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

Predictive Models for Assessing Patients' Response to Treatment in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The treatment landscape of metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) has evolved significantly over the past two decades. Despite this, the optimal therapy for patients with mPCa has not been determined. This systematic review identifies available predictive models that assess mPCa patients' response to treatment. METHODS: We critically reviewed MEDLINE and CENTRAL in December 2022 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Only quantitative studies in English were included with no time restrictions. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the PROBAST tool. Data were extracted following the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews criteria. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: The search identified 616 citations, of which 15 studies were included in our review. Nine of the included studies were validated internally or externally. Only one study had a low risk of bias and a low risk concerning applicability. Many studies failed to detail model performance adequately, resulting in a high risk of bias. Where reported, the models indicated good or excellent performance. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Most of the identified predictive models require additional evaluation and validation in properly designed studies before these can be implemented in clinical practice to assist with treatment decision-making for men with mPCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this review, we evaluate studies that predict which treatments will work best for which metastatic prostate cancer patients. We found that existing studies need further improvement before these can be used by health care professionals

Evolution of European prostate cancer screening protocols and summary of ongoing trials

Population-based organised repeated screening for prostate cancer has been found to reduce disease-specific mortality, but with substantial overdiagnosis leading to overtreatment. Although only very few countries have implemented a screening programme on a national level, individual prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is common. This opportunistic testing may have little favourable impact, while stressing the side-effects. The classic early detection protocols as were state-of-the-art in the 1990s applied a PSA and digital rectal examination threshold for sextant systematic prostate biopsy, with a fixed interval for re-testing, and limited indication for expectant management. In the three decades since these trials were started, different important improvements have become available in the cascade of screening, indication for biopsy, and treatment. The main developed aspects include: better identification of individuals at risk (using early/baseline PSA, family history, and/or genetic profile), individualised re-testing interval, optimised and individualised starting and stopping age, with gradual invitation at a fixed age rather than invitation of a wider range of age groups, risk stratification for biopsy (using PSA density, risk calculator, magnetic resonance imaging, serum and urine biomarkers, or combinations/sequences), targeted biopsy, transperineal biopsy approach, active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, and improved staging of disease. All these developments are suggested to decrease the side-effects of screening, while at least maintaining the advantages, but Level 1 evidence is lacking. The knowledge gained and new developments on early detection are being tested in different prospective screening trials throughout Europe. In addition, the European Union-funded PRostate cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union (PRAISE-U) project will compare and evaluate different screening pilots throughout Europe. Implementation and sustainability will also be addressed. Modern screening approaches may reduce the burden of the second most frequent cause of cancer-related death in European males, while minimising side-effects. Also, less efficacious opportunistic early detection may be indirectly reduced.</p

Evolution of European prostate cancer screening protocols and summary of ongoing trials

Population-based organised repeated screening for prostate cancer has been found to reduce disease-specific mortality, but with substantial overdiagnosis leading to overtreatment. Although only very few countries have implemented a screening programme on a national level, individual prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is common. This opportunistic testing may have little favourable impact, while stressing the side-effects. The classic early detection protocols as were state-of-the-art in the 1990s applied a PSA and digital rectal examination threshold for sextant systematic prostate biopsy, with a fixed interval for re-testing, and limited indication for expectant management. In the three decades since these trials were started, different important improvements have become available in the cascade of screening, indication for biopsy, and treatment. The main developed aspects include: better identification of individuals at risk (using early/baseline PSA, family history, and/or genetic profile), individualised re-testing interval, optimised and individualised starting and stopping age, with gradual invitation at a fixed age rather than invitation of a wider range of age groups, risk stratification for biopsy (using PSA density, risk calculator, magnetic resonance imaging, serum and urine biomarkers, or combinations/sequences), targeted biopsy, transperineal biopsy approach, active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, and improved staging of disease. All these developments are suggested to decrease the side-effects of screening, while at least maintaining the advantages, but Level 1 evidence is lacking. The knowledge gained and new developments on early detection are being tested in different prospective screening trials throughout Europe. In addition, the European Union-funded PRostate cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union (PRAISE-U) project will compare and evaluate different screening pilots throughout Europe. Implementation and sustainability will also be addressed. Modern screening approaches may reduce the burden of the second most frequent cause of cancer-related death in European males, while minimising side-effects. Also, less efficacious opportunistic early detection may be indirectly reduced.</p

False positives in PIRADS (V2) 3, 4, and 5 lesions:relationship with reader experience and zonal location

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of reader experience and zonal location on the occurrence of false positives (FPs) in PIRADS (V2) 3, 4, and 5 lesions on multiparametric (MP)-MRI of the prostate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 139 patients who had consecutively undergone an MP-MRI of the prostate in combination with a transrectal ultrasound MRI fusion-guided biopsy between 2014 and 2017. MRI exams were prospectively read by a group of inexperienced radiologists (cohort 1; 54 patients) and an experienced radiologist (cohort 2; 85 patients). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the association of experience of the radiologist and zonal location with a FP reading. FP rates were compared between readings by inexperienced and experienced radiologists according to zonal location, using Chi-square (χ2) tests. RESULTS: A total of 168 lesions in 139 patients were detected. Median patient age was 68 years (Interquartile range (IQR) 62.5-73), and median PSA was 10.9 ng/mL (IQR 7.6-15.9) for the entire patient cohort. According to multivariable logistic regression, inexperience of the radiologist was significantly (P = 0.044, odds ratio 1.927, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.017-3.651) and independently associated with a FP reading, while zonal location was not (P = 0.202, odds ratio 1.444, 95% CI 0.820-2.539). In the transition zone (TZ), the FP rate of the inexperienced radiologists 59% (17/29) was significantly higher (χ2P = 0.033) than that of the experienced radiologist 33% (13/40). CONCLUSION: Inexperience of the radiologist is significantly and independently associated with a FP reading, while zonal location is not. Inexperienced radiologists have a significantly higher FP rate in the TZ

