Cross-cultural differences in men on active surveillance' anxiety: a longitudinal comparison between Italian and Dutch patients from the Prostate cancer Research International Active Surveillance study.

BACKGROUND: Men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS) have shown to cope with anxiety caused by living with an 'untreated cancer' and different factors can influence the tolerance level for anxiety in these patients. The present study analyzes Italian (Milan) and Dutch (Rotterdam) men prospectively included in the Prostate cancer International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) trial, aiming to explore whether socio-demographic factors (i.e. age, relationship status, education, nationality) may be relevant factors in conditioning the level of anxiety at AS entry and over time. METHODS: Italian and Dutch men participating in the IRB-approved PRIAS study, after signing an informed consent, filled in the Memorial Anxiety Scale for PCa (MAX-PC) at multiple time points after diagnosis. A linear mixed model was used to assess the relationship between the level of patient's anxiety and time spent on AS, country of origin, the interaction between country and time on AS, patients' relationship status and education, on PCa anxiety during AS. RESULTS: 823 MAX-PC questionnaires were available for Italian and 307 for Dutch men, respectively. Median age at diagnosis was 64 years (IQR 60-70 years) and did not differ between countries. On average, Dutch men had a higher total MAX-PC score than Italian men. However, the level of their anxiety decreased over time. Dutch men on average had a higher score on the PCa anxiety sub-domain, which did not decrease over time. Minimal differences were observed in the sub-domains PSA anxiety and fear of recurrence. CONCLUSION: Significant differences in PCa anxiety between the Italian and Dutch cohorts were observed, the latter group of men showing higher overall levels of anxiety. These differences were not related to the socio-demographic factors we studied. Although both PRIAS-centers are dedicated AS-centers, differences in PCa-care organization (e.g. having a multidisciplinary team) may have contributed to the observed different level of anxiety at the start and during AS. Trial registration This study is registered in the Dutch Trial Registry ( www.trialregister.nl ) under NL1622 (registration date 11-03-2009), 'PRIAS: Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance-guideline and study for the expectant management of localized prostate cancer with curative intent'.

Health-related quality of life in Japanese low-risk prostate cancer patients choosing active surveillance: 3-year follow-up from PRIAS-JAPAN.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of Japanese men on active surveillance (AS) in the Prostate cancer Research International Active Surveillance study in Japan (PRIAS-JAPAN). METHODS: Participants were included in the PRIAS-JAPAN HRQoL study between January 2010 and March 2016. Their general HRQoL was assessed using a validated Japanese version of the Short-Form 8 Health Survey (SF-8) at enrolment and annually thereafter until discontinuation of AS. The SF-8 mental component summary (MCS) and physical component summary (PCS) of men on AS were compared with scores of the general population (norm-based score [NBS]: 50) and MCS and PCS scores for men following AS were analysed over time. We tested whether MCS and PCS scores over time explained discontinuation of AS. RESULTS: Five hundred and twenty-five patients enrolled, and the median age at baseline was 68 years. At enrolment and after 1-, 2-, and 3-year follow-ups, the PCS and MCS scores were significantly higher than the NBS of the general Japanese population except for the median PCS at 3 years. We found that age at diagnosis and time on AS negatively affected the PCS score of men on AS, while every additional year on AS led to a 0.27 point increase in MCS scores. Neither PCS nor MCS were predictors for discontinuation of AS. CONCLUSION: Japanese men following an AS strategy for 3 years reported better HRQoL compared with the general population, indicating that monitoring Japanese low-risk prostate cancer patients can be an effective treatment strategy. STUDY REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registry-UMIN (University Hospital Medical Information Network); UMIN000002874 (2009/12/11).

