PIONEER big data platform for prostate cancer: lessons for advancing future real-world evidence research.

Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment Enhancement through the Power of Big Data in Europe (PIONEER) is a European network of excellence for big data in prostate cancer. PIONEER brings together 34 private and public stakeholders from 9 countries in one multidisciplinary research consortium with the aim of positively transforming the field of prostate cancer clinical care by answering pressing questions related to prostate cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment. PIONEER has developed a unique state-of-the-art big data analytic platform by integrating existing data sources from patients with prostate cancer. PIONEER leveraged this platform to address prioritized research questions, filling knowledge gaps in the characterization, management and core outcomes of prostate cancer across the different disease stages. The network has benefited from sustained patient and stakeholder involvement and engagement, but many challenges remain when using real-world data for big data projects. To continue to advance prostate cancer care, data need to be available, suitable methodologies should be selected and mechanisms for knowledge sharing must be in place. Now acting as the prostate cancer arm of the European Association of Urology's new endeavour, UroEvidenceHub, PIONEER maintains its goal of maximizing the potential of big data to improve prostate cancer care.

The role of Hospital-Based Cancer Registries (HBCRs) as information systems in the delivery of evidence-based integrated cancer care: a scoping review.

Cancer is a leading cause of mortality, with 10 million deaths in 2020. With the number of people impacted by cancer projected to increase, a better-integrated cancer care is needed. Evidence suggests that Hospital-Based Cancer Registries (HBCRs) that collect administrative and clinical data could improve integrated and equitable evidence-based care. However, the state and HBCR's role in the delivery of integrated cancer care for improved health outcomes, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), is poorly understood and is assessed in this scoping review. A systematic search was conducted in April 2020. Thirty articles were included. This review found that while HBCRs have been implemented in several countries, few studies have evaluated the quality and effectiveness of registries, especially in LMICs. HBCRs in LMICs function more as data collection tools than information systems to influence clinical care decisions and monitoring, missing the opportunity to guide cancer care priorities and policies.

Survivorship Data in Prostate Cancer: Where Are We and Where Do We Need To Be?

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.

The Diagnostic Accuracy of Cystoscopy for Detecting Bladder Cancer in Adults Presenting with Haematuria: A Systematic Review from the European Association of Urology Guidelines Office.

CONTEXT: Haematuria can be macroscopic (visible haematuria [VH]) or microscopic (nonvisible haematuria [NVH]), and may be caused by a number of underlying aetiologies. Currently, in case of haematuria, cystoscopy is the standard diagnostic tool to screen the entire bladder for malignancy. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review is to determine the diagnostic test accuracy of cystoscopy (compared with other tests, eg, computed tomography, urine biomarkers, and urine cytology) for detecting bladder cancer in adults. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) extension for diagnostic test accuracy studies' checklist. The MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane CDSR databases (via Ovid) were searched up to July 13, 2022. The population comprises patients presenting with either VH or NVH, without previous urological cancers. Two reviewers independently screened all articles, searched reference lists of retrieved articles, and performed data extraction. The risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, nine studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Seven out of nine included trials covered the use of cystoscopy in comparison with radiological imaging. Overall, sensitivity of cystoscopy ranged from 87% to 100%, specificity from 64% to 100%, positive predictive value from 79% to 98%, and negative predictive values between 98% and 100%. Two trials compared enhanced or air cystoscopy versus conventional cystoscopy. Overall sensitivity of conventional white light cystoscopy ranged from 47% to 100% and specificity from 93.4% to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The true accuracy of cystoscopy for the detection of bladder cancer within the context of haematuria has not been studied extensively, resulting in inconsistent data regarding its performance for patients with haematuria. In comparison with imaging modalities, a few trials have prospectively assessed the diagnostic performance of cystoscopy, confirming very high accuracy for cystoscopy, exceeding the diagnostic value of any other imaging test. PATIENT SUMMARY: Evidence of tests for detecting bladder cancer in adults presenting with haematuria (blood in urine) was reviewed. The most common test used was cystoscopy, which remains the current standard for diagnosing bladder cancer.

