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.

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).

Is there an association between intimate partner violence and the prevalence of cervical cancer screening in Jordan?

BACKGROUND: Major health inequalities exist surrounding the utilisation of cervical cancer screening services globally. Jordan, a low- and middle-income country, has poor screening rates (15.8%), with barriers to accessing services, including lack of education. Emerging studies demonstrate that intimate partner violence (IPV) impacts reproductive health decisions. As a large proportion of Jordanian women have reported experiencing IPV, this study examines the association between IPV and cervical cancer screening in Jordan, the first of its kind using national-level data. METHODS: Using Jordan's Demographic Health Survey 2017-18, cervical cancer screening awareness and self-reported screening were estimated in participants who answered questions on IPV (n = 6679). After applying sample weights, Heckman's two-stage probit model determined the association of awareness and utilisation of cervical cancer screening with experience of IPV, adjusting for the socio-economic factors. RESULTS: Of the women with privacy to answer the IPV module, 180 (3.4%) were found to be victims of sexual violence, 691 of physical violence (12.6%) and 935 (16.2%) of emotional violence. Women subjected to sexual violence were less likely to admit to having awareness of a Pap smear test; however, this did not impact screening rates. Victims of emotional violence were more likely to be screened than non-victims. No association between physical violence and cervical cancer screening was found. CONCLUSIONS: A significant association between cervical screening awareness and IPV demonstrates that cancer screening policies must consider IPV among women to improve screening awareness. The paper further sheds light on the paradoxical association between emotional violence and screening. It is acknowledged this situation may be far worse than reported, as women without autonomy were unlikely to answer IPV questions that may endanger them-targeted surveys on cervical cancer screening warrant further investigation.

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.

Treatment burden in survivors of prostate and colorectal cancers: a qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment burden is the workload of healthcare and the impact this has on the individual. Treatment burden is associated with poorer patient outcomes in several chronic diseases. Illness burden has been extensively studied in cancer, but little is known about treatment burden, particularly in those who have completed primary treatment for cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate treatment burden in survivors of prostate and colorectal cancers and their caregivers. DESIGN: Semistructured interview study. Interviews were analysed using Framework and thematic analysis. SETTING: Participants were recruited via general practices in Northeast Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants were individuals who had been diagnosed with colorectal or prostate cancer without distant metastases within the previous 5 years and their caregivers. Thirty-five patients and six caregivers participated: 22 patients had prostate and 13 had colorectal cancers (six male, seven female). RESULTS: The term 'burden' did not resonate with most survivors, who expressed gratitude that time invested in cancer care could translate into improved survival. Cancer management was time consuming, but workload reduced over time. Cancer was usually considered as a discrete episode. Individual, disease and health system factors protected against or increased treatment burden. Some factors, such as health service configuration, were potentially modifiable. Multimorbidity contributed most to treatment burden and influenced treatment decisions and engagement with follow-up. The presence of a caregiver protected against treatment burden, but caregivers also experienced burden. CONCLUSIONS: Intensive cancer treatment and follow-up regimens do not necessarily lead to perceived burden. A cancer diagnosis serves as a strong motivator to engage in health management, but a careful balance exists between positive perceptions and burden. Treatment burden could lead to poorer cancer outcomes by influencing engagement with and decisions about care. Clinicians should ask about treatment burden and its impact, particularly in those with multimorbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04163068.

Cost-utility analysis of shockwave lithotripsy vs ureteroscopic stone treatment in adults.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness, resource use implications, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost per QALY of care pathways starting with either extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) or with ureteroscopic retrieval (ureteroscopy [URS]) for the management of ureteric stones. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data on quality of life and resource use for 613 patients, collected prospectively in the Therapeutic Interventions for Stones of the Ureter (TISU) randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN 92289221), were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of two care pathways, SWL and URS. A health provider (UK National Health Service) perspective was adopted to estimate the costs of the interventions and subsequent resource use. Quality-of-life data were calculated using a generic instrument, the EuroQol EQ-5D-3L. Results are expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: The mean QALY difference (SWL vs URS) was -0.021 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.033 to -0.010) and the mean cost difference was -£809 (95% CI -£1061 to -£551). The QALY difference translated into approximately 10 more healthy days over the 6-month period for the patients on the URS care pathway. The probabaility that SWL is cost-effective is 79% at a society's willingness to pay (WTP) threshold for 1 QALY of £30,000 and 98% at a WTP threshold of £20,000. CONCLUSION: The SWL pathway results in lower QALYs than URS but costs less. The incremental cost per QALY is £39 118 cost saving per QALY lost, with a 79% probability that SWL would be considered cost-effective at a WTP threshold for 1 QALY of £30 000 and 98% at a WTP threshold of £20 000. Decision-makers need to determine if costs saved justify the loss in QALYs.