Additional benefit of using a risk-based selection for prostate biopsy: an analysis of biopsy complications in the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate biopsy complications and hospital admissions that could be reduced by the use of European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All biopsies performed in the Rotterdam section of the ERSPC between 1993 and 2015 were included. Biopsy complications and hospital admission data were prospectively recorded in questionnaires that were completed 2 weeks after biopsy. The ERSPC risk calculators 3 (RC3) and 4 (RC4) were applied to men attending the first and subsequent rounds of screening, respectively. Applying the predefined RC3/4 probability thresholds for prostate cancer (PCa) risk of ≥12.5% and high-grade PCa risk ≥3%, we assessed the number of complications, admissions and costs that could be reduced by avoiding biopsies in men below these thresholds. RESULTS: A total of 10 747 biopsies with complete questionnaires were included. For these biopsies a complication rate of 67.9% (7294/10 747), a post-biopsy fever rate of 3.9% (424/10747) and a hospital admission rate of 0.9% (92/10747) were recorded. The fever rate was found to be static over the years, but the hospital admission rate tripled from 0.6% (1993-1996) to 2.1% (2009-2015). Among 7704 biopsies which fit the criteria for RC3 or RC4, 35.8% of biopsies (2757/7704), 37.4% of complications (1972/5268), 39.4% of fever events (128/325) and 42.3% of admissions (30/71) could have been avoided by using one of the risk calculators. More complications could have been avoided if RC4 had been used and for more recent biopsies (2009-2015). Our findings show that 35.9% of the total cost of biopsies and complication treatment could have been avoided. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of biopsy complications, hospital admissions and costs could be reduced if biopsy decisions were based on ERSPC risk calculators instead of PSA only. This effect was most prominent in more recent biopsies and in men with repeated biopsies or screening.

Long-term follow-up after active surveillance or curative treatment: quality-of-life outcomes of men with low-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare long-term (4-10 years) quality of life (QoL) of men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) treated by different modalities and a reference group without PCa. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, four groups were sent a one-time QoL-questionnaire; PCa patients (1) following the structured Prostate cancer Research International Active Surveillance protocol, (2) who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) in the context of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer-section Rotterdam, (3) who underwent radiotherapy (RT) at an academic hospital in The Netherlands, and (4) an age-matched reference group of men without PCa. The QoL-questionnaire addressed prostate-specific health (EPIC), generic health (SF-12), and anxiety (STAI-6). Statistical significance (p ≤ 0.05) and clinical relevance (≥0.5 SD) of differences between groups were assessed. RESULTS: The AS, RP, RT, and reference group response rates amounted to 74% (122/165), 66% (70/106), 66% (221/335), and 75% (205/273), respectively. At a mean of 6.6 years of follow-up, active surveillance (AS)-men reported better urinary function [M = 93.0 (SD = 10.6) vs. 80.0 (SD = 19.1), p ≤ 0.001], less urinary incontinence [M = 90.0 (SD = 14.6) vs. 70.1 (SD = 28.8), p ≤ 0.001], and better sexual function [M = 40.9 (SD = 24.6) vs. 14.8 (17.7), p ≤ 0.001, clinically relevant] than RP-men. Compared to RT, AS-men reported better sexual function [M = 40.9 (SD = 24.6) vs. 25.8 (SD = 25.0), p = 0.069]. The four groups reported similarly low anxiety levels; the number of highly anxious men (STAI ≥ 44) ranged from 8 to 13%. For all QoL domains, men on AS and men without PCa reported very similar scores. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate-specific function of AS-men was significantly better than that of RP-men. When comparing AS to RT, a borderline significant difference in sexual function was seen. Men who followed an AS strategy for a long-term period were not anxious and accepted it well, suggesting that AS may be a good treatment option for men with low-risk PCa.

Rule-based versus probabilistic selection for active surveillance using three definitions of insignificant prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To study whether probabilistic selection by the use of a nomogram could improve patient selection for active surveillance (AS) compared to the various sets of rule-based AS inclusion criteria currently used. METHODS: We studied Dutch and Swedish patients participating in the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). We explored which men who were initially diagnosed with cT1-2, Gleason 6 (Gleason pattern ≤3 + 3) had histopathological indolent PCa at RP [defined as pT2, Gleason pattern ≤3 and tumour volume (TV) ≤0.5 or TV ≤ 1.3 ml, and TV no part of criteria (NoTV)]. Rule-based selection was according to the Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS), Klotz, and Johns Hopkins criteria. An existing nomogram to define probability-based selection for AS was refitted for the TV1.3 and NoTV indolent PCa definitions. RESULTS: 619 of 864 men undergoing RP had cT1-2, Gleason 6 disease at diagnosis and were analysed. Median follow-up was 8.9 years. 229 (37%), 356 (58%), and 410 (66%) fulfilled the TV0.5, TV1.3, and NoTV indolent PCa criteria at RP. Discriminating between indolent and significant disease according to area under the curve (AUC) was: TV0.5: 0.658 (PRIAS), 0.523 (Klotz), 0.642 (Hopkins), 0.685 (nomogram). TV1.3: 0.630 (PRIAS), 0.550 (Klotz), 0.615 (Hopkins), 0.646 (nomogram). NoTV: 0.603 (PRIAS), 0.530 (Klotz), 0.589 (Hopkins), 0.608 (nomogram). CONCLUSIONS: The performance of a nomogram, the Johns Hopkins, and PRIAS rule-based criteria are comparable. Because the nomogram allows individual trade-offs, it could be a good alternative to rigid rule-based criteria.

