Search

Background Central nervous system (CNS) prophylactic options for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) are administered differently in most centers. Unfortunately, there is still not a consensus on which patients, which regimen, for how many cycles, and when prophy-laxis should be administered. Thus, this remains an unmet clinical need. Methods We administered a survey study under the Lymphoma Scientific Subcommittee of the Turkish Society of Haematology. The questions were directed to hematologists through the monkey survey system. Results The CNS International Prognostic Index score is a factor that clinicians frequently use when deciding on prophylaxis and is considered reliable. Although the perspective on anatomical risk factors is similar to that reported in the literature, breast involvement is still considered a critical risk factor in Turkey. Participants considered double or triple hit and double/triple expressor lymphoma as significant risk factors. Various methods have been used to demonstrate CNS relapses. Intrathecal prophylaxis is the preferred method. Conclusion There are diverse methodological and technical ideas. The controversial results reported in the literature on the effectiveness of CNS prophylaxis may explain this finding. Although CNS prophylactic methods for patients with DLBCL are still controversial, the effect of secondary CNS involvement on survival is inevitable. Standard practices followed by na-tional guidelines may be effective in reducing the variety of application methods and creat-ing homogeneous results for efficacy and survival follow-up studies., NA

01 juli 2023, Item does not contain fulltext, CONTEXT: The optimal management for men with prostate cancer (PCa) with unconventional histology (UH) is unknown. The outcome for these cancers might be worse than for conventional PCa and so different approaches may be needed. OBJECTIVE: To compare oncological outcomes for conventional and UH PCa in men with localized disease treated with curative intent. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review adhering to the Referred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022296013) was performed in July 2021. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We screened 3651 manuscripts and identified 46 eligible studies (reporting on 1 871 814 men with conventional PCa and 6929 men with 10 different PCa UHs). Extraprostatic extension and lymph node metastases, but not positive margin rates, were more common with UH PCa than with conventional tumors. PCa cases with cribriform pattern, intraductal carcinoma, or ductal adenocarcinoma had higher rates of biochemical recurrence and metastases after radical prostatectomy than for conventional PCa cases. Lower cancer-specific survival rates were observed for mixed cribriform/intraductal and cribriform PCa. By contrast, pathological findings and oncological outcomes for mucinous and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN)-like PCa were similar to those for conventional PCa. Limitations of this review include low-quality studies, a risk of reporting bias, and a scarcity of studies that included radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Intraductal, cribriform, and ductal UHs may have worse oncological outcomes than for conventional and mucinous or PIN-like PCa. Alternative treatment approaches need to be evaluated in men with these cancers. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed the literature to explore whether prostate cancers with unconventional growth patterns behave differently to conventional prostate cancers. We found that some unconventional growth patterns have worse outcomes, so we need to investigate if they nee

Contains fulltext : 244306.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), 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.

Contains fulltext : 244306.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), 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.

Contains fulltext : 244306.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), 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.

Contains fulltext : 215783.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty in deferred active treatment (DAT) programmes, regarding patient selection, follow-up and monitoring, reclassification, and which outcome measures should be prioritised. OBJECTIVE: To develop consensus statements for all domains of DAT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A protocol-driven, three phase study was undertaken by the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Association of Urology Section of Urological Research (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel in conjunction with partner organisations, including the following: (1) a systematic review to describe heterogeneity across all domains; (2) a two-round Delphi survey involving a large, international panel of stakeholders, including healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and patients; and (3) a consensus group meeting attended by stakeholder group representatives. Robust methods regarding what constituted the consensus were strictly followed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 109 HCPs and 16 patients completed both survey rounds. Of 129 statements in the survey, consensus was achieved in 66 (51%); the rest of the statements were discussed and voted on in the consensus meeting by 32 HCPs and three patients, where consensus was achieved in additional 27 statements (43%). Overall, 93 statements (72%) achieved consensus in the project. Some uncertainties remained regarding clinically important thresholds for disease extent on biopsy in low-risk disease, and the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in determining disease stage and aggressiveness as a criterion for inclusion and exclusion. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus statements and the findings are expected to guide and inform routine clinical practice and research, until higher levels of evidence emerge through prospective comparative studies and clinical trials. PATIENT

Contains fulltext : 215783.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty in deferred active treatment (DAT) programmes, regarding patient selection, follow-up and monitoring, reclassification, and which outcome measures should be prioritised. OBJECTIVE: To develop consensus statements for all domains of DAT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A protocol-driven, three phase study was undertaken by the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Association of Urology Section of Urological Research (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel in conjunction with partner organisations, including the following: (1) a systematic review to describe heterogeneity across all domains; (2) a two-round Delphi survey involving a large, international panel of stakeholders, including healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and patients; and (3) a consensus group meeting attended by stakeholder group representatives. Robust methods regarding what constituted the consensus were strictly followed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 109 HCPs and 16 patients completed both survey rounds. Of 129 statements in the survey, consensus was achieved in 66 (51%); the rest of the statements were discussed and voted on in the consensus meeting by 32 HCPs and three patients, where consensus was achieved in additional 27 statements (43%). Overall, 93 statements (72%) achieved consensus in the project. Some uncertainties remained regarding clinically important thresholds for disease extent on biopsy in low-risk disease, and the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in determining disease stage and aggressiveness as a criterion for inclusion and exclusion. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus statements and the findings are expected to guide and inform routine clinical practice and research, until higher levels of evidence emerge through prospective comparative studies and clinical trials. PATIENT