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.

Health status and associated factors of middle-aged and older adult cancer survivors in India: results from the Longitudinal Ageing Study in India.

BACKGROUND: The number of persons who have survived cancer has been increasing in India as elsewhere due to advances in detection and treatment of this disease. However, evidence on the standardised number of cancer survivors, their characteristics and their complex health challenges on a national level does not exist due to data limitations. This study, therefore, examines the profile of cancer survivors and their health status using the recently released Longitudinal Ageing Study in India (LASI) survey data. METHODS: LASI wave 1 is a cross-sectional nationally representative survey of 65,562 middle and older adults aged 45 and above. We first calculated the socioeconomic, demographic and geographical characteristics of cancer survivors (per 100,000 population). We later estimated the adjusted odds of poor health, sleep problems, depressive symptoms, activities of living limitations (ADL and IADL), and hospitalisation of cancer survivors using multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: According to LASI estimates, there were 2.1 million cancer survivors in India (95% CI 1.8 million to 2.6 million) in 2017-18. Overall, 440 cancer survivors have been identified in this study, with considerable state variations. The number of cancer survivors per 1,00,000 population was relatively more in non-indigenous groups, people with a history of cancer in their families, those who worked earlier but currently not working and those in the richest quintile categories. As compared to those who never had cancer, the cancer survivors are at higher risk of hospitalisation (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 2.61 CI 1.86, 3.67), poor self-rated health (aOR = 3.77, CI 2.55, 5.54), depressive symptoms (aOR = 1.53, CI 1.41, 2.05) and sleep problems (aOR = 2.29, CI 1.50, 3.47). They also reported higher ADL (aOR = 1.61, CI 1.11, 2.34) and IADL (aOR = 1.49, CI 1.07, 2.07) limitations. Cancer survivors who had their cancer diagnosis in the past 2 years or a cancer-related treatment in the past 2 years have significantly higher odds of poor health status than middle-aged and older adults without a cancer history. CONCLUSION: Middle-aged and older cancer survivors, particularly those who underwent cancer diagnosis or treatment in the past 2 years, are at a significantly higher risk of experiencing poor self-reported health and other health challenges, suggesting the need for an integrated healthcare approach.

Randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of various washout policies versus no washout policy in preventing catheter associated complications in adults living with long-term catheters: study protocol for the CATHETER II study.

BACKGROUND: Various washout policies are widely used in adults living with long-term catheters (LTC). There is currently insufficient evidence on the benefits and potential harms of prophylactic LTC washout policies in the prevention of blockages and other LTC-related adverse events, such as urinary tract infections. CATHETER II tests the hypothesis that weekly prophylactic LTC washouts (normal saline or citric acid) in addition to standard LTC care reduce the incidence of catheter blockage requiring intervention compared to standard LTC care only in adults living with LTC. METHODS: CATHETER II is a pragmatic three-arm open multi-centre superiority randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot, economic analysis, and embedded qualitative study. Eligible participants are adults aged ≥ 18 years, who have had a LTC in use for ≥ 28 days, have no plans to discontinue the use of the catheter, are able to undertake the catheter washouts, and complete trial documentation or have a carer able to help them. Participants are identified from general practitioner practices, secondary/tertiary care, community healthcare, care homes, and via public advertising strategies. Participants are randomised 1:1:1 to receive a weekly saline (0.9%) washout in addition to standard LTC care, a weekly citric acid (3.23%) washout in addition to standard LTC care or standard LTC care only. Participants and/or carers will receive training to administer the washouts. Patient-reported outcomes are collected at baseline and for 24 months post-randomisation. The primary clinical outcome is catheter blockage requiring intervention up to 24 months post-randomisation expressed per 1000 catheter days. Secondary outcomes include symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infection requiring antibiotics, catheter change, adverse events, NHS/ healthcare use, and impact on quality of life. DISCUSSION: This study will guide treatment decision-making and clinical practice guidelines regarding the effectiveness of various prophylactic catheter washout policies in men and women living with LTC. This research has received ethical approval from Wales Research Ethics Committee 6 (19/WA/0015). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN17116445 . Registered prospectively on 06 November 2019.

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.

