Search

Background and objective: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used to capture the patients’ perspective of their functional status and quality of life (QoL). Big data can help us better understand patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Using prospectively collected data from the Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment Enhancement Through the Power of Big Data in Europe (PIONEER) consortium, we aimed to describe the functional status and QoL in men with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with active surveillance (AS), radical prostatectomy (RP), and radiotherapy (RT), and to demonstrate the applicability of PROM data on a large scale and at a European level. Methods: We identified data sources that collected QoL data using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-PR25, or Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)-26/50 questionnaires. Aggregated summary scores for urinary, bowel, and sexual dysfunction, global health status, and QoL were shared for each data source. Key findings and limitations: We identified eight data sources originating from various settings: routine hospital data, embedded research PRO collection, survey data collected by a patient organization, multi-institutional prospective cohort study, and registry data. PRO data were available for 709 men on AS, 20 508 on RP, and 3417 on RT, with a median time between diagnosis and PROM assessment ranging from 1 to 8.7 yr. Most men were diagnosed with Gleason ≤7 disease, and T1 or T2 PCa. We observed that sexual dysfunction was the most affected PRO and found large differences between data sources. Conclusions and clinical implications: Our results support the feasibility of PRO assessment using big data in Europe. Implementation of PROMs in clinical practice and the use of standardized methods could improve value-based health care provision. Patient summary: In this study, we combined several data sources that reported urinary, bowel, and sexual dysfunction, global health status, and quality of life. We identified eight data sources and show that sexual function is the most affected domain after treatment.

Background and objective: Clinical practice guidelines for prostate cancer (PCa) are a valuable resource for everyday clinical practice. The clinical practice guidelines and recommendations produced by various societies should demonstrate a considerable level of consistency in terms of quality, regardless of the society that developed these given the common evidence base. However, to date, no study has assessed the quality of PCa clinical practice guidelines. As part of the Optimal Treatment for Patients with Solid Tumours in Europe Through Artificial intelligence (OