database via PubMed using two different search strategies to identify the relevant literature. We looked at literature until August 2022. A narrative synthesis was performed to identify if there is any evidence on how studies report health literacy as an outcome in the AS population and if there are any interventions targeting health literacy. Key Content and Findings: We identified 18 studies which looked at health literacy in the PCa context. Health literacy was measured in the context of comprehension of information of patients across PCa stages, decision making across PCa stages and quality of life (QoL) across PCa stages. Lower health literacy had a negative impact on the identified themes. Nine of the identified studies used validated health literacy measures. Interventions targeting health literacy have been used to improve health literacy with a positive impact across the patient journey. Conclusions: Health literacy plays an important role in enabling men to take an active part in their treatment journey. In this review, we presented how health literacy is measured and which interventions targeting health literacy are implemented across PCa. These examples of interventions targeting health literacy should be studied further and translated into the AS setting to improve treatment decision making and adherence to AS.

Currently available data from long-running single- and multi-center active surveillance (AS) studies show that AS has excellent cancer-specific survival rates. For AS to be effective the ‘right’ patients should be selected for which up until 5-to-10 years ago systematic prostate biopsies were used. Because the systematic prostate strategy relies on sampling efficiency for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa), it is subject to sampling error. Due to this sampling error, many of the Gleason 3+3 PCas that were included on AS in the early days and were classified as low-risk, may in fact have had a higher Gleason score. Subsequently, AS-criteria were more strict to overcome or limit the number of men missing the potential window of curability in case their tumor would be reclassified. Five to ten years ago the prostate biopsy landscape changed drastically by the addition of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) into the diagnostic PCa-care pathway, which has by now trickled down into the EAU guidelines. At the moment, the EAU guidelines recommend performing a (multi-parametric) MRI before prostate biopsy and combine systematic and targeted prostate biopsy when the MRI is positive (i.e. PIRADS ≥3). So because of the introduction of the MRI into the diagnostic PCa-care pathway, literature is showing that more Gleason 3+4 PCas are being diagnosed. But can it not be that the inclusion of MRI into the diagnostic PCa-care pathway causes risk inflation, resulting in men earlier eligible for AS, now being labelled ineligible for AS? Would it not be possible to include these current Gleason 3+4 PCas on AS? The authors hypothesize that the improved accuracy that comes with the introduction of MRI into the diagnostic PCa-care pathway permits to widen both the AS-inclusion and follow-up criteria. Maintaining our inclusion criteria for AS from the systematic biopsy era will unnecessarily and undesirably expose patients to the increased risk of overtreatment. The evidence behind the

Context: Harmonisation of outcome reporting and definitions for clinical trials and routine patient records can enable health care systems to provide more efficient outcome-driven and patient-centred interventions. We report on the work of the PIONEER Consortium in this context for prostate cancer (PCa). Objective: To update and integrate existing core outcome sets (COS) for PCa for the different stages of the disease, assess their applicability, and develop standardised definitions of prioritised outcomes. Evidence acquisition: We followed a four-stage process involving: (1) systematic reviews; (2) qualitative interviews; (3) expert group meetings to agree standardised terminologies; and (4) recommendations for the most appropriate definitions of clinician-reported outcomes. Evidence synthesis: Following four systematic reviews, a multinational interview study, and expert group consensus meetings, we defined the most clinically suitable definitions for (1) COS for localised and locally advanced PCa and (2) COS for metastatic and nonmetastatic castration-resistant PCa. No new outcomes were identified in our COS for localised and locally advanced PCa. For our COS for metastatic and nonmetastatic castration-resistant PCa, nine new core outcomes were identified. Conclusions: These are the first COS for PCa for which the definitions of prioritised outcomes have been surveyed in a systematic, transparent, and replicable way. This is also the first time that outcome definitions across all prostate cancer COS have been agreed on by a multidisciplinary expert group and recommended for use in research and clinical practice. To limit heterogeneity across research, these COS should be recommended for future effectiveness trials, systematic reviews, guidelines and clinical practice of localised and metastatic PCa. Patient summary: Patient outcomes after treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) are difficult to compare because of variability. To allow better use of data from patie

Background: Men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS) have shown to cope with anxiety caused by living with an ‘untreated cancer’ and different factors can influence the tolerance level for anxiety in these patients. The present study analyzes Italian (Milan) and Dutch (Rotterdam) men prospectively included in the Prostate cancer International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) trial, aiming to explore whether socio-demographic factors (i.e. age, relationship status, education, nationality) may be relevant factors in conditioning the level of anxiety at AS entry and over time. Methods: Italian and Dutch men participating in the IRB-approved PRIAS study, after signing an informed consent, filled in the Memorial Anxiety Scale for PCa (MAX-PC) at multiple time points after diagnosis. A linear mixed model was used to assess the relationship between the level of patient’s anxiety and time spent on AS, country of origin, the interaction between country and time on AS, patients’ relationship status and education, on PCa anxiety during AS. Results: 823 MAX-PC questionnaires were available for Italian and 307 for Dutch men, respectively. Median age at diagnosis was 64 years (IQR 60–70 years) and did not differ between countries. On average, Dutch men had a higher total MAX-PC score than Italian men. However, the level of their anxiety decreased over time. Dutch men on average had a higher score on the PCa anxiety sub-domain, which did not decrease over time. Minimal differences were observed in the sub-domains PSA anxiety and fear of recurrence. Conclusion: Significant differences in PCa anxiety between the Italian and Dutch cohorts were observed, the latter group of men showing higher overall levels of anxiety. These differences were not related to the socio-demographic factors we studied. Although both PRIAS-centers are dedicated AS-centers, differences in PCa-care organization (e.g. having a multidisciplinary team) may have contributed to