Shockwave lithotripsy compared with ureteroscopic stone treatment for adults with ureteric stones: the TISU non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Urinary stone disease affects 2-3% of the general population. Ureteric stones are associated with severe pain and can have a significant impact on a patient's quality of life. Most ureteric stones are expected to pass spontaneously with supportive care; however, between one-fifth and one-third of patients require an active intervention. The two standard interventions are shockwave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic stone treatment. Both treatments are effective, but they differ in terms of invasiveness, anaesthetic requirement, treatment setting, number of procedures, complications, patient-reported outcomes and cost. There is uncertainty around which is the more clinically effective and cost-effective treatment. OBJECTIVES: To determine if shockwave lithotripsy is clinically effective and cost-effective compared with ureteroscopic stone treatment in adults with ureteric stones who are judged to require active intervention. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial of shockwave lithotripsy as a first-line treatment option compared with primary ureteroscopic stone treatment for ureteric stones. SETTING: Urology departments in 25 NHS hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 16 years presenting with a single ureteric stone in any segment of the ureter, confirmed by computerised tomography, who were able to undergo either shockwave lithotripsy or ureteroscopic stone treatment and to complete trial procedures. INTERVENTION: Eligible participants were randomised 1 : 1 to shockwave lithotripsy (up to two sessions) or ureteroscopic stone treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary clinical outcome measure was resolution of the stone episode (stone clearance), which was operationally defined as 'no further intervention required to facilitate stone clearance' up to 6 months from randomisation. This was determined from 8-week and 6-month case report forms and any additional hospital visit case report form that was completed by research staff. The primary economic outcome measure was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 6 months from randomisation. We estimated costs from NHS resources and calculated quality-adjusted life-years from participant completion of the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, at baseline, pre intervention, 1 week post intervention and 8 weeks and 6 months post randomisation. RESULTS: In the shockwave lithotripsy arm, 67 out of 302 (22.2%) participants needed further treatment. In the ureteroscopic stone treatment arm, 31 out of 302 (10.3%) participants needed further treatment. The absolute risk difference was 11.4% (95% confidence interval 5.0% to 17.8%); the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval ruled out the prespecified margin of non-inferiority (which was 20%). The mean quality-adjusted life-year difference (shockwave lithotripsy vs. ureteroscopic stone treatment) was -0.021 (95% confidence interval 0.033 to -0.010) and the mean cost difference was -£809 (95% confidence interval -£1061 to -£551). The probability that shockwave lithotripsy is cost-effective is 79% at a threshold of society's willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year of £30,000. The CEAC is derived from the joint distribution of incremental costs and incremental effects. Most of the results fall in the south-west quadrant of the cost effectiveness plane as SWL always costs less but is less effective. LIMITATIONS: A limitation of the trial was low return and completion rates of patient questionnaires. The study was initially powered for 500 patients in each arm; however, the total number of patients recruited was only 307 and 306 patients in the ureteroscopic stone treatment and shockwave lithotripsy arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving shockwave lithotripsy needed more further interventions than those receiving primary ureteroscopic retrieval, although the overall costs for those receiving the shockwave treatment were lower. The absolute risk difference between the two clinical pathways (11.4%) was lower than expected and at a level that is acceptable to clinicians and patients. The shockwave lithotripsy pathway is more cost-effective in an NHS setting, but results in lower quality of life. FUTURE WORK: (1) The generic health-related quality-of-life tools used in this study do not fully capture the impact of the various treatment pathways on patients. A condition-specific health-related quality-of-life tool should be developed. (2) Reporting of ureteric stone trials would benefit from agreement on a core outcome set that would ensure that future trials are easier to compare. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN92289221. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Approximately 1 in 20 people suffers from kidney stones that pass down the urine drainage tube (ureter) into the urinary bladder and cause episodes of severe pain (ureteric colic). People with ureteric colic attend hospital for pain relief and diagnosis. Although most stones smaller than 10 mm eventually reach the bladder and are passed during urination, some get stuck and have to be removed using telescopic surgery (called ureteroscopic stone treatment) or shockwave therapy (called shockwave lithotripsy). Ureteroscopic stone treatment involves passing a telescope-containing instrument through the bladder and into the ureter to fragment and/or remove the stone. This is usually carried out under general anaesthetic as a day case. For shockwave lithotripsy, the patient lies flat on a couch and the apparatus underneath them generates shockwaves that pass through the skin to the ureter and break the stones into smaller fragments, which can be passed naturally in the urine. This involves using X-ray or ultrasound to locate the stone, but can be carried out on an outpatient basis and without general anaesthetic. Telescopic surgery is known to be more successful at removing stones after just one treatment, but it requires more time in hospital and has a higher risk of complications than shockwave lithotripsy (however, shockwave lithotripsy may require more than one session of treatment). Our study, the Therapeutic Interventions for Stones of the Ureter trial, was designed to establish if treatment for ureteric colic should start with telescopic surgery or shockwave therapy. Over 600 NHS patients took part and they were split into two groups. Each patient had an equal chance of their treatment starting with either telescopic surgery or shockwave lithotripsy, which was decided by a computer program (via random allocation). We counted how many patients in each group had further procedures to remove their stone. We found that telescopic surgery was 11% more effective overall, with an associated slightly better quality of life (10 more healthy days over the 6-month period), but was more expensive in an NHS setting. The finding of a lack of any significant additional clinical benefit leads to the conclusion that the more cost-effective treatment pathway is shockwave lithotripsy with telescopic surgery used only in those patients in whom shockwave lithotripsy is unsuccessful.