Emerging Technologies for the Surgical Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Secondary to Benign Prostatic Obstruction. A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Surgical management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS)/benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) aims at ablating prostate adenoma by resection, enucleation, or vaporisation. Apart from established ablation modes according to the European Association of Urology guidelines, various technologies have emerged as safe/effective alternatives but remain under investigation. OBJECTIVE: To explore short-term benefits/harms of emerging technologies for surgical management of LUTS/BPO. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL via Ovid up to June 18, 2022. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) exploring aquablation, prostatic arterial embolisation (PAE), Rezum, prostatic urethral lift (PUL), and temporary implantable nitinol device (iTIND) versus sham/transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We included ten RCTs (1108 men). Aquablation versus TURP: insignificant change in International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS; mean difference [MD] 0.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.44 to 2.44), quality of life (QoL; MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.81 to 0.21), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax; MD -0.30, 95% CI -3.71 to 3.11), retreatment (risk ratio [RR] 0.18, 95% CI 0.02-1.66), and urinary incontinence (UI; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.26-1.95). PAE versus monopolar TURP (M-TURP): insignificant change in IPSS (MD 3.33, 95% CI -28.39 to 35.05), QoL (MD 0.12, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.54), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5; MD 3.07, 95% CI -1.78 to 7.92), and UI (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01-2.86), and significant change in Qmax (MD -9.52, 95% CI -14.04 to -5.0), favouring M-TURP. PAE versus bipolar TURP: insignificant change in IPSS (MD -2.80, 95% CI -6.61 to 1.01), QoL (MD -0.69, 95% CI -1.46 to 0.08), Qmax (MD -3.51, 95% CI -8.08 to 1.06), UI (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01-2.51), and retreatment (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.19-19.63). PUL versus TURP: insignificant change in QoL (MD 0.40, 95% CI -0.29 to 1.09), UI (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-1.05), and retreatment (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.12-1.86), and significant change in IPSS (MD 3.40, 95% CI 0.22-6.58), and IIEF-5 (MD 3.00, 95% CI 0.41-5.59) and Qmax (MD -9.60, 95% CI -13.44 to -5.76), favouring PUL and TURP, respectively. Rezum and iTIND have not been evaluated in RCTs against TURP to date. CONCLUSIONS: Supporting evidence for clinical use of aquablation, PAE, PUL, Rezum, and iTIND is very limited. Benefits/harms should be investigated further in high-quality RCTs. PATIENT SUMMARY: This review summarises the evidence for the clinical use of aquablation, prostatic arterial embolisation (PAE), prostatic urethral lift (PUL), Rezum, and temporary implantable nitinol device (iTIND) to manage lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction. The supporting evidence for the clinical usage of aquablation, PAE, PUL, Rezum, and iTIND is very limited. Benefits and harms should be investigated further in high-quality randomised controlled trials.

Unanswered questions in prostate cancer - findings of an international multi-stakeholder consensus by the PIONEER consortium.

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.

Conservative interventions for managing urinary incontinence after prostate surgery.