Do Treatment Differences between Arms Affect the Main Outcome of ERSPC Rotterdam?

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

A longitudinal study on the impact of active surveillance for prostate cancer on anxiety and distress levels.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with potentially indolent prostate cancer (PC) can be managed with active surveillance (AS). Our objective was to analyse how anxiety and distress develop in men with untreated PC and whether highly anxious men quit AS. METHODS: One hundred and fifty Dutch patients who opted for AS in the Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance Study were invited to participate in an additional prospective, longitudinal quality of life (QoL) study within 6 months after diagnosis. Participants completed questionnaires with validated measures on anxiety and distress at inclusion (t = 0), 9 (t = 9) and 18 (t = 18) months after diagnosis. We assessed changes in scores on depression (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale), generic anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6)), PC-specific anxiety (Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer (MAX-PC)) and decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS)) about patients' treatment choice between t = 0, t = 9 and t = 18 using repeated measures analysis. RESULTS: Response rates for patients still on AS at t = 0, t = 9 and t = 18 assessments were 86%, 90% and 96%, respectively. Nine patients (7%, 9/129) between t = 0 and t = 9 and 33 of 108 patients (31%) between t = 9 and t = 18 stopped AS, mostly (86%) because of protocol-based reasons. CES-D, total MAX-PC and DCS scores did not change significantly (p > 0.05) when comparing t = 18 with t = 9 and t = 0 scores, but generic anxiety (STAI-6; p = 0.033) and fear of disease progression (sub-score of the MAX-PC; p = 0.007) decreased significantly. These differences, however, were clinically modest (0.089 SD and 0.281 SD). Overall, six of 129 men (5%) discontinued AS because of anxiety and distress. CONCLUSIONS: When men with low-risk PC are managed with AS, fear of disease progression and general anxiety decreased, and only few may discontinue AS because of anxiety and distress. This suggests that negative QoL effects are limited in men with favourable clinical characteristics who opted for AS. (Registered trial number, NTR1718) .

Disease-specific and patient-reported outcomes under active surveillance.

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

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.

Risk calculators for the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) (early) detection poses significant challenges, including unnecessary testing and the risk of potential overdiagnosis. The European Association of Urology therefore suggests an individual risk-adapted approach, incorporating risk calculators (RCs) into the PCa detection pathway. In the context of 'The PRostate Cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union' (PRAISE-U) project ( https://uroweb.org/praise-u ), we aim to provide an overview of the currently available clinical RCs applicable in an early PCa detection algorithm. METHODS: We performed a systematic review to identify RCs predicting detection of clinically significant PCa at biopsy. A search was performed in the databases Medline ALL, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar for publications between January 2010 and July 2023. We retrieved relevant literature by using the terms "prostate cancer", "screening/diagnosis" and "predictive model". Inclusion criteria included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical trials. Exclusion criteria applied to studies involving pre-targeted high-risk populations, diagnosed PCa patients, or a sample sizes under 50 men. RESULTS: We identified 6474 articles, of which 140 were included after screening abstracts and full texts. In total, we identified 96 unique RCs. Among these, 45 underwent external validation, with 28 validated in multiple cohorts. Of the externally validated RCs, 17 are based on clinical factors, 19 incorporate clinical factors along with MRI details, 4 were based on blood biomarkers alone or in combination with clinical factors, and 5 included urinary biomarkers. The median AUC of externally validated RCs ranged from 0.63 to 0.93. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review offers an extensive analysis of currently available RCs, their variable utilization, and performance within validation cohorts. RCs have consistently demonstrated their capacity to mitigate the limitations associated with early detection and have been integrated into modern practice and screening trials. Nevertheless, the lack of external validation data raises concerns about numerous RCs, and it is crucial to factor in this omission when evaluating whether a specific RC is applicable to one's target population.

