Search

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 awareness campaigns, consensus meetings, political lobbying and European guidelines (to overcome political support barriers), compatible IT systems (to overcome operational barriers), and easy access (to overcome participation barriers). Conclusions: Participants have noted the presence of opportunistic screening, and particularly urologists and patient representatives expressed their support for the establishment of a population-based PCa screening programme. Nevertheless, successful implementation of population-based screening programmes is complex; it requires political and medical society support, operational resources and capacity, awareness campaigns, as well as the development of protocols, guidelines, and legal frameworks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background and Objective: While prostate cancer (PCa) incidence and mortality rates continue to rise, early detection of PCa remains highly controversial, and the research landscape is rapidly evolving. Existing systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) provide valuable insights, but often focus on single aspects of early detection, hindering a comprehensive understanding of the topic. We aim to fill this gap by providing a comprehensive SR of contemporary SRs covering different aspects of early detection of PCa in the European Union (EU) and the UK., Methods: On June 1, 2023, we searched four databases (Medline ALL via Ovid, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and Google Scholar. To avoid repetition of previous studies, only SRs (qualitative, quantitative, and/or MAs) were considered eligible. In the data, common themes were identified to present the evidence systematically., Key Findings and Limitations: We identified 1358 citations, resulting in 26 SRs eligible for inclusion. Six themes were identified: (1) invitation: men at general risk should be invited at >50 yr of age, and testing should be discontinued at >70 yr or with <10 yr of life expectancy; (2) decision-making: most health authorities discourage population-based screening and instead recommend a shared decision-making (SDM) approach, but implementation of SDM in clinical practice varies widely; decision aids help men make more informed and value-consistent screening decisions and decrease men's intention to attempt screening, but these do not affect screening uptake; (3) acceptance: facilitators for men considering screening include social prompting by partners and clinician recommendations, while barriers include a lack of knowledge, low-risk perception, and masculinity attributes; (4) screening test and algorithm: prostate-specific antigen-based screening reduces PCa-specific mortality and metastatic disease in men aged 55-69 yr at randomisation if screened at least twice; (5) harms and benefits: these benefits come at the cost of unnecessary biopsies, overdiagnosis, and subsequent overtreatment; and (6) future of screening: risk-adapted screening including (prebiopsy) risk calculators, magnetic resonance imaging, and blood- and urine-based biomarkers could reduce these harms. To enable a comprehensive overview, we focused on SRs. These do not include the most recent prospective studies, which were therefore incorporated in the discussion., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: By identifying consistent and conflicting evidence, this review highlights the evidence-based foundations that can be built upon, as well as areas requiring further research and improvement to reduce the burden of PCa in the EU and UK., Patient Summary: This review of 26 reviews covers various aspects of prostate cancer screening such as invitation, decision-making, screening tests, harms, and benefits. This review provides insights into existing evidence, highlighting the areas of consensus and discrepancies, to guide future research and improve prostate cancer screening strategies in Europe., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: The ability of health care professionals to communicate with patients compassionately and effectively is crucial for shared decision-making, but little research has investigated patient-clinician communication. As part of PIONEER-an international Big Data Consortium led by the European Association of Urology to answer key questions for men with prostate cancer (PCa), funded through the IMI2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement 777492- we investigated communication between men diagnosed with PCa and the health care professional(s) treating them across Europe., Methods: We used the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Communication 26, which was shared via the PIONEER and patient organisations on March 11, 2022. We sought men who spoke French, Italian, Spanish, German, Dutch, or English who were diagnosed with PCa and were undergoing or had already received treatment for their PCa., Results and Limitations: A total of 372 men reported that they communicated with their clinician during either the diagnostic or the treatment period. Overall, the majority of participants reported positive experiences. However, important opportunities to enhance communication were identified, particularly with regard to correcting misunderstandings, understanding the patient's preferred approach to information presentation, addressing challenging questions, supporting the patient's comprehension of information, attending to the patient's emotional needs, and assessing what information had already been given to patients about their disease and treatment, and how much of it was understood., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: These results help us to identify gaps and barriers to shared treatment decision making. This knowledge will help devise measures to improve patient-health care professional communication in the PCa setting., Patient Summary: As part of the PIONEER initiative, we investigated the communication between men diagnosed with prostate cancer and their health care professionals across Europe. A total of 372 men from six different countries participated in the study. Most participants reported positive experiences, but areas where communication could be improved were identified. These included addressing misunderstandings, tailoring the presentation of information to the patient's preferences, handling difficult questions, supporting emotional needs, and assessing the patient's understanding of their diagnosis and treatment., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

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., (© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology.)