BACKGROUND: Men may need to undergo prostate surgery to treat prostate cancer or benign prostatic hyperplasia. After these surgeries, men may experience urinary incontinence (UI). Conservative treatments such as pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), electrical stimulation and lifestyle changes can be undertaken to help manage the symptoms of UI. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of conservative interventions for managing urinary incontinence after prostate surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearched journals and conference proceedings (searched 22 April 2022). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of adult men (aged 18 or over) with UI following prostate surgery for treating prostate cancer or LUTS/BPO. We excluded cross-over and cluster-RCTs. We investigated the following key comparisons: PFMT plus biofeedback versus no treatment; sham treatment or verbal/written instructions; combinations of conservative treatments versus no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instructions; and electrical or magnetic stimulation versus no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instructions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using a pre-piloted form and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of outcomes and comparisons included in the summary of findings tables. We used an adapted version of GRADE to assess certainty in results where there was no single effect measurement available. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 25 studies including a total of 3079 participants. Twenty-three studies assessed men who had previously undergone radical prostatectomy or radical retropubic prostatectomy, while only one study assessed men who had undergone transurethral resection of the prostate. One study did not report on previous surgery. Most studies were at high risk of bias for at least one domain. The certainty of evidence assessed using GRADE was mixed. PFMT plus biofeedback versus no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instructions Four studies reported on this comparison. PFMT plus biofeedback may result in greater subjective cure of incontinence from 6 to 12 months (1 study; n = 102; low-certainty evidence). However, men undertaking PFMT and biofeedback may be less likely to be objectively cured at from 6 to 12 months (2 studies; n = 269; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether undertaking PFMT and biofeedback has an effect on surface or skin-related adverse events (1 study; n = 205; very low-certainty evidence) or muscle-related adverse events (1 study; n = 205; very low-certainty evidence). Condition-specific quality of life, participant adherence to the intervention and general quality of life were not reported by any study for this comparison. Combinations of conservative treatments versus no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instructions Eleven studies assessed this comparison. Combinations of conservative treatments may lead to little difference in the number of men being subjectively cured or improved of incontinence between 6 and 12 months (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.19; 2 studies; n = 788; low-certainty evidence; in absolute terms: no treatment or sham arm: 307 per 1000 and intervention arm: 297 per 1000). Combinations of conservative treatments probably lead to little difference in condition-specific quality of life (MD -0.28, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.29; 2 studies; n = 788; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably little difference in general quality of life between 6 and 12 months (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02; 2 studies; n = 742; moderate-certainty evidence). There is little difference between combinations of conservative treatments and control in terms of objective cure or improvement of incontinence between 6 and 12 months (MD 0.18, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.60; 2 studies; n = 565; high-certainty evidence). However, it is uncertain whether participant adherence to the intervention between 6 and 12 months is increased for those undertaking combinations of conservative treatments (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.78 to 5.56; 2 studies; n = 763; very low-certainty evidence; in absolute terms: no intervention or sham arm: 172 per 1000 and intervention arm: 358 per 1000). There is probably no difference between combinations and control in terms of the number of men experiencing surface or skin-related adverse events (2 studies; n = 853; moderate-certainty evidence), but it is uncertain whether combinations of treatments lead to more men experiencing muscle-related adverse events (RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.31 to 27.41; 2 studies; n = 136; very low-certainty evidence; in absolute terms: 0 per 1000 for both arms). Electrical or magnetic stimulation versus no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instructions We did not identify any studies for this comparison that reported on our key outcomes of interest. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite a total of 25 trials, the value of conservative interventions for urinary incontinence following prostate surgery alone, or in combination, remains uncertain. Existing trials are typically small with methodological flaws. These issues are compounded by a lack of standardisation of the PFMT technique and marked variations in protocol concerning combinations of conservative treatments. Adverse events following conservative treatment are often poorly documented and incompletely described. Hence, there is a need for large, high-quality, adequately powered, randomised control trials with robust methodology to address this subject.

Radiological features characterising indeterminate testes masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: The use of scrotal ultrasonography (SUS) has increased the detection rate of indeterminate testicular masses. Defining radiological characteristics that identify malignancy may reduce the number of men undergoing unnecessary radical orchidectomy. OBJECTIVE: To define which SUS or scrotal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) characteristics can predict benign or malignant disease in pre- or post-pubertal males with indeterminate testicular masses. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with Cochrane Collaboration guidance. Medline, Embase, Cochrane controlled trials and systematic reviews databases were searched from (1970 to 26 March 2021). Benign and malignant masses were classified using the reported reference test: i.e., histopathology, or 12 months progression-free radiological surveillance. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool (QUADAS-2). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 32 studies were identified, including 1692 masses of which 28 studies and 1550 masses reported SUS features, four studies and 142 masses reported MRI features. Meta-analysis of different SUS (B-mode) values in post-pubertal men demonstrated that a size of ≤0.5 cm had a significantly lower odds ratio (OR) of malignancy compared to masses of >0.5 cm (P < 0.001). Comparison of masses of 0.6-1.0 cm and masses of >1.5 cm also demonstrated a significantly lower OR of malignancy (P = 0.04). There was no significant difference between masses of 0.6-1.0 and 1.1-1.5 cm. SUS in post-pubertal men also had a statistically significantly lower OR of malignancy for heterogenous masses vs homogenous masses (P = 0.04), hyperechogenic vs hypoechogenic masses (P < 0.01), normal vs increased enhancement (P < 0.01), and peripheral vs central vascularity (P < 0.01), respectively. There were limited data on pre-pubertal SUS, pre-pubertal MRI and post-pubertal MRI. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis identifies radiological characteristics that have a lower OR of malignancy and may be of value in the management of the indeterminate testis mass.

