Unpacking overuse of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer to inform de-implementation strategies.

BACKGROUND: Many men with prostate cancer will be exposed to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). While evidence-based ADT use is common, ADT is also used in cases with no or limited evidence resulting in more harm than benefit, i.e., overuse. Since there are risks of ADT (e.g., diabetes, osteoporosis), it is important to understand the behaviors facilitating overuse to inform de-implementation strategies. For these reasons, we conducted a theory-informed survey study, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE), to better understand ADT overuse and provider preferences for mitigating overuse. METHODS: Our survey used the Action, Actor, Context, Target, Time (AACTT) framework, the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) Model, and a DCE to elicit provider de-implementation strategy preferences. We surveyed the Society of Government Service Urologists listserv in December 2020. We stratified respondents based on the likelihood of stopping overuse as ADT monotherapy for localized prostate cancer ("yes"/"probably yes," "probably no"/"no"), and characterized corresponding Likert scale responses to seven COM-B statements. We used multivariable regression to identify associations between stopping ADT overuse and COM-B responses. RESULTS: Our survey was completed by 84 respondents (13% response rate), with 27% indicating "probably no"/"no" to stopping ADT overuse. We found differences across respondents who said they would and would not stop ADT overuse in demographics and COM-B statements. Our model identified 2 COM-B domains (Opportunity-Social, Motivation-Reflective) significantly associated with a lower likelihood of stopping ADT overuse. Our DCE demonstrated in-person communication, multidisciplinary review, and medical record documentation may be effective in reducing ADT overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Our study used a behavioral theory-informed survey, including a DCE, to identify behaviors and context underpinning ADT overuse. Specifying behaviors supporting and gathering provider preferences in addressing ADT overuse requires a stepwise, stakeholder-engaged approach to support evidence-based cancer care. From this work, we are pursuing targeted improvement strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03579680.

How Can We Improve Patient-Clinician Communication for Men Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer?

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.

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.

European Association of Nuclear Medicine Focus 5: Consensus on Molecular Imaging and Theranostics in Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In prostate cancer (PCa), questions remain on indications for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and PSMA radioligand therapy, integration of advanced imaging in nomogram-based decision-making, dosimetry, and development of new theranostic applications. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to critically review developments in molecular hybrid imaging and systemic radioligand therapy, to reach a multidisciplinary consensus on the current state of the art in PCa. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The results of a systematic literature search informed a two-round Delphi process with a panel of 28 PCa experts in medical or radiation oncology, urology, radiology, medical physics, and nuclear medicine. The results were discussed and ratified in a consensus meeting. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Forty-eight statements were scored on a Likert agreement scale and six as ranking options. Agreement statements were analysed using the RAND appropriateness method. Ranking statements were analysed using weighted summed scores. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After two Delphi rounds, there was consensus on 42/48 (87.5%) of the statements. The expert panel recommends PSMA PET to be used for staging the majority of patients with unfavourable intermediate and high risk, and for restaging of suspected recurrent PCa. There was consensus that oligometastatic disease should be defined as up to five metastases, even using advanced imaging modalities. The group agreed that [177Lu]Lu-PSMA should not be administered only after progression to cabazitaxel and that [223Ra]RaCl2 remains a valid therapeutic option in bone-only metastatic castration-resistant PCa. Uncertainty remains on various topics, including the need for concordant findings on both [18F]FDG and PSMA PET prior to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high proportion of agreement among a panel of experts on the use of molecular imaging and theranostics in PCa. Although consensus statements cannot replace high-certainty evidence, these can aid in the interpretation and dissemination of best practice from centres of excellence to the wider clinical community. PATIENT SUMMARY: There are situations when dealing with prostate cancer (PCa) where both the doctors who diagnose and track the disease development and response to treatment, and those who give treatments are unsure about what the best course of action is. Examples include what methods they should use to obtain images of the cancer and what to do when the cancer has returned or spread. We reviewed published research studies and provided a summary to a panel of experts in imaging and treating PCa. We also used the research summary to develop a questionnaire whereby we asked the experts to state whether or not they agreed with a list of statements. We used these results to provide guidance to other health care professionals on how best to image men with PCa and what treatments to give, when, and in what order, based on the information the images provide.