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.

Understanding the Barriers to Prostate Cancer Population-Based Early Detection Programs: The PRAISE-U BEST Survey.

In 2022, the European Commission updated its recommendation on cancer screening, inviting the Member States (MSs) to explore the feasibility of stepwise implementation of population-based screening for prostate cancer (PCa). In line with this recommendation, the PRAISE-U (Prostate Cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union (EU)) project was initiated. As part of the PRAISE-U, we aim to understand the current practice towards early detection in the EU MSs, the barriers to implementing or planning population-based screening programmes, and potential solutions to overcome these barriers. METHODS: We adapted the Barriers to Effective Screening Tool (BEST) survey to the PCa context. However, it has not been validated in this context. We translated it into all spoken languages in the EU27 and disseminated it to different stakeholders across the EU using a snowballing approach. RESULTS: We received 410 responses from 55 countries, of which 301 (73%) were from the 27 EU MSs. The most represented stakeholder group was urologists (218 (54%)), followed by general practitioners (GPs) (83 (21%)), patient representatives (35 (9%)), policy stakeholders (27 (7%)), researchers (23 (6%)), oncologists, pathologists, radiologists, nurses, and others (16 (4%)) and one industry representative. Among all respondents, 286 (69%) reported the absence of a population-based screening programme, mainly attributed to resource limitations and a lack of political and medical society support. Out of these 286 respondents, 196 (69%) indicated that opportunistic screening is being applied in their country, and 199 (70%) expressed their support for population-based screening programmes (which was highest amongst patient representatives and urologists and lowest amongst GPs and policy stakeholders). The highest scored barriers were lack of political support, insufficient operational resources, and inadequate participation. Suggested solutions to overcome these included awareness campaigns, consensus meetings, political lobbying and European guidelines (to overcome political support barriers), compatible IT systems (to overcome operational barriers), and easy access (to overcome participation barriers). CONCLUSIONS: Participants have noted the presence of opportunistic screening, and particularly urologists and patient representatives expressed their support for the establishment of a population-based PCa screening programme. Nevertheless, successful implementation of population-based screening programmes is complex; it requires political and medical society support, operational resources and capacity, awareness campaigns, as well as the development of protocols, guidelines, and legal frameworks.

Health Policy for Prostate Cancer Early Detection in the European Union and the Impact of Opportunistic Screening: PRAISE-U Consortium.

With the new policy recommendation in 2022 to explore the possibilities of screening for prostate cancer by the European Commission, the landscape for prostate cancer early detection is evolving. In line with this recommendation, the PRAISE-U project aims to evaluate the early detection and diagnosis of prostate cancer through customised and risk-based screening programmes, with the goal to align protocols across European Union member states. This systematic review is part of the PRAISE-U project, with the goal to review the policy, medical guideline recommendations, and the current level of opportunistic screening presented in the scientific literature on prostate cancer early detection from 2016 to 2023 in European Union member states. An extensive literature search was performed on 1 June 2023 in a large number of databases, including Embase.com, Medline (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, Google Scholar, and Policy Commons. We identified 318 articles (qualitative, quantitative, and reviews), of which 41 were included in the full-text screening. Seventeen articles were ultimately identified as eligible for inclusion. The included articles revealed significant variations towards PSA-based early detection policies for prostate cancer in nine European countries. Despite official recommendations, opportunistic screening was prevalent across all nine countries regardless of recommendations for or against PSA-based early detection. This systematic review suggests that the current early detection policies are not fit for purpose. High levels of opportunistic screening and overdiagnosis persist, prompting policy recommendations for standardised guidelines, informed decision making, and increased awareness to improve efficiency and effectiveness in early detection.

Prostate Cancer Early Detection in the European Union and UK.

