Consensus in Bladder Cancer Research Priorities Between Patients and Healthcare Professionals Using a Four-stage Modified Delphi Method

We would like to thank the British Association of Urological Surgeons, British UroOncology Group, Action Bladder Cancer UK and Fight Bladder Cancer for their participation in this work. We also like to thank the Dianne and Graham Roberts Charitable Settlement for their support of the TOUR teamPeer reviewedPostprin

Factors Influencing Men's Choice of and Adherence to Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer:A Mixed-method Systematic Review

Context: Despite support for active surveillance (AS) as a first treatment choice for men with low-risk prostate cancer (PC), this strategy is largely underutilised. Objective: To systematically review barriers and facilitators to selecting and adhering to AS for low-risk PC. Evidence acquisition: We searched PsychINFO, PubMed, Medline 2000-now, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central databases between 2002 and 2017 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. The Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings and Significance (PREFS) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) quality criteria were applied. Forty-seven studies were identified. Evidence synthesis: Key themes emerged as factors influencing both choice and adherence to AS: (1) patient and tumour factors (age, comorbidities, knowledge, education, socioeconomic status, family history, grade, tumour volume, and fear of progression/side effects); (2) family and social support; (3) provider (speciality, communication, and attitudes); (4) healthcare organisation (geography and type of practice); and (5) health policy (guidelines, year, and awareness). Conclusions: Many factors influence men's choice and adherence to AS on multiple levels. It is important to learn from the experience of other chronic health conditions as well as from institutions/countries that are making significant headway in appropriately recruiting men to AS protocols, through standardised patient information, clinician education, and nationally agreed guidelines, to ultimately decrease heterogeneity in AS practice. Patient summary: We reviewed the scientific literature for factors affecting men's choice and adherence to active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer. Our findings suggest that the use of AS could be increased by addressing a variety of factors such as information, psychosocial support, clinician education, and standardised guidelines. (C) 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

Understanding reasons for non-adherence to active surveillance for low-intermediate risk prostate cancer

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is recommended by most national medical organizations as the preferred treatment option for men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). However, studies report that up to one third of men on AS dropout within 5 years, without evidence of disease progression. Despite high dropout rates, few studies have purposively explored the opinions and experiences of men who discontinued AS. The aim of this study was to gain insight into the reasons why some men on AS for PCa discontinue active treatment without evidence of disease progression. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 14 men from diverse socio-cultural backgrounds who had been on AS for PCa but dropped out of surveillance to undergo active treatment without signs of disease progression. Purposive sampling to reach data saturation was used to select participants based on their experience of AS and willingness to share their experiences. Interviews were transcribed and analysis undertaken in an inductive thematic manner. RESULTS: The following themes arose from interviews as factors that potentially influence adherence to AS: men’s experience at diagnosis and follow-up consultations, involvement in shared decision-making, the extent of supportive care and information, administrative procedures and support from partner and peers. A poor experience during diagnosis could adversely influence long-term adherence to AS, given the same diagnostic tests are frequently repeated. The provision of consistent information and support while on AS, similar to that offered to men undergoing radical treatment, was also highlighted as being important to increase confidence in the process. CONCLUSIONS: Effective communications skills among health professionals, aimed at building trust in patient-clinician relationships, providing opportunities for shared decision-making and developing self-efficacy, along with structured information and support, are key to enhancing long-term adherence to AS

Mobile Health Solutions for Prostate Cancer Diagnostics—A Systematic Review

Prostate cancer, the most common cause of cancer in men in the UK and one of the most common around the world to date, has no consensus on screening. Multiple large-scale trials from around the world have produced conflicting outcomes in cancer-specific and overall mortality. A main part of the issue is the PSA test, which has a high degree of variability, making it challenging to set PSA thresholds, as well as limited specificity. Prostate cancer has a predisposition in men from black backgrounds, and outcomes are worse in men of lower socioeconomic groups. Mobile targeted case finding, focusing on high-risk groups, may be a solution to help those that most need it. The aim of this systematic review was to review the evidence for mobile testing for prostate cancer. A review of all mobile screening studies for prostate cancer was performed in accordance with the Cochrane guidelines and the PRISMA statement. Of the 629 unique studies screened, 6 were found to be eligible for the review. The studies dated from 1973 to 2017 and came from four different continents, with around 30,275 men being screened for prostate cancer. Detection rates varied from 0.6% in the earliest study to 8.2% in the latest study. The challenge of early diagnosis of potentially lethal prostate cancer remains an issue for developed and low- and middle-income countries alike. Although further studies are needed, mobile screening of a targeted population with streamlined investigation and referral pathways combined with raising awareness in those communities may help make the case for screening for prostate cancer

Active surveillance for prostate cancer:a systematic review of contemporary worldwide practices

In the last decade, active surveillance (AS) has emerged as an acceptable choice for low-risk prostate cancer (PC), however there is discordance amongst large AS cohort studies with respect to entry and monitoring protocols. We systematically reviewed worldwide AS practices in studies reporting >= 5 years follow-up. We searched PubMed and Medline 2000-now and identified 13 AS cohorts. Three key areas were identified: (I) patient selection; (II) monitoring protocols; (III) triggers for intervention-(I) all studies defined clinically localised PC diagnosis as T2b disease or less and most agreed on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) threshold (< 10 mu g/L) and Gleason score threshold (3+3). Inconsistency was most notable regarding pathologic factors (e.g., number of positive cores); (II) all agreed on PSA surveillance as crucial for monitoring, and most agreed that confirmatory biopsy was required within 12 months of initiation. No consensus was reached on optimal timing of digital rectal examination (DRE), general health assessment or re-biopsy strategies thereafter; (III) there was no universal agreement for intervention triggers, although Gleason score, number or percentage of positive cancer cores, maximum cancer length (MCL) and PSA doubling time were used by several studies. Some also used imaging or re-biopsy. Despite consistent high progression-free/cancer-free survival and conversion-to-treatment rates, heterogeneity exists amongst these large AS cohorts. Combining existing evidence and gathering more long-term evidence [e.g., the Movember's Global AS database or additional information on use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)] is needed to derive a broadly supported guideline to reduce variation in clinical practice