Effectiveness of de-implementation strategies for low-value prescribing in secondary care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Considerable efforts have been made to improve guideline adherence in healthcare through de-implementation, such as decreasing the prescription of inappropriate medicines. However, we have limited knowledge about the effectiveness, barriers, facilitators and consequences of de-implementation strategies targeting inappropriate medication prescribing in secondary care settings. This review was conducted to understand these factors to contribute to better replication and optimisation of future de-implementation efforts to reduce low-value care. METHODS: A systematic review of randomised control trials was conducted. Papers were identified through CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane register of controlled trials to February 2021. Eligible studies were randomised control trials evaluating behavioural strategies to de-implement inappropriate prescribing in secondary healthcare. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Intervention characteristics, effectiveness, barriers, facilitators and consequences were identified in the study text and tabulated. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included, of which seven were reported as effectively de-implementing low-value prescribing. Included studies were judged to be mainly at low to moderate risk for selection biases and generally high risk for performance and reporting biases. The majority of these strategies were clinical decision support at the 'point of care'. Clinical decision support tools were the most common and effective. They were found to be a low-cost and simple strategy. However, barriers such as clinician's reluctance to accept recommendations, or the clinical setting were potential barriers to their success. Educational strategies were the second most reported intervention type however the utility of educational strategies for de-implementation remains varied. Multiple barriers and facilitators relating to the environmental context, resources and knowledge were identified across studies as potentially influencing de-implementation. Various consequences were identified; however, few measured the impact of de-implementation on usual appropriate practice. CONCLUSION: This review offers insight into the intervention strategies, potential barriers, facilitators and consequences that may affect the de-implementation of low-value prescribing in secondary care. Identification of these key features helps understand how and why these strategies are effective and the wider (desirable or undesirable) impact of de-implementation. These findings can contribute to the successful replication or optimisation of strategies used to de-implement low-value prescribing practices in future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review protocol was registered at PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021243944).

A protocol for the development of core outcome sets for effectiveness trials and clinical audits in renal cell cancer (R-COS).

Background: There is inconsistency in outcomes collected in renal cell cancer (RCC) intervention effectiveness studies and variability in their definitions. This makes critical summaries of the evidence base difficult and sub-optimally informative for clinical practice guidelines and decision-making by patients and healthcare professionals. A solution is to develop a core outcome set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be reported in all trials in a clinical area. Objectives: To develop three COS for (a) localised, (b) locally advanced and (c) metastatic. RCC study design participants and methods: The methods are the same for each of our three COS and are structured in two phases. Phase 1 identifies potentially relevant outcomes by conducting both a systematic literature review and patient interviews (N ~ 30 patients). Qualitative data will be analysed using framework analysis. In phase 2, all outcomes identified in phase 1 will be entered in a modified eDelphi, whereby patients and healthcare professionals (50 of each) will score each outcome's importance (Likert scale from 1 [not important] to 9 [critically important]). Outcomes scored in the 7-9 range by ≥70% and 1-3 by ≤15% will be regarded as 'consensus in', and the vice versa of this will constitute 'consensus out'. All other combinations will be regarded as equivocal and discussed at consensus meetings (including 10 patients and 10 healthcare professionals) in order to vote on them and ratify the results of the eDelphi. Discussion: The R-COS will reduce outcome reporting heterogeneity and improve the evidence base for RCC. Study registration: The study is registered with the COMET initiative: https://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1406.

En bloc resection of bladder tumour: the rebirth of past through reminiscence.

PURPOSE: To learn about the history and development of en bloc resection of bladder tumour (ERBT), and to discuss its future directions in managing bladder cancer. METHODS: In this narrative review, we summarised the history and early development of ERBT, previous attempts in overcoming the tumour size limitation, consolidative effort in standardising the ERBT procedure, emerging evidence in ERBT, evolving concepts in treating large bladder tumours, and the future directions of ERBT. RESULTS: Since the first report on ERBT in 1980, there has been tremendous advancement in terms of its technique, energy modalities and tumour retrieval methods. In 2020, the international consensus statement on ERBT has been developed and it serves as a standard reference for urologists to practise ERBT. Recently, high-quality evidence on ERBT has been emerging. Of note, the EB-StaR study showed that ERBT led to a reduction in 1-year recurrence rate from 38.1 to 28.5%. An individual patient data meta-analysis is currently underway, and it will be instrumental in defining the true value of ERBT in treating non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. For large bladder tumours, modified approaches of ERBT should be accepted, as the quality of resection is more important than a mere removal of tumour in one piece. The global ERBT registry has been launched to study the value of ERBT in a real-world setting. CONCLUSION: ERBT is a promising surgical technique in treating bladder cancer and it has gained increasing interest globally. It is about time for us to embrace this technique in our clinical practice.

Audit, Feedback, and Education to Improve Quality and Outcomes in Transurethral Resection and Single-Instillation Intravesical Chemotherapy for Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Treatment: Protocol for a Multicenter International Observational Study With an Embedded Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) accounts for 75% of bladder cancers. It is common and costly. Cost and detriment to patient outcomes and quality of life are driven by high recurrence rates and the need for regular invasive surveillance and repeat treatments. There is evidence that the quality of the initial surgical procedure (transurethral resection of bladder tumor [TURBT]) and administration of postoperative bladder chemotherapy significantly reduce cancer recurrence rates and improve outcomes (cancer progression and mortality). There is surgeon-reported evidence that TURBT practice varies significantly across surgeons and sites. There is limited evidence from clinical trials of intravesical chemotherapy that NMIBC recurrence rate varies significantly between sites and that this cannot be accounted for by differences in patient, tumor, or adjuvant treatment factors, suggesting that how the surgery is performed may be a reason for the variation. OBJECTIVE: This study primarily aims to determine if feedback on and education about surgical quality indicators can improve performance and secondarily if this can reduce cancer recurrence rates. Planned secondary analyses aim to determine what surgeon, operative, perioperative, institutional, and patient factors are associated with better achievement of TURBT quality indicators and NMIBC recurrence rates. METHODS: This is an observational, international, multicenter study with an embedded cluster randomized trial of audit, feedback, and education. Sites will be included if they perform TURBT for NMIBC. The study has four phases: (1) site registration and usual practice survey; (2) retrospective audit; (3) randomization to audit, feedback, and education intervention or to no intervention; and (4) prospective audit. Local and national ethical and institutional approvals or exemptions will be obtained at each participating site. RESULTS: The study has 4 coprimary outcomes, which are 4 evidence-based TURBT quality indicators: a surgical performance factor (detrusor muscle resection); an adjuvant treatment factor (intravesical chemotherapy administration); and 2 documentation factors (resection completeness and tumor features). A key secondary outcome is the early cancer recurrence rate. The intervention is a web-based surgical performance feedback dashboard with educational and practical resources for TURBT quality improvement. It will include anonymous site and surgeon-level peer comparison, a performance summary, and targets. The coprimary outcomes will be analyzed at the site level while recurrence rate will be analyzed at the patient level. The study was funded in October 2020 and began data collection in April 2021. As of January 2023, there were 220 hospitals participating and over 15,000 patient records. Projected data collection end date is June 30, 2023. CONCLUSIONS: This study aims to use a distributed collaborative model to deliver a site-level web-based performance feedback intervention to improve the quality of endoscopic bladder cancer surgery. The study is funded and projects to complete data collection in June 2023. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.org NCT05154084; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05154084. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/42254.

European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) Focus 4 consensus recommendations: molecular imaging and therapy in haematological tumours.