A Systematic Review to Evaluate Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for Metastatic Prostate Cancer According to the COnsensus-Based Standard for the Selection of Health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) Methodology.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) represent important endpoints in metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa). However, the clinically valid and accurate measurement of health-related quality of life depends on the psychometric properties of the PROMs considered. OBJECTIVE: To appraise, compare, and summarize the properties of PROMs in mPCa. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a review of PROMs used in RCTs, including patients with mPCa, using Medline in September 2021, according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. This systematic review is part of PIONEER (an IMI2 European network of excellence for big data in PCa). RESULTS: The most frequently used PROMs in RCTs of patients with mPCa were the Functional Assessment for Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) (n = 18), the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) (n = 8), and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) (n = 6). A total of 283 abstracts were screened and 12 full-text studies were evaluated. A total of two, one, and two studies reported the psychometric proprieties of FACT-P, Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), and BPI-SF, respectively. FACT-P and BPI showed a high content validity, while BPI-SF showed a moderate content validity. FACT-P and BPI showed a high internal consistency (summarized by Cronbach's α 0.70-0.95). CONCLUSIONS: The use of BPI and FACT-P in mPCa patients is supported by their high content validity and internal consistency. Since BPI is focused on pain assessment, we recommend FACT-P, which provides a broader assessment of QoL and wellbeing, for the clinical evaluation of mPCa patients. However, these considerations have been elaborated on in a very limited number of studies. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this paper, we review the psychometric properties of PROMs used with patients with mPCa to find the questionnaires that best assess patients' QoL, in order to help professionals in their intervention and improve patients' QoL. We recommend the use of BPI and FACT-P for their high content validity and internal consistency despite the limited number of studies considered.

The impact of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum on robotic-assisted radical cystectomy and intracorporeal ileal conduit urinary diversion: a case-control study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the role of low intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) in improving postoperative recovery in Robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) and intracorporeal ileal conduit urinary diversion (ICUD). METHODS: A retrospective case-control study of 49 bladder cancer patients offered RARC/ICUD with standard (12 mmHg, n = 24) or low IAP (8 mmHg, n = 25). Outcomes of interest included length of procedure (LoP), estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion, margin positivity rates, time to first flatus (TtFF), time to first bowel movement (TtFBM), ileus and small bowel obstruction (SBO) rates, time to safe discharge (TtSD), postoperative hospital stay (PHS) and pain levels on a postoperative day (POD) 1 and 3. Perioperative complications were recorded using the Clavien-Dindo system. RESULTS: Demographic and baseline clinical characteristics, LoP, EBL and margin positivity rates were similar between groups. No transfusions were recorded. Median (IQR) TtFF, TtFBM and TtSD were significantly longer in Group 1 vs Group 2 (4 (1) vs 2 (1), 7 (3) vs 6 (2) and 8.5 (5.75) vs 5.0 (1), respectively). PHS and rates of postoperative ileus and SBO were lower in Group 2, however not statistically significant. Severe pain was uncommon in both groups but moderate/severe pain was significantly higher in Group 1 (95.8% vs 48% on POD1 and 62.5% vs 16% on POD3). No significant intraoperative complications were recorded and ≥ Grade 3 postoperative complications at 30 and 90 days were similar. CONCLUSION: With limitations, Low-IAP RARC can be safely offered to RARC/ICUD patients and leads to faster bowel recovery, and shorter time to safe discharge compared to standard pneumoperitoneum.