Patient-reported Experience of Diagnosis, Management, and Burden of Renal Cell Carcinomas: Results from a Global Patient Survey in 43 Countries.

The International Kidney Cancer Coalition (IKCC) is a federation of 46 affiliated patient organisations representing 1.2 million patients worldwide that is committed to reducing the global burden of kidney cancer. A large-scale global survey of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) to capture real-world experiences has never been undertaken. The 35-question survey was designed to identify geographic variations in patient education, experience, awareness, access to care, best practices, quality of life, and unmet psychosocial needs. A total of 1983 responses were recorded from 43 countries in 14 languages. Analysis revealed key findings. (1) At diagnosis, 43% of all respondents had no understanding of their RCC subtype. (2) Shared decision-making remains aspirational: globally, 29% of all patients reported no involvement in their treatment decision, responding "My doctor decided for me". (3) While 96% of respondents reported psychosocial impacts, surprisingly, only 50% disclosed them to their health care team. (4) Lastly, 70% of patients were not asked to participate in a clinical trial, although 90% indicated they would be interested. The survey reflects patient perspectives from diverse clinical scenarios in which different treatment options are available. The data point to actionable deficits in the fields of clinical trials, psychosocial support, and shared decision-making. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this brief report, we highlight the key results from the first large-scale global survey of patients with kidney cancer to capture real-world experiences. This survey reflects patient perspectives from diverse clinical scenarios in which different treatment options are available. We conclude that there is a need for improvement in the fields of clinical trials, psychosocial support, and shared decision-making.

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.

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.

An interpretative phenomenological analysis of the meaning of work to women living with breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Work is an important aspect of everyday life. This remains true for those living with and beyond cancer. Less is known about how the meaning of work may change over the cancer journey, the needs of the individual in response to changes and how healthcare professionals and employing organisations can meet these needs. The aim of this study was to explore the lived experience of work after treatment for breast cancer in a group of professional working women within the UK. METHODS: This article presents an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) of the experiences of 15 professional women diagnosed with breast cancer. RESULTS: We discuss these women's journey from (1) rethinking the meaning of work to (2) making decisions about work ability and advice on work to (3) transitioning back in to the workplace and the value of continued engagement with employer. DISCUSSION: The findings from this study demonstrate the complex interplay between living with cancer, treatment decisions and work. This study highlights two key areas for inclusion in practice: (1) support from Healthcare Professionals and judgements of functional ability and work ability and (2) the role of line managers in managing cancer and work.

Patients' and Health Care Professionals' Expectations, Experience, and Perception of the Outcomes of Various Washout Policies in Preventing Catheter-associated Complications: Qualitative Study of the CATHETER II Trial.

The CATHETER II trial is expected to determine if and which policy for prophylactic catheter washout on a weekly basis improves the outcome of care for people living with a long-term catheter. By exploring the views and experiences of both the trial participants and health care professionals in relation to the trial delivery and outcomes, the CATHETER II qualitative study can provide context to the trial findings, clarify the fidelity of the intervention, and inform translation of the intervention into routine policy and practice.

Providing a Framework for Meaningful Patient Involvement in Clinical Practice Guideline Development and Implementation.

The importance of patient involvement in guideline development is internationally recognised, yet there is a lack of clear methodology for integrating patient preferences and values in guidelines and a need to identify the optimum stages for involving patients in guideline production. European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines have international reach, a rigorous guideline production process, an established patient information section, and existing links with European cancer patient organisations. This makes the EAU the ideal setting to test a framework for patient involvement in guideline development for genitourinary cancers. The EVOLVE study is a unique collaboration involving a professional society, guideline panels, researchers, clinicians, and patient organisations with the aim of designing a framework for meaningful patient involvement in guideline production. Stages for considering patient preferences and values were identified via systematic review and interviews with key stakeholders, then prioritised by patients and clinicians via an international Delphi study. The final EVOLVE framework will be tested within EAU guideline panels and a strategy to assess the impact of patient involvement in guidelines will be developed. PATIENT SUMMARY: There is increasing awareness of the need to include patient values and preferences when developing guidelines for medical practice. The EVOLVE study is designing a framework for patient involvement in guideline development. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: A framework for meaningful patient involvement in guideline development and implementation has been developed. The EVOLVE framework can help guideline developers to involve patients at the optimum stages of guideline production, which may improve the quality and relevance of guidelines.

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.