Background: To further strengthen the voice of patients, Europa Uomo initiated the Europa Uomo Patient Reported Outcome Study 2.0 (EUPROMS 2.0) in October 2021., Objective: To collect the self-reported perspective of prostate cancer (PCa) patients on physical and mental well-being after PCa treatment outside a clinical trial setting to inform future fellow patients about the impact of PCa treatment., Design, Setting, and Participants: Europa Uomo invited PCa patients to complete a cross-sectional survey including the validated EQ-5D-5L, EORTC-QLQ-C30, and the EPIC-26 questionnaires. Furthermore, the nine-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and diagnostic clinical scenarios were included., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Descriptive statistics was used to assess the demographic and clinical characteristics and to analyze the patient-reported outcome data., Results and Limitations: Between October 25, 2021 and January 17, 2022, 3571 men from 30 countries completed the EUPROMS 2.0 survey. The median age of respondents was 70 yr (interquartile range 65-75 yr). Half of the respondents underwent one treatment, most often radical prostatectomy. Men who are treated actively experience lower health-related quality of life than men on active surveillance, mainly regarding sexual function, fatigue, and insomnia. Lower urinary incontinence levels were seen for men who underwent radical prostatectomy (single treatment or in combination with other treatments). Of the respondents, 42% indicated that the determination of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value was part of a routine blood test; 25% wanted to undergo screening/early detection for PCa, and 20% indicated that the determination of the PSA value had a clinical reason., Conclusions: A large sample of 3571 international patients has contributed patient experience after PCa treatment in the EUPROMS 2.0 study, confirming that treatment for PCa mainly affects urinary incontinence, sexual function, fatigue, and insomnia. Such information can be used to direct toward a better patient-doctor relationship, to offer patients ready access to responsible information and a better understanding of their disease and treatment., Patient Summary: Through the EUPROMS 2.0 survey, Europa Uomo has strengthened the voice of the patient. Such information can be used to inform future prostate cancer (PCa) patients about the impact of PCa treatment and to engage them in informed and shared decision-making., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Nerve-sparing (NS) radical prostatectomy (RP) results in better functional outcomes. Intraoperative neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen section examination (NeuroSAFE) significantly increases the frequency of NS surgery. The effect of NeuroSAFE on postoperative erectile function (EF) and continence is not yet clear., Objective: To describe EF and continence outcomes for men undergoing RP with the NeuroSAFE technique., Design, Setting, and Participants: Between September 2018 and February 2021, 1034 men underwent robot-assisted RP. Data for patient-reported outcomes were collected via validated questionnaires., Intervention: NeuroSAFE technique for RP., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Continence was assessed using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form (ICIQ-UI SF) or Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite short form (EPIC-26) and defined as use of 0-1 pads/d. EF was evaluated using EPIC-26 or the International Index of Erectile Function short form (IIEF-5), with data converted according to the Vertosick method and categorized. Descriptive statistics were used to asses and describe tumor characteristics and continence and EF outcomes., Results and Limitations: Of the 1034 men who underwent RP after introduction of the NeuroSAFE technique, 63% and 60% completed a preoperative and at least one postoperative questionnaire on continence and EF, respectively. Of the men who underwent unilateral or bilateral NS surgery, use of 0-1 pads/d was reported by 93% after 1 yr and 96% after 2 yr; the corresponding rates for men who underwent non-NS surgery were 86% and 78%. Overall, use of 0-1 pads/d was reported by 92% of the men at 1 yr and by 94% at 2 yr after RP. Men in the NS group had a good or intermediate Vertosick score after RP more often than the non-NS group. Overall, 44% of the men had a good or intermediate Vertosick score at 1 and 2 yr after RP., Conclusions: After introduction of the NeuroSAFE technique, the continence rate was 92% at 1 yr and 94% at 2 yr after RP. The NS group had a greater percentage of men with an intermediate or good Vertosick score and a higher continence rate after RP in comparison to the non-NS group., Patient Summary: Our study shows that after