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

Systematic Review on the Cost Effectiveness of Prostate Cancer Screening in Europe.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In Europe, prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men. Screening may therefore be crucial to lower health care costs, morbidity, and mortality. This systematic review aimed to provide a contemporary overview of the costs and benefits of PCa screening programmes. METHODS: A peer-reviewed literature search was conducted, using the PICO method. A detailed search strategy was developed in four databases based on the following key search terms: "PCa", "screening", and "cost effectiveness". Any type of economic evaluation was included. The search strategy was restricted to European countries, but no restrictions were set on the year of publication. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 7484 studies were identified initially. Of these, 19 studies described the cost effectiveness of PCa screening in Europe. Among the studies using an initially healthy study population, most focussed on risk- and/or age- and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based screening in addition to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and compared this with no screening. Incremental cost ratios (ICERs) varied from €5872 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) to €372 948/QALY, with a median of €56 487/QALY. Risk-based screening followed by MRI testing seemed to be a more cost-effective strategy than no screening. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This systematic review indicates that screening programmes incorporating a risk-based approach and MRI have the potential to be cost effective. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this review, we looked at the cost effectiveness of prostate cancer screening in Europe. We found that a risk-based approach and incorporation of magnetic resonance imaging has the potential to be cost effective. However, there remains a knowledge gap regarding cost effectiveness of prostate cancer screening. Therefore, determinants of cost effectiveness require further investigation.

Active surveillance: oncologic outcome.

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

A literature review to understand health literacy in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance.

Background and Objective: Active surveillance (AS) has been established as an important treatment option for patients with localised prostate cancer (PCa). Current evidence suggests that health literacy is an important facilitator or barrier to choosing and adhering to AS. We aim to understand how the level of health literacy has an impact on choosing and adhering to AS for PCa patients. Methods: We performed a narrative literature review in accordance with the Narrative Review guidelines through the MEDLINE online database via PubMed using two different search strategies to identify the relevant literature. We looked at literature until August 2022. A narrative synthesis was performed to identify if there is any evidence on how studies report health literacy as an outcome in the AS population and if there are any interventions targeting health literacy. Key Content and Findings: We identified 18 studies which looked at health literacy in the PCa context. Health literacy was measured in the context of comprehension of information of patients across PCa stages, decision making across PCa stages and quality of life (QoL) across PCa stages. Lower health literacy had a negative impact on the identified themes. Nine of the identified studies used validated health literacy measures. Interventions targeting health literacy have been used to improve health literacy with a positive impact across the patient journey. Conclusions: Health literacy plays an important role in enabling men to take an active part in their treatment journey. In this review, we presented how health literacy is measured and which interventions targeting health literacy are implemented across PCa. These examples of interventions targeting health literacy should be studied further and translated into the AS setting to improve treatment decision making and adherence to AS.

The Europa Uomo Patient Reported Outcome Study 2.0-Prostate Cancer Patient-reported Outcomes to Support Treatment Decision-making.

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

Lymphoceles after pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Background: Lymphoceles, lymph fluid-filled collections within the body lacking epithelial lining, are a common complication after pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). In this study, we investigate the incidence of imaging confirmed symptomatic lymphoceles (SLC) in a centralized high-volume operating centre and assess predictive factors and treatment. Methods: We retrospectively analysed the incidence, risk factors and treatment of a consecutive series of patients who underwent PLND during RARP between September 2018 and January 2021 in a specialised operation clinic. We compared baseline patients' characteristics and pathological data between men who developed an SLC and those who did not. A multivariable model for the occurrence of an SLC was created using predetermined, clinically relevant variables to investigate predictive factors. Results: We analysed the records of 404 patients. The median follow-up length was 29 months. A total of 30 (7.4%) patients with an SLC were identified. The median time until SLC presentation was 12 weeks [interquartile range (IQR), 4-31 weeks], one-third of SLCs presented after 180 days. Percutaneous drainage was performed in 17 patients (57%). On multivariable analysis, only body mass index (BMI) significantly increased the odds of an SLC [per 5 odds ratio (OR) =1.7; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.0-3.0, P=0.04]. Conclusions: SLCs present significant consequences, as more than half of patients with an SLC were treated with percutaneous drainage. Many patients presented later than the centralized surgeons' postoperative follow-up, a drawback of centralized care. An increased BMI was a significant predictor for SLC.

Urinary Incontinence and Sexual Function After the Introduction of NeuroSAFE in Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer.

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