Secondary Treatment for Men with Localized Prostate Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of PRIAS and ERSPC-Rotterdam Data within the PIONEER Data Platform.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment choice for localized prostate cancer is complicated, as each treatment option comes with various pros and cons. It is well established that active surveillance (AS), may be ended with a change to curative treatment at the time of disease progression, but it is less clear whether secondary treatment after initial curative treatment is required. As part of the PIONEER project, we quantified the probabilities of treatment change. METHODS: A cohort study based on PRIAS and ERSPC-Rotterdam data was conducted. Patients were followed up for 10 years or until the 31st of December 2017. The primary outcome was the incidence of treatment change following initial treatment (i.e., a change to curative treatment following AS or secondary treatment after initial RP/RT). RESULTS: Over a period of 1 to 5 years after initial treatment, the cumulative incidence of treatment change ranged from 3.8% to 42.8% for AS, from 7.6% to 12.1% for radical prostatectomy (RP) and from no change to 5.3% for radiation therapy (RT). While the possibility of treatment change in AS is known, the numbers within a five-year period were substantial. For RP and RT, the rate of change to secondary treatment was lower, but still non-neglectable, with 5 (10)-year incidences up to 12% (20%) and 5% (16%), respectively. CONCLUSION: This is one of the first studies comparing the incidence of guideline-recommended treatment changes in men receiving different primary treatments (i.e., AS, RT, or RP) for localized prostate cancer (PCa).

Diagnostic and prognostic factors in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: As part of the PIONEER Consortium objectives, we have explored which diagnostic and prognostic factors (DPFs) are available in relation to our previously defined clinician and patient-reported outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa). DESIGN: We performed a systematic review to identify validated and non-validated studies. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched on 21 January 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Only quantitative studies were included. Single studies with fewer than 50 participants, published before 2014 and looking at outcomes which are not prioritised in the PIONEER core outcome set were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: After initial screening, we extracted data following the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of prognostic factor studies (CHARMS-PF) criteria and discussed the identified factors with a multidisciplinary expert group. The quality of the included papers was scored for applicability and risk of bias using validated tools such as PROBAST, Quality in Prognostic Studies and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. RESULTS: The search identified 6604 studies, from which 489 DPFs were included. Sixty-four of those were internally or externally validated. However, only three studies on diagnostic and seven studies on prognostic factors had a low risk of bias and a low risk concerning applicability. CONCLUSION: Most of the DPFs identified require additional evaluation and validation in properly designed studies before they can be recommended for use in clinical practice. The PIONEER online search tool for DPFs for PCa will enable researchers to understand the quality of the current research and help them design future studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: There are no ethical implications.

Updating and Integrating Core Outcome Sets for Localised, Locally Advanced, Metastatic, and Nonmetastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: An Update from the PIONEER Consortium.

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.

Systematic Review of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer to Develop Recommendations Regarding Inclusion of Intermediate-risk Disease, Biopsy Characteristics at Inclusion and Monitoring, and Surveillance Repeat Biopsy Strategy.