introduction of the NeuroSAFE technique during removal of the prostate, the continence rate among patients was 92% at 1 year and 94% at 2 years after surgery. Some 44% of the men had a good or intermediate score for erectile function 1 and 2 years after surgery., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Guidelines on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer (PCa) arise from a critical appraisal of scientific evidence, which is a costly effort. Despite these efforts and the side effects of ADT, guidelines may not always be adhered to., Objective: To determine ADT overtreatment in PCa patients compared to the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines, and to identify predictors and physicians' motivations for this overtreatment., Design Setting and Participants: Men were included from the European Randomised study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) Rotterdam who were diagnosed with PCa between 2001 and 2019, and received ADT <1 yr after diagnosis., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Patients were categorised into the concordant ADT or discordant ADT group following the EAU guidelines. Physicians' motivations for discordancy were reported. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify predictors for guideline-discordant ADT including the nonlinear fit of the year of diagnosis., Results and Limitations: Of 3608 PCa patients, 1037 received ADT <1 yr after diagnosis. Adherence improved gradually over the study period, resulting in overall discordancy of 15%. A patient diagnosed in 2011 had 3.3 times lower risk on guideline-discordant ADT than a patient diagnosed in 2004 (odds ratio [OR] 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18-0.50). The most common reason for discordancy was unwillingness or unfitness for curative treatment of asymptomatic patients. Age (OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.15-1.24) and Gleason score ≥4 + 3 (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.06-2.74) were associated with guideline-discordant ADT., Conclusions: In a Dutch cohort, slow adaptation of the EAU guidelines on ADT for PCa patients between 2001 and 2019 resulted in overall overtreatment of 15%, mostly in asymptomatic patients who were unfit or unwilling for curative treatment. Clear, structured presentation, or integration of these tailored guidelines into the electronic health record might accelerate the adaptation of future guidelines., Patient Summary: Slow adaptation of the guidelines on hormonal therapy resulted in overtreatment in 15% of prostate cancer patients, mostly in asymptomatic patients who were unfit or unwilling for curative treatment., (© 2022 The Authors.)

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 patients with PCa, the PIONEER Consortium has standardised and recommended outcomes (and their definitions) that should be collected as a minimum in all future studies., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PC) are increasingly electing active surveillance (AS) as their initial management strategy. While this may reduce the side effects of treatment for prostate cancer, many men on AS eventually convert to active treatment. PC is one of the most heritable cancers, and genetic factors that predispose to aggressive tumors may help distinguish men who are more likely to discontinue AS. To investigate this, we undertook a multi-institutional genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 5,222 PC patients and 1,139 other patients from replication cohorts, all of whom initially elected AS and were followed over time for the potential outcome of conversion from AS to active treatment. In the GWAS we detected 18 variants associated with conversion, 15 of which were not previously associated with PC risk. With a transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS), we found two genes associated with conversion ( MAST3 , p = 6.9×10 -7 and GAB2 , p = 2.0×10 -6 ). Moreover, increasing values of a previously validated 269-variant genetic risk score (GRS) for PC was positively associated with conversion (e.g., comparing the highest to the two middle deciles gave a hazard ratio [HR] = 1.13; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]= 0.94-1.36); whereas, decreasing values of a 36-variant GRS for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels were positively associated with conversion (e.g., comparing the lowest to the two middle deciles gave a HR = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.04-1.50). These results suggest that germline genetics may help inform and individualize the decision of AS-or the intensity of monitoring on AS- versus treatment for the initial management of patients with low-risk PC., Competing Interests: Declaration of Interests The authors declare no competing interests.

Patients are the stewards of their own care and hence their voice is important when designing and implementing research. Patients should be involved not only as participants in research that impacts their care, as the recipients of that care and any associated harms, but also as research collaborators in prioritising important questions from the patient perspective and designing the research and the ways in which is it most appropriate to involve patients. The PIONEER Consortium, an international multistakeholder collaboration lead by the European Association of Urology, has developed a core outcome set (COS) for localised and metastatic prostate cancer relevant to all stakeholders in particular patients. Throughout the work of PIONEER, patient representatives were involved as collaborators in setting the research agenda, and a wider group of patients was involved as participants in developing COSs, for instance in consensus meetings on choosing important outcomes and appropriate definitions. This publication showcases the process for COS development and highlights the most important recommendations to ultimately inform future research projects co-created between patients and other stakeholders. PATIENT SUMMARY: An important step in involving patients in the selection of outcomes for clinical trials, clinical audits, and real-world evidence is the development of a core outcome set (COS) that is relevant to all stakeholders. This report highlights the patient participation throughout our PIONEER COS development. TAKE HOME  MESSAGE: An important step in involving patients in the selection of outcomes for clinical trials, clinical audits, and real-world evidence is to develop a core outcome set (COS) that is relevant to all stakeholders. As part of the work of the PIONEER Consortium, we aim to highlight the patient participation throughout our PIONEER COS development., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors report no declarations of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Europa Uomo initiated the Europa Uomo Patient Reported Outcome Study (EUPROMS) to collect prostate cancer (PCa) patient-reported outcome (PRO) data as a primary endpoint., Objective: To inform future PCa patients about the impact of PCa treatment through self-reported PRO data of fellow patients collected outside a clinical trial setting., Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among PCa patients currently receiving or having received treatment. The EUPROMS survey contained the EQ-5D-5 L (generic health), the EORTC-QLQ-C30 (cancer-specific quality of life (QoL), and the Expanded Prostate cancer Index Composite short form 26 (EPIC-26; prostate-specific health) questionnaires., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Descriptive statistics were used to assess the demographic and clinical characteristics, and to analyze the PROs of EQ-5D-5L, EORTC-QLQ-C30, and EPIC-26., Results and Limitations: Between August 21 and November 19, 2019, 2943 men from 24 European countries completed the EUPROMS survey. The median age of the respondents was 71 yr (interquartile range 65-75 yr); 81.9% was living with a spouse. In total, 1937 (65.8%) men underwent a single treatment, and 636 (21.6%), 300 (10.2%), and 70 (2.4%) underwent two, three, and four treatments, respectively. Fatigue scores are highest for men who underwent radiotherapy or chemotherapy. Progression of disease leads to more insomnia. Surgery affects urinary incontinence the most. Self-reported sexual function amounts to 27/100, with the lowest scores being reported for men who underwent surgery and radiotherapy (15/100). Overall, patients who received two or more treatments reported lower scores for all indices., Conclusions: The EUPROMS survey provided a cross-sectional picture of the current PCa patient population and their reported QoL. Initial treatment is often followed by subsequent treatments, affecting mainly sexual function, as well as fatigue and insomnia. QoL of men undergoing chemotherapy is worse for almost all domains. These data can inform physicians and patients on the true impact of PCa treatment., Patient Summary: Patient-reported quality of life in the Europa Uomo Patient Reported Outcome Study (EUPROMS) survey-a more informal setting as compared with clinical trials-reveals that prostate cancer treatment affects mainly sexual function, fatigue, and insomnia., (Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) is intended to overcome potential side-effects of definitive treatment. Frequent prostate biopsies during AS may, however, impact erectile (EF) and urinary function (UF). The objective of this study was to test the influence of prostate biopsies on patient-reported EF and UF using multicenter data from the largest to-date AS-database., Methods: In this retrospective study, data analyses were performed using the Movember GAP3 database (v3.2), containing data from 21,169 AS participants from 27 AS-cohorts worldwide. Participants were included in the study if they had at least one follow-up prostate biopsy and completed at least one patient reported outcome measure (PROM) related to EF [Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM)/five item International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5)] or UF [International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS)] during follow-up. The longitudinal effect of the number of biopsies on either SHIM/IIEF-5 or IPSS were analyzed using linear mixed models to adjust for clustering at patient-level. Analyses were stratified by center; covariates included age and Gleason Grade group at diagnosis, and time on AS., Results: A total of 696 participants completed the SHIM/IIEF-5 3,175 times, with a median follow-up of 36 months [interquartile range (IQR) 20-55 months]. A total of 845 participants completed the IPSS 4,061 times, with a median follow-up of 35 months (IQR 19-56 months). The intraclass correlation (ICC) was 0.74 for the SHIM/IIEF-5 and 0.68 for the IPSS, indicating substantial differences between participants' PROMs. Limited heterogeneity between cohorts in the estimated effect of the number of biopsies on either PROM were observed. A significant association was observed between the number of biopsies and the SHIM/IIEF-5 score, but not for the IPSS score. Every biopsy was associated with a decrease in the SHIM/IIEF-5 score of an average 0.67 (95% CI, 0.47-0.88) points., Conclusions: Repeated prostate biopsy as part of an AS protocol for men with low-risk PCa does not have a significant association with self-reported UF but does impact self-reported sexual function. Further research is, however, needed to understand whether the effect on sexual function implies a negative clinical impact on their quality of life and is meaningful from a patient's perspective. In the meantime, clinicians and patients should anticipate a potential decline in erectile function and hence consider incorporating the risk of this harm into their discussion about opting for AS and also when deciding on the stringency of follow-up biopsy schedules with long-term AS., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: The authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau-20-1255). The series “Expectant Management in Genitourinary Malignancies (Prostate, Bladder, Kidney)” was commissioned by the editorial office without any funding or sponsorship. Dr. MVH served as the unpaid Guest Editor of the series. Dr. MJR serves as an unpaid Associate Editor-in-Chief of Translational Andrology and Urology from Jan 2020 to Dec 2021. Dr. JH reports grants from the Movember Foundation, during the conduct of the study. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare., (2021 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved.)

Unlabelled: Screening for prostate cancer (PCa) results in a favorable stage shift. However, even if screening did not result in a clinically apparent lower stage or grade, it might still lead to less disease recurrence after treatment with curative intent (radical prostatectomy [RP] and radiation therapy [RT]) because the tumor had less time to develop outside the prostate. The outcome after treatment could also differ because of variations in treatment quality (eg, radiation dosage/adjuvant hormonal therapy). To test these hypotheses, we compared differences in the treatment quality of the screening and control arms of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) Rotterdam and disease-free survival (DFS) after curative treatment in PCa patients with similar stage and grade. A total of 2595 men were initially treated with RP or RT. In the control arm, RT was more often combined with hormonal therapy; treatment dosage was often ≥69Gy. This most likely resulted from changes over time in treatment that coincided with the later detection in the control arm. DFS was higher in the screening arm in all risk groups. After correction for lead time, these differences were minimal, however. We concluded that treatment quality differed between the screening and control arms of the ERSPC Rotterdam. RT quality was especially superior in the control arm with higher dosages and more often RT in combination with hormonal therapy. Despite these differences favoring the control arm, DFS differences were minimal., Patient Summary: We looked at differences in prostate cancer (PCa) treatment and outcome after PCa treatment in men diagnosed after screening and men diagnosed after normal clinical practice. Treatment differed with superior treatment given to men diagnosed in normal clinical practice. We propose a likely explanation for this apparently counterintuitive finding (progressive insight combined with, on average, a later detection of tumors in unscreened men). Although unscreened men received better treatment, this advantage seemed to be outweighed by the advantage associated with the earlier detection, on average, of the tumor in screened men., Trial Registration: ISRCTN49127736., (Copyright © 2014 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: We assessed differences in treatment between the screening and control arms of ERSPC Rotterdam and studied whether possible treatment differences could explain the positive study outcome., Materials and Methods: In ERSPC Rotterdam men 55 to 74 years old were randomized to a screening arm of 21,210 and a control arm of 21,166. Treatment after diagnosis was at the discretion of the care provider chosen by the patient. Initial treatment was compared in 4 risk groups. The relation between prostate cancer incidence and prostate cancer mortality was assessed by risk group by correlating the incidence RR and the mortality RR. A direct relation would have supported a stage shift as the main cause of changes in prostate cancer mortality., Results: Initial treatment differed between the arms in the low, intermediate and high risk groups but not in the metastatic group. The RRs of prostate cancer incidence and mortality per risk group were related 1:1 (regression line slope 1.00, 95% CI 0.30-1.74). Of changes in prostate cancer mortality 94% could be explained by changes in prostate cancer incidence. This made treatment differences unlikely as the reason for the observed decrease in prostate cancer mortality., Conclusions: Differences in treatment between the ERSPC Rotterdam screening and control arms were unlikely to explain the differences in prostate cancer mortality. Results are instead consistent with a decrease in prostate cancer mortality as the result of a favorable stage through screening., (Copyright © 2015 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: To give insight into literature from the past 12-18 months, reporting on disease-specific and patient-reported outcomes of men under active surveillance for prostate cancer., Recent Findings: From recently published established active surveillance cohorts, we learnt that medium and long-term follow-up outcome data provide favorable evidence for the feasibility and safety of active surveillance. The mortality rates reported are consistent with expected mortality in favorable-risk patients who were managed with initial radical therapy. More definite conclusions on the safety of active surveillance can only be drawn on the basis of randomized controlled trial data. With respect to quality of life, men on active surveillance seem to do well, also with respect to urinary and erectile function. Further research on this subject is, however, warranted., Summary: Prostate cancer-specific mortality under active surveillance is very low. The combination of disease-specific and patient-reported outcomes indicates that active surveillance is feasible. This is also reflected in smaller, population-based studies which confirm the acceptance of active surveillance in clinical practice.

Context: The optimal management of screen-detected, localised prostate cancer remains controversial, related to overtreatment issues of screening and the nonrandomised evidence base. Active surveillance (AS) aims to delay or avoid curative therapy but may potentially harm patients' well-being through living with untreated prostate cancer., Objective: To systematically review the literature on quality of life (QoL) in patients undergoing AS., Evidence Acquisition: Embase, Medline, Psychinfo, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and PubMed databases were searched in May 2014 using quality of life, active surveillance, prostate cancer, their synonyms, and targeted manual searches. The psychological dimensions related to health-related QoL (HRQoL) outcomes were anxiety and depression, distress, decisional conflict, and mental health., Evidence Synthesis: Ten clinical and research-based AS studies worldwide measured HRQoL and related psychological facets in six cross-sectional studies and four cohorts (follow-up: 9-36 mo; published: 2006-2014). Six studies were linked to published AS cohorts. In total, 966 men undergoing AS (mean: 102 per study) were assessed (mean age: 66 yr). AS patients had good overall HRQoL scores, which were comparable or better than those of patients undergoing postradical treatment (comparator group in four studies), men's partners (one study) and population-based data (three studies). Anxiety and depression scores were favourable. Selection bias may be present, as none were randomised comparisons. Decreased psychological well-being may be partly predicted by AS patients' baseline and clinical characteristics., Conclusions: Patients undergoing AS reported good QoL and did not appear to suffer major negative psychological impacts. Longer follow-up is required as well as investigation into which patients are predisposed to negative impact and leaving AS prematurely., Patient Summary: We reviewed the published evidence for quality-of-life impact on men with prostate cancer being monitored by active surveillance. The men who were on active surveillance usually reported good levels of well-being and did not appear to suffer major negative psychological impacts. The research findings suggest little presence of anxiety and depression and high overall quality of life related to their disease. However, there are few long-term studies, so more high-quality research is needed to make definitive recommendations., (Copyright © 2014 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: To give insight into recent literature (during the past 12-18 months) reporting on oncologic outcomes of men on active surveillance., Recent Findings: From recent published trials comparing radical prostatectomy vs. watchful waiting, we learn that radical treatment only benefits a small proportion of men and that a substantial part of men is overtreated. Therefore, active surveillance should aim at postponing treatment for most, but still generate the same disease-specific mortality as radical prostatectomy by treating only those who benefit. In this review some recent published data on prostate cancer-specific mortality under active surveillance as well as intermediate outcomes are described., Summary: Prostate cancer-specific mortality under active surveillance is very low; however, longer follow-up is warranted. When deferred radical treatment and immediate radical treatment are compared, results seem to be quite similar, suggesting that postponing treatment does not affect the outcomes of men under active surveillance. Furthermore, in the majority of men active treatment could be avoided completely, without compromising oncologic outcome.

Since the first publication describing the identification of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in the 1960s, much progress has been made. The PSA test changed from being initially a monitoring tool to being also used as a diagnostic tool. Over time, the test has been heavily debated due to its lack of sensitivity and specificity. However, up to now the PSA test is still the only biomarker for the detection and monitoring of prostate cancer. PSA-based screening for prostate cancer is associated with a high proportion of unnecessary testing and overdiagnosis with subsequent overtreatment. In the early years of screening for prostate cancer, high rates of uptake were very important. However, over time the opinion on PSA-based screening has shifted towards the notion of informed choice. Nowadays, it is thought to be unethical to screen men without them being aware of the pros and cons of PSA testing, as well as the fact that an informed choice is related to better patient outcomes. Now, as the results of three major screening studies have been presented and the downsides of screening are becoming better understood, informed choice is becoming more relevant.

Background: Population-based screening for prostate cancer (PCa) remains controversial. To help men making informed decisions about prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening a risk indicator (www.uroweb.org) was developed. This risk indicator is embedded in a leaflet that informs men about the pros and cons of PCa screening and enables calculation of the individual risk of having a biopsy detectable PCa., Aim: To assess the effect of providing a leaflet including individualized risk estimation on informed decision making of men, i.e. knowledge about PCa and PSA screening, attitude towards undergoing a PSA test and intention to have a PSA test., Methods: An intervention study among 2000 men, aged 55-65 years, randomly selected from the population registry of the city of Dordrecht, the Netherlands, in 2008. Men were sent a questionnaire on knowledge of PCa, attitude and intention to have a PSA test. Men without a history of (screening for) PCa were sent the leaflet and Questionnaire 2 within 2 weeks after returning Questionnaire 1. Validated health and anxiety measures were used., Results: One thousand and twenty seven of 2000 men completed Questionnaire 1 (51%), of whom 298 were excluded due to a history of (screening for) PCa. Of the 729 remaining men, 601 completed Questionnaire 2 as well. At the second assessment significantly more men met the requirements of informed decision making (15% versus 33%, p<0.001), more men had relevant knowledge (284/601, 50% versus 420/601, 77%, p<0.001) and the intention to have a PSA test had increased (p<0.001)., Conclusions: Providing information on PCa screening combined with individualized risk estimation enhanced informed decision making and may be used for shared decision making on PSA screening of physicians and patients., (Copyright (c) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)