Personalised versus non-individualised case-based CME: A randomised pilot study.

The PinPoint Case Platform (PPCP) offers independent online case-based CME. To align with personal learning needs, a functionality of needs assessments ("QuickScan") was developed, directing users to follow personalised case journeys. A randomised study was conducted, comparing its effectiveness, time efficiency and user experience with a format of non-individualised case-based learning. Forty-two residents in urology from five European countries were randomly assigned to follow non-individualised case-based learning (control group) or a needs assessment plus personalised case journeys on different topics in prostate cancer. After performing a pre- and post-assessment, both groups showed a similar increase in test scores (Mann-Whitney U = 247; p = .113), but the time needed for completing the learning exercise was significantly lower in the group with the personalised approach (median: 45 vs 90 minutes; Mann-Whitney U = 97.5; p = .0141). The quality of the two learning methods was similarly well received by both groups. In conclusion, learners who followed personalised case journeys learned similarly effective but more time efficient than non-individualised case-based learners. Future studies should determine if these findings can be extrapolated to board-certified physicians following CME activities.

Introduction: Do we need multi-stakeholder colloquia in MS?

BACKGROUND: In the increasingly complex environment of MS there is a need for better cross-talk and communication between the different stakeholders who each address MS according to their own perspective. OBJECTIVE & METHODS: The first and second Pan-European MS Multi-stakeholder Colloquia were specifically set-up for this. RESULTS: In May 2014 and May 2015, the different stakeholders in MS (patients, healthcare professionals, regulators, payers and pharmaceutical industry professionals) met to present and discuss each other's perspective, formulate 10 integrated Calls to Actions (first Colloquium) and discuss guidance propositions/recommendations developed by working groups for the Calls to Action (second Colloquium). CONCLUSION: The perspectives of the different stakeholders and the 10 integrated Calls to Action are summarised in this supplement.

Conclusions: Calls to action for improving the life of MS patients and their families.

BACKGROUND: The first and second Pan-European MS Multi-stakeholder Colloquia were set up to increase cross-talk and communication between the different stakeholders in MS and developed joint Calls to Action to improve (equal) access to quality care and treatment for MS in Europe. OBJECTIVE & METHODS: To summarise the 10 integrated and interrelated Calls to Action developed. RESULTS & CONCLUSION: Call 1: increase awareness in the European community about the burden MS places on patients, caregivers and society. Call 2: improve communication towards the European community on the direct and indirect cost burden of MS. Call 3: perform patient research to (re)define treatment goals/endpoints from a humanistic/patient perspective point of view. Call 4: develop new tools to better capture the total clinical burden of MS. Call 5: develop a protocol for standardisation of MRI for optimising its use as a marker of disability progression in MS. Call 6: support research to find other (molecular) biomarkers which can predict long-term disability progression and (monitor) individual treatment response. Call 7: align CHMP/EMA and HTA decision-making process. Call 8: develop separate EMA guidelines for evaluating follow-on products of non-biological complex drugs. Call 9: support people with MS remaining (physically) active and at work and stimulate the implementation of specialised care centres. Call 10: support the continuation of multi-stakeholder colloquia.

Clinical judgment versus biomarker prostate cancer gene 3: which is best when determining the need for repeat prostate biopsy?

OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of best clinical judgment (BCJ) and the prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) assay in guiding the decision to perform a repeat prostate biopsy (PBx) after a previous negative PBx. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, 12 European urologists established recommendations (BCJ) for the appropriateness of PBx according to the prostate-specific antigen level, digital rectal examination findings, number of previous negative PBxs, prostate volume, and life expectancy, with and without consideration of the PCA3 scores. These recommendations were applied to 1024 subjects receiving placebo in the Reduction by Dutasteride of Prostate Cancer Events trial, including men with a previous negative PBx, a baseline prostate-specific antigen level of 2.5-10 ng/mL, and a PCA3 test performed before the protocol-mandated 2- and 4-year repeat PBxs. Three scenarios (ie, BCJ alone, BCJ with PCA3, and the PCA3 score alone) were tested for their ability to reduce the repeat PBx rate versus missing Gleason sum ≥ 7 prostate cancer (PCa). RESULTS: BCJ with PCA3 would have avoided 64% of repeat PBxs compared with 26% for BCJ alone and 55% for PCA3 alone (cutoff score 20). Of 55 PCa cases (Gleason sum ≥ 7), 13 would have been missed using BCJ alone compared with 7 using PCA3 (cutoff score 20) alone and 8 using BCJ plus PCA3. The diagnostic accuracy for Gleason sum ≥ 7 PCa of the BCJ with PCA3 scenario was superior to that of the other scenarios, with a negative predictive value of 99%. CONCLUSION: Application of the BCJ together with PCA3 testing can reduce the number of repeat PBxs while maintaining the sensitivity to detect Gleason sum ≥ 7 PCa.

Impact of adoption of a decision algorithm including PCA3 for repeat biopsy on the costs for prostate cancer diagnosis in France.

OBJECTIVE: A recent expert study (RAND Appropriateness Method (RAM)) including a panel of 12 European urologists reported that the PCA3 score may be instrumental in taking appropriate prostate biopsy (PBx) decisions, mainly for repeat PBx. This study determined the cost/benefit balance of introducing PCA3 in the decision-making for PBx in France. METHODS: Two RAM models, without and with PCA3, were retrospectively applied to a sample of 808 French men who had PBx in 2010 (78% first, 22% repeat). Outcome measures included the proportion of PBx that could have been avoided (i.e., judged inappropriate) in the French sample according to both RAM models, and the estimated impact of application of these models on the annual number of PBx and associated costs for France (based on most recent published data). RESULTS: Complete profiles were available for 698 men. In the model without PCA3, 2% of PBx were deemed inappropriate. Knowledge of PCA3 would have avoided another 7% of PBx. Repeat PBx would have been avoided in 5% of cases without PCA3 and in 37% with PCA3. For France, application of the RAM model including PCA3 would result in 18,345 fewer repeat PBx. It would be budget-neutral in the unlikely hypothesis of no complications or no costs incurred by complications and would save €1.7 million for a mean cost for complications of €100/procedure or €5 million for a mean cost for complications of €280/procedure, calculated based on US and Canadian data. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of the study are the theoretical nature of the analysis and the fact that PCA3 distributions had to be derived from other sources. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of RAM expert recommendations including PCA3 for repeat PBx decisions in clinical practice in France would reduce the number of repeat PBx and control costs.