Given the paucity of high-certainty evidence, and differences in opinion on the use of nuclear medicine for hematological malignancies, we embarked on a consensus process involving key experts in this area. We aimed to assess consensus within a panel of experts on issues related to patient eligibility, imaging techniques, staging and response assessment, follow-up, and treatment decision-making, and to provide interim guidance by our expert consensus. We used a three-stage consensus process. First, we systematically reviewed and appraised the quality of existing evidence. Second, we generated a list of 153 statements based on the literature review to be agreed or disagreed with, with an additional statement added after the first round. Third, the 154 statements were scored by a panel of 26 experts purposively sampled from authors of published research on haematological tumours on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree) Likert scale in a two-round electronic Delphi review. The RAND and University of California Los Angeles appropriateness method was used for analysis. Between one and 14 systematic reviews were identified on each topic. All were rated as low to moderate quality. After two rounds of voting, there was consensus on 139 (90%) of 154 of the statements. There was consensus on most statements concerning the use of PET in non-Hodgkin and Hodgkin lymphoma. In multiple myeloma, more studies are required to define the optimal sequence for treatment assessment. Furthermore, nuclear medicine physicians and haematologists are awaiting consistent literature to introduce volumetric parameters, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and radiomics into routine practice.

Assessing the quality of patient-reported outcome measurements for gynecological cancers: a systematic review.

Aim: To provide perspective on patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) instruments to adopt in patients diagnosed with gynecological cancers. Methods: A systematic search was conducted to identify PROMs developed for or applied in gynecological cancer populations. PROMs identified in more than one study subsequently underwent assessment according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. Results: Overall, 55 PROMs were identified within the gynecological cancer setting, and 20 were assessed according to COSMIN guidelines. Most PROMs had limited information reported, but a best fit approach was adopted to recommend a number of instruments for use in patients with gynecological cancer. Conclusion: Further study to assess the methodological quality of each PROM utilized in gynecological cancers is warranted to endorse the recommendations of this review.

Gynecological cancers are cancers which occur in the reproductive system of women. The cervical cancer screening program and development of new treatments mean that women with gynecological cancers are now living longer than before. However, these new treatments may have side effects that can affect the quality of life of women with cancer. Many care providers now agree that looking at women's quality of life during their gynecological cancer journey is an important part of their treatment. Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are questionnaires that the patient completes to measure their symptoms and quality of life. There are a lot of PROMs available to choose from, and it can be difficult to select one that is relevant and understandable for all women with gynecological cancer. This article searched the literature to find all PROMs that can be completed by women with gynecological cancer and then measured each of the PROM's quality. PROM quality was measured by looking at validity (whether the questionnaire measures what it is supposed to measure), reliability (that the questionnaire is not subject to different errors in measuring), and sensitivity (that the questionnaire can measure changes in questionnaire scores over time). Overall, this study found that there were a few PROMs that were of good enough quality to be completed by women with gynecological cancers. These questionnaires are called the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Cervical Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-CX24), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Endometrial Cancer (EORTC QLQ-EN24), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Gynecologic Oncology Group ­ Neurotoxicity (FACT-GOG/Ntx), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy ­ Ovarian (FACT-O) and Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). Each questionnaire can be filled out by women with different types of gynecological cancer, and the FSFI measures sexual problems that women may experience after cancer treatment.

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.

Mapping European Association of Urology Guideline Practice Across Europe: An Audit of Androgen Deprivation Therapy Use Before Prostate Cancer Surgery in 6598 Cases in 187 Hospitals Across 31 European Countries.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-practice gaps exist in urology. We previously surveyed European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines for strong recommendations underpinned by high-certainty evidence that impact patient experience for which practice variations were suspected. The recommendation "Do not offer neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) before surgery for patients with prostate cancer" was prioritised for further investigation. ADT before surgery is neither clinically effective nor cost effective and has serious side effects. The first step in improving implementation problems is to understand their extent. A clear picture of practice regarding ADT before surgery across Europe is not available. OBJECTIVE: To assess current ADT use before prostate cancer surgery in Europe. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was an observational cross-sectional study. We retrospectively audited recent ADT practices in a multicentre international setting. We used nonprobability purposive sampling, aiming for breadth in terms of low- versus high-volume, academic, versus community and public versus private centres. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Our primary outcome was adherence to the ADT recommendation. Descriptive statistics and a multilevel model were used to investigate differences between countries across different factors (volume, centre type, and funding type). Subgroup analyses were performed for patients with low, intermediate, and high risk, and for those with locally advanced prostate cancer. We also collected reasons for nonadherence. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We included 6598 patients with prostate cancer from 187 hospitals in 31 countries from January 1, 2017 to May 1, 2020. Overall, nonadherence was 2%, (range 0-32%). Most of the variability was found in the high-risk subgroup, for which nonadherence was 4% (range 0-43%). Reasons for nonadherence included attempts to improve oncological outcomes or preoperative tumour parameters; attempts to control the cancer because of long waiting lists; and patient preference (changing one's mind from radiotherapy to surgery after neoadjuvant ADT had commenced or feeling that the side effects were intolerable). Although we purposively sampled for variety within countries (public/private, academic/community, high/low-volume), a selection bias toward centres with awareness of guidelines is possible, so adherence rates may be overestimated. CONCLUSIONS: EAU guidelines recommend against ADT use before prostate cancer surgery, yet some guideline-discordant ADT use remains at the cost of patient experience and an additional payer and provider burden. Strategies towards discontinuation of inappropriate preoperative ADT use should be pursued. PATIENT SUMMARY: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is sometimes used in men with prostate cancer who will not benefit from it. ADT causes side effects such as weight gain and emotional changes and increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and osteoporosis. Guidelines strongly recommend that men opting for surgery should not receive ADT, but it is unclear how well the guidance is followed. We asked urologists across Europe how patients in their institutions were treated over the past few years. Most do not use ADT before surgery, but this still happens in some places. More research is needed to help doctors to stop using ADT in patients who will not benefit from it.

Best Current Practice and Research Priorities in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer-A Report of a Movember International Consensus Meeting.

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

A Systematic Review of Heterogeneity in Outcome Definition and Reporting in Localised Renal Cancer.

Context: Outcomes in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are reported inconsistently, with variability in definitions and measurement. Hence, it is difficult to compare intervention effectiveness and synthesise outcomes for systematic reviews and to create clinical practice guidelines. This uncertainty in the evidence makes it difficult to guide patient-clinician decision-making. One solution is a core outcome set (COS): an agreed minimum set of outcomes. Objective: To describe outcome reporting, definitions, and measurement heterogeneity as the first stage in co-creating a COS for localised renal cancer. Evidence acquisition: We systematically reviewed outcome reporting heterogeneity in effectiveness trials and observational studies in localised RCC. In total, 2822 studies (randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, systematic reviews) up to June 2020 meeting our inclusion criteria were identified. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently by two reviewers; in cases of disagreement, a third reviewer arbitrated. Data extractions were double-checked. Evidence synthesis: We included 149 studies and found that there was inconsistency in which outcomes were reported across studies and variability in the definitions used for outcomes that were conceptually the same. We structured our analysis using the outcome classification taxonomy proposed by Dodd et al. Outcomes linked to adverse events (eg, bleeding, outcomes linked to surgery) and renal injury outcomes (reduced renal function) were reported most commonly. Outcomes related to deaths from any cause and from cancer were reported in 44% and 25% of studies, respectively, although the time point for measurement and the analysis methods were inconsistent. Outcomes linked to life impact (eg, global quality of life) were reported least often. Clinician-reported outcomes are more frequently reported than patient-reported outcomes in the renal cancer literature. Conclusions: This systematic review underscores the heterogeneity of outcome reporting, definitions, and measurement in research on localised renal cancer. It catalogues the variety of outcomes and serves as a first step towards the development of a COS for localised renal cancer. Patient summary: We reviewed studies on localised kidney cancer and found that multiple terms and definitions have been used to describe outcomes. These are not defined consistently, and often not defined at all. Our review is the first phase in developing a core outcome set to allow better comparisons of studies to improve medical care.

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.

EAU-EANM Consensus Statements on the Role of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Patients with Prostate Cancer and with Respect to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA Radioligand Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) is useful for selected clinical indications in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) but it may have broader clinical utility owing to the emergence of lutetium-177-PSMA-617 ([177Lu]Lu-PSMA) therapy. However, robust data regarding the impact of PSMA PET/CT on patient management and treatment are lacking, and in many areas, the role of next-generation imaging has not been defined. OBJECTIVE: To assess expert opinion on the use of PSMA-based imaging and therapy to develop interim guidance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A panel of 21 PCa experts from various disciplines received thematic topics and relevant literature. A questionnaire to assess proposed guidance statements regarding PSMA PET/CT and [177Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy was developed for completion remotely in a first e-Delphi round. A subsequent panel discussion was conducted during a 1-d meeting, which included a second Delphi round. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Panellists voted anonymously on statements using a nine-point Likert scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 9 = strongly agree. Median scores were calculated and consensus was assessed using methods proposed by the Research and Development (RAND) corporation. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Statements were developed to cover the following topics: PSMA PET/CT utility, clinical use, and choice of tracer; patient selection; and management of patients receiving [177Lu]Lu-PSMA for metastatic PCa. Consensus was reached for 33/36 statements. In-group bias is a potential limitation, as some statements were rephrased during discussions at the 1-d meeting. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of PSMA PET/CT as an imaging tool to guide [177Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy should be supported by indications for appropriate use. PATIENT SUMMARY: A panel of experts in prostate cancer reached a consensus for the majority of statements proposed regarding the role of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-based imaging and therapy, particularly the use of PSMA-based imaging in patients suitable for [177Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy and the need to perform PSMA-based imaging before considering patients as candidates for this therapy.

A BURST-BAUS consensus document for best practice in the conduct of scrotal exploration for suspected testicular torsion: the Finding consensus for orchIdopeXy In Torsion (FIX-IT) study.

OBJECTIVES: To produce a best practice consensus guideline for the conduct of scrotal exploration for suspected testicular torsion using formal consensus methodology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A panel of 16 expert urologists, representing adult, paediatric, general, and andrological urology used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Consensus Methodology to score a 184 statement pre-meeting questionnaire on the conduct of scrotal exploration for suspected testicular torsion. The collated responses were presented at a face-to-face online meeting and each item was rescored anonymously after a group discussion, facilitated by an independent chair with expertise in consensus methodology. Items were scored for agreement and consensus and the items scored with consensus were used to derive a set of best practice guidelines. RESULTS: Statements scored as with consensus increased from Round 1 (122/184, 66.3%) to Round 2 (149/200, 74.5%). Recommendations were generated in ten categories: consent, assessment under anaesthetic, initial incision, intraoperative decision making, fixation, medical photography, closure, operation note, logistics and follow-up after scrotal exploration. Our statements assume that the decision to operate has already been made. Key recommendations in the consent process included the discussion of the possibility of orchidectomy and the possibility of subsequent infection of the affected testis or wound requiring antibiotic therapy. If after the examination under anaesthesia, the index of suspicion of testicular torsion is lower than previously thought, then the surgeon should still proceed to scrotal exploration as planned. A flow chart guiding decision making dependent on intraoperative findings has been designed. If no torsion is present on exploration and the bell clapper deformity is absent, the testis should not be fixed. When fixing a testis using sutures, 3 or 4-point is acceptable and non-absorbable sutures are preferred. CONCLUSIONS: We have produced consensus recommendations to inform best practice in the conduct of scrotal exploration for suspected testicular torsion.