CONTEXT: There is uncertainty regarding the most appropriate criteria for recruitment, monitoring, and reclassification in active surveillance (AS) protocols for localised prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVE: To perform a qualitative systematic review (SR) to issue recommendations regarding inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, biopsy characteristics at inclusion and monitoring, and repeat biopsy strategy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A protocol-driven, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-adhering SR incorporating AS protocols published from January 1990 to October 2020 was performed. The main outcomes were criteria for inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, monitoring, reclassification, and repeat biopsy strategies (per protocol and/or triggered). Clinical effectiveness data were not assessed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Of the 17 011 articles identified, 333 studies incorporating 375 AS protocols, recruiting 264 852 patients, were included. Only a minority of protocols included the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for recruitment (n = 17), follow-up (n = 47), and reclassification (n = 26). More than 50% of protocols included patients with intermediate or high-risk disease, whilst 44.1% of protocols excluded low-risk patients with more than three positive cores, and 39% of protocols excluded patients with core involvement (CI) >50% per core. Of the protocols, ≥80% mandated a confirmatory transrectal ultrasound biopsy; 72% (n = 189) of protocols mandated per-protocol repeat biopsies, with 20% performing this annually and 25% every 2 yr. Only 27 protocols (10.3%) mandated triggered biopsies, with 74% of these protocols defining progression or changes on MRI as triggers for repeat biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: For AS protocols in which the use of MRI is not mandatory or absent, we recommend the following: (1) AS can be considered in patients with low-volume International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 (three or fewer positive cores and cancer involvement ≤50% CI per core) or another single element of intermediate-risk disease, and patients with ISUP 3 should be excluded; (2) per-protocol confirmatory prostate biopsies should be performed within 2 yr, and per-protocol surveillance repeat biopsies should be performed at least once every 3 yr for the first 10 yr; and (3) for patients with low-volume, low-risk disease at recruitment, if repeat systematic biopsies reveal more than three positive cores or maximum CI >50% per core, they should be monitored closely for evidence of adverse features (eg, upgrading); patients with ISUP 2 disease with increased core positivity and/or CI to similar thresholds should be reclassified. PATIENT SUMMARY: We examined the literature to issue new recommendations on active surveillance (AS) for managing localised prostate cancer. The recommendations include setting criteria for including men with more aggressive disease (intermediate-risk disease), setting thresholds for close monitoring of men with low-risk but more extensive disease, and determining when to perform repeat biopsies (within 2 yr and 3 yearly thereafter).

Minimally invasive treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a Cochrane network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the comparative effectiveness and ranking of minimally invasive treatments (MITs) for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched multiple databases up to 24 February 2021. We included randomized controlled trials assessing the following treatments: convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy (WVTT; or Rezum); prostatic arterial embolization (PAE); prostatic urethral lift (PUL; or Urolift); temporary implantable nitinol device (TIND); and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) compared to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) or sham surgery. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included 27 trials involving 3017 men. The overall certainty of the evidence of most outcomes according to GRADE was low to very low. Compared to TURP, we found that PUL and PAE may result in little to no difference in urological symptoms, while WVTT, TUMT and TIND may result in worse urological symptoms. MITs may result in little to no difference in quality of life, compared to TURP. MITs may result in a large reduction in major adverse events compared to TURP. We were uncertain about the effects of PAE and PUL on retreatment compared to TURP, however, TUMT may result in higher retreatment rates. We were very uncertain of the effects of MITs on erectile function and ejaculatory function. Among MITs, PUL and PAE had the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for urinary symptoms and quality of life, TUMT for major adverse events, WVTT and TIND for erectile function and PUL for ejaculatory function. Excluding WVTT and TIND, for which there were only studies with short-term (3-month) follow-up, PUL had the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for retreatment. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive treatments may result in similar or worse effects concerning urinary symptoms and quality of life compared to TURP at short-term follow-up.

Standardising the Assessment of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Localised Prostate Cancer. A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common cancer among men worldwide. Urinary, bowel, and sexual function, as well as hormonal symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), were prioritised by patients and professionals as part of a core outcome set for localised PCa regardless of treatment type. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in localised PCa and recommend PROMs for use in routine practice and research settings. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The psychometric properties of PROMs measuring functional and HRQoL domains used in randomised controlled trials including patients with localised PCa were assessed according to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology. MEDLINE and Embase were searched to identify publications evaluating psychometric properties of the PROMs. The characteristics and methodological quality of the studies included were extracted, tabulated, and assessed according to the COSMIN criteria. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, 27 studies evaluating psychometric properties of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), University of California-Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life core 30 (QLQ-C30) and prostate cancer 25 (QLQ-PR25) modules, International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), and the 36-item (SF-36) and 12-item Short-Form health survey (SF-12) PROMs were identified and included in the systematic review. EPIC and EORTC QLQ-C30, a general module that assesses patients' physical, psychological, and social functions, were characterised by high internal consistency (Cronbach's α 0.46-0.96 and 0.68-0.94 respectively) but low content validity. EORTC QLQ-PR25, which is primarily designed to assess PCa-specific HRQoL, had moderate content validity and internal consistency (Cronbach's α 0.39-0.87). UCLA-PCI was characterised by moderate content validity and high internal consistency (Cronbach's α 0.21-0.94). However, it does not directly assess hormonal symptoms, whereas EORTC QLQ-PR25 does. CONCLUSION: The tools with the best evidence for psychometric properties and feasibility for use in routine practice and research settings to assess PROMs in patients with localised PCa were EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25. Since EORTC QLQ-C30 is a general module that does not directly assess PCa-specific issues, it should be adopted in conjunction with the QLQ-PR25 module. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed and appraised the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measure questionnaires used for patients with localised prostate cancer. We found good evidence to suggest that two questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25) can be used to measure urinary, bowel, and sexual functions and health-related quality of life.

Minimally invasive treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A variety of minimally invasive treatments are available as an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, it is unclear which treatments provide better results. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to assess the comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with BPH through a network meta-analysis. Our secondary objective was to obtain an estimate of relative ranking of these minimally invasive treatments, according to their effects. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and LILACS), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to 24 February 2021. We had no restrictions on language of publication or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of the following minimally invasive treatments, compared to TURP or sham treatment, on men with moderate to severe LUTS due to BPH: convective radiofrequency water vapor therapy (CRFWVT); prostatic arterial embolization (PAE); prostatic urethral lift (PUL); temporary implantable nitinol device (TIND); and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model for pair-wise comparisons and a frequentist network meta-analysis for combined estimates. We interpreted them according to Cochrane methods. We planned subgroup analyses by age, prostate volume, and severity of baseline symptoms. We used risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to express dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs to express continuous data. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 trials involving 3017 men, mostly over age 50, with severe LUTS due to BPH. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low due to concerns regarding bias, imprecision, inconsistency (heterogeneity), and incoherence. Based on the network meta-analysis, results for our main outcomes were as follows. Urologic symptoms (19 studies, 1847 participants): PUL and PAE may result in little to no difference in urologic symptoms scores (MD of International Prostate Symptoms Score [IPSS]) compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; MD range 0 to 35; higher scores indicate worse symptoms; PUL: 1.47, 95% CI -4.00 to 6.93; PAE: 1.55, 95% CI -1.23 to 4.33; low-certainty evidence). CRFWVT, TUMT, and TIND may result in worse urologic symptoms scores compared to TURP at short-term follow-up, but the CIs include little to no difference (CRFWVT: 3.6, 95% CI -4.25 to 11.46; TUMT: 3.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 7.10; TIND: 7.5, 95% CI -0.68 to 15.69; low-certainty evidence). Quality of life (QoL) (13 studies, 1459 participants): All interventions may result in little to no difference in the QoL scores, compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; MD of IPSS-QoL score; MD range 0 to 6; higher scores indicate worse symptoms; PUL: 0.06, 95% CI -1.17 to 1.30; PAE: 0.09, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.75; CRFWVT: 0.37, 95% CI -1.45 to 2.20; TUMT: 0.65, 95% CI -0.48 to 1.78; TIND: 0.87, 95% CI -1.04 to 2.79; low-certainty evidence). Major adverse events (15 studies, 1573 participants): TUMT probably results in a large reduction of major adverse events compared to TURP (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.43; moderate-certainty evidence). PUL, CRFWVT, TIND and PAE may also result in a large reduction in major adverse events, but CIs include substantial benefits and harms at three months to 36 months; PUL: RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.22; CRFWVT: RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.01 to 18.62; TIND: RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.01 to 24.46; PAE: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.68; low-certainty evidence). Retreatment (10 studies, 799 participants): We are uncertain about the effects of PAE and PUL on retreatment compared to TURP (12 to 60 months; PUL: RR 2.39, 95% CI 0.51 to 11.1; PAE: RR 4.39, 95% CI 1.25 to 15.44; very low-certainty evidence). TUMT may result in higher retreatment rates (RR 9.71, 95% CI 2.35 to 40.13; low-certainty evidence). Erectile function (six studies, 640 participants): We are very uncertain of the effects of minimally invasive treatments on erectile function (MD of International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF-5]; range 5 to 25; higher scores indicates better function; CRFWVT: 6.49, 95% CI -8.13 to 21.12; TIND: 5.19, 95% CI -9.36 to 19.74; PUL: 3.00, 95% CI -5.45 to 11.44; PAE: -0.03, 95% CI -6.38, 6.32; very low-certainty evidence). Ejaculatory dysfunction (eight studies, 461 participants): We are uncertain of the effects of PUL, PAE and TUMT on ejaculatory dysfunction compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; PUL: RR 0.05, 95 % CI 0.00 to 1.06; PAE: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.92; TUMT: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.68; low-certainty evidence). TURP is the reference treatment with the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for urinary symptoms, QoL and retreatment, but the least favorable in terms of major adverse events, erectile function and ejaculatory function. Among minimally invasive procedures, PUL and PAE have the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for urinary symptoms and QoL, TUMT for major adverse events, PUL for retreatment, CRFWVT and TIND for erectile function and PUL for ejaculatory function. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive treatments may result in similar or worse effects concerning urinary symptoms and QoL compared to TURP at short-term follow-up. They may result in fewer major adverse events, especially in the case of PUL and PAE; resulting in better rankings for symptoms scores. PUL may result in fewer retreatments compared to other interventions, especially TUMT, which had the highest retreatment rates at long-term follow-up. We are very uncertain about the effects of these interventions on erectile function. There was limited long-term data, especially for CRFWVT and TIND. Future high-quality studies with more extended follow-up, comparing different, active treatment modalities, and adequately reporting critical outcomes relevant to patients, including those related to sexual function, could provide more information on the relative effectiveness of these interventions.