Contains fulltext : 215783.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty in deferred active treatment (DAT) programmes, regarding patient selection, follow-up and monitoring, reclassification, and which outcome measures should be prioritised. OBJECTIVE: To develop consensus statements for all domains of DAT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A protocol-driven, three phase study was undertaken by the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Association of Urology Section of Urological Research (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel in conjunction with partner organisations, including the following: (1) a systematic review to describe heterogeneity across all domains; (2) a two-round Delphi survey involving a large, international panel of stakeholders, including healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and patients; and (3) a consensus group meeting attended by stakeholder group representatives. Robust methods regarding what constituted the consensus were strictly followed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 109 HCPs and 16 patients completed both survey rounds. Of 129 statements in the survey, consensus was achieved in 66 (51%); the rest of the statements were discussed and voted on in the consensus meeting by 32 HCPs and three patients, where consensus was achieved in additional 27 statements (43%). Overall, 93 statements (72%) achieved consensus in the project. Some uncertainties remained regarding clinically important thresholds for disease extent on biopsy in low-risk disease, and the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in determining disease stage and aggressiveness as a criterion for inclusion and exclusion. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus statements and the findings are expected to guide and inform routine clinical practice and research, until higher levels of evidence emerge through prospective comparative studies and clinical trials. PATIENT

Objective: To present a summary of the 2016 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) - European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) - International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) Guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). Evidence acquisition: The working panel performed a literature review of the new data (2013-2015). The guidelines were updated and the levels of evidence and/or grades of recommendation were added based on a systematic review of the evidence. Evidence synthesis: . BRCA2 mutations have been added as risk factors for early and aggressive disease. In addition to the Gleason score, the five-tier 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology grading system should now be provided. Systematic screening is still not recommended. Instead, an individual risk-adapted strategy following a detailed discussion and taking into account the patient's wishes and life expectancy must be considered. An early prostate-specific antigen test, the use of a risk calculator, or one of the promising biomarker tools are being investigated and might be able to limit the overdetection of insignificant PCa. Breaking the link between diagnosis and treatment may lower the overtreatment risk. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging

Context: It remains unclear whether patients with a suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa) and negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) can safely obviate prostate biopsy. Objective: To systematically review the literature assessing the negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI in patients with a suspicion of PCa. Evidence acquisition: The Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases were searched up to February 2016. Studies reporting prebiopsy mpMRI results using transrectal or transperineal biopsy as a reference standard were included. We further selected for meta-analysis studies with at least 10-core biopsies as the reference standard, mpMRI comprising at least T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging, positive mpMRI defined as a Prostate Imaging Reporting Data System/Likert score of ≥3/5 or ≥4/5, and results reported at patient level for the detection of overall PCa or clinically significant PCa (csPCa) defined as Gleason ≥7 cancer. Evidence synthesis: A total of 48 studies (9613 patients) were eligible for inclusion. At patient level, the median prevalence was 50.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 36.4-57.7%) for overall cancer and 32.9% (IQR, 28.1-37.2%) for csPCa. The median mpMRI NPV was 82.4% (IQR, 69.0-92.4%) for overall cancer and 88.1% (IQR, 85.7-92.3) for csPCa. NPV significantly decreased when cancer prevalence increased, for overall cancer (r = -0.64, p <. 0.0001) and csPCa (r = -0.75, p = 0.032). Eight studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Seven reported results for overall PCa. When the overall PCa prevalence increased from 30% to 60%, the combined NPV estimates decreased from 88% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 77-99%) to 67% (95% CI, 56-79%) for a cut-off score of 3/5. Only one study selected for meta-analysis reported results for Gleason ≥7 cancers, with a positive biopsy rate of 29.3%. The corresponding NPV for a cut-off score of ≥3/5 was 87.9%. Conclusions: The NPV of mpMRI varied greatly depending on study des

Cancer care is undergoing an important paradigm shift from a disease-focused management to a patient-centred approach, in which increasingly more attention is paid to psychosocial aspects, quality of life, patients' rights and empowerment and survivorship. In this context, multidisciplinary teams emerge as a practical necessity for optimal coordination among health professionals and clear communication with patients. The European Partnership for Action Against Cancer (EPAAC), an initiative launched by the European Commission in 2009, addressed the multidisciplinary care from a policy perspective in order to define the core elements that all tumour-based multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) should include. To that effect, a working group conference was held in January 2013 within the EPAAC Work Package 7 (on Healthcare) framework.