Risk of osteoporosis in testicular germ cell tumour survivors: A systematic review of the literature

CONTEXT: Testicular germ cell tumour (TGCT) survivors are potentially at risk of developing osteoporosis, because of increased risk for disturbed bone remodelling associated with hypogonadism and anti-cancer treatment. A number of studies show bone loss and increased fracture risk in TGCT survivors, but data are scarce. There are no clinical guidelines or recommendations issued to address skeletal health in this group of patients potentially at high risk for osteoporosis. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of available literature addressing bone health in TGCT patients. Subgroup analysis was performed to identify risk factors for bone loss and increased fracture risk. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Relevant databases, including MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library, including all English written comparative studies addressing bone health in TGCT patients, were searched up to December 2021 and a narrative synthesis was undertaken. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using Cochrane ROBINS-I tool. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Ten studies (eight cross-sectional and two longitudinal), recruiting a total of 1997 unique TGCT patients, were identified and included in the analysis. Bone health was reported in various ways in different studies, and subgroups were defined heterogeneously, resulting in a widely varying prevalence of osteoporosis of up to 73.2% of patients. Six studies reported low BMD associated with higher luteinizing hormone levels and one study showed a correlation between follow up duration and bone loss. CONCLUSIONS: TGCT survivors are at risk of developing osteoporosis and sustaining fragility fractures. Chemotherapy, pituitary-gonadal axis dysfunction and ageing are key risk factors, although available data are scarce. With increasing survival of TGCT patients, a clear unmet need has been identified to systematically evaluate and monitor skeletal health in larger numbers of survivors in order to develop best clinical practice guidelines to manage the insidious but potentially preventable and treatable skeletal complications of TGCT

Evolution of European prostate cancer screening protocols and summary of ongoing trials

Population-based organised repeated screening for prostate cancer has been found to reduce disease-specific mortality, but with substantial overdiagnosis leading to overtreatment. Although only very few countries have implemented a screening programme on a national level, individual prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is common. This opportunistic testing may have little favourable impact, while stressing the side-effects. The classic early detection protocols as were state-of-the-art in the 1990s applied a PSA and digital rectal examination threshold for sextant systematic prostate biopsy, with a fixed interval for re-testing, and limited indication for expectant management. In the three decades since these trials were started, different important improvements have become available in the cascade of screening, indication for biopsy, and treatment. The main developed aspects include: better identification of individuals at risk (using early/baseline PSA, family history, and/or genetic profile), individualised re-testing interval, optimised and individualised starting and stopping age, with gradual invitation at a fixed age rather than invitation of a wider range of age groups, risk stratification for biopsy (using PSA density, risk calculator, magnetic resonance imaging, serum and urine biomarkers, or combinations/sequences), targeted biopsy, transperineal biopsy approach, active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, and improved staging of disease. All these developments are suggested to decrease the side-effects of screening, while at least maintaining the advantages, but Level 1 evidence is lacking. The knowledge gained and new developments on early detection are being tested in different prospective screening trials throughout Europe. In addition, the European Union-funded PRostate cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union (PRAISE-U) project will compare and evaluate different screening pilots throughout Europe. Implementation and sustainability will also be addressed. Modern screening approaches may reduce the burden of the second most frequent cause of cancer-related death in European males, while minimising side-effects. Also, less efficacious opportunistic early detection may be indirectly reduced

Significant inter-and intralaboratory variation in gleason grading of prostate cancer: A nationwide study of 35,258 patients in the Netherlands

Purpose: Our aim was to analyze grading variation between pathology laboratories and between pathologists within individual laboratories using nationwide real-life data. Methods: We retrieved synoptic (n = 13,397) and narrative (n = 29,377) needle biopsy reports from the Dutch Pathology Registry and prostate-specific antigen values from The Netherlands Cancer Registration for prostate cancer patients diagnosed between January 2017 and December 2019. We determined laboratory-specific proportions per histologic grade and unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) for International Society of Urological Pathologists Grades 1 vs. 2–5 for 40 laboratories due to treatment implications for higher grades. Pathologist-specific proportions were determined for 21 laboratories that consented to this part of analysis. The synoptic reports of 21 laboratories were used for analysis of case-mix correction for PSA, age, year of diagnosis, number of biopsies and positive cores. Results: A total of 38,321 reports of 35,258 patients were included. Grade 1 ranged between 19.7% and 44.3% per laboratory (national mean = 34.1%). Out of 40 laboratories, 22 (55%) reported a significantly deviant OR, ranging from 0.48 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39–0.59) to 1.54 (CI 1.22–1.93). Case-mix correction was performed for 10,294 reports, altering the status of 3/21 (14%) laboratories, but increasing the observed variation (20.8% vs. 17.7%). Within 15/21 (71%) of laboratories, significant inter-pathologist variation existed. Conclusion: Substantial variation in prostate cancer grading was observed between and within Dutch pathology laboratories. Case-mix correction did not explain the variation. Better standardization of prostate cancer grading is warranted to optimize and harmonize treatment