The Key Role of Patient Involvement in the Development of Core Outcome Sets in Prostate Cancer.

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.

Diagnostic and prognostic factors in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: As part of the PIONEER (Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment Enhancement Through the Power of Big Data in Europe) Consortium, we will explore which diagnostic and prognostic factors (DPFs) are currently being researched to previously defined clinical and patient-reported outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This research project will follow the following four steps: (1) a broad systematic literature review of DPFs for all stages of PCa, covering evidence from 2014 onwards; (2) discussion of systematic review findings by a multidisciplinary expert panel; (3) risk of bias assessment and applicability with Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool criteria, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) and the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool (QUIPS) and (4) additional quantitative assessments if required. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We aim to develop an online tool to present the DPFs identified in this research and make them available across all stakeholders. There are no ethical implications.

Nonantibiotic Strategies for the Prevention of Infectious Complications following Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: We identify which nonantibiotic strategies could reduce the risk of infectious complications following prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a literature search on MEDLINE®, Embase® and the Cochrane Database for randomized controlled trials (inception to May 2020) assessing nonantibiotic interventions in prostate biopsy. Primary outcome was pooled infectious complications (fever, sepsis and symptomatic urinary tract infection) and secondary outcome was hospitalization. Cochrane risk of bias tool and GRADE approach were used to assess the bias and the certainty of evidence. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015026354). RESULTS: A total of 90 randomized controlled trials (16,941 participants) were included in the analysis, with 83 trials being categorized into one of 10 different interventions. Transperineal biopsy was associated with significantly reduced infectious complications as compared to transrectal biopsy (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33-0.92, p=0.02, I2=0%, 1,330 participants, 7 studies). Rectal preparation with povidone-iodine was also shown to reduce infectious complications (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.38-0.65, p <0.000001, I2=27%, 1,686 participants, 8 studies) as well as hospitalization (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21-0.69, p=0.002, I2=0%, 620 participants, 4 studies). We found no difference in infectious complications/hospitalization for 6 other interventions, ie number of biopsy cores, periprostatic nerve block, number of injections for periprostatic nerve block, needle guide type, needle type and rectal preparation with enema. In 2 interventions (needle diameter, rectal preparation with chlorhexidine) meta-analysis was not possible. Finally, 7 studies had unique interventions. The certainty of evidence was rated as low/very low for all interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Transperineal biopsy significantly reduces infectious complications compared to transrectal biopsy and should therefore be preferred. If transrectal biopsy is performed, rectal preparation with povidone-iodine is highly recommended. The other investigated nonantibiotic strategies did not significantly influence infection and hospitalization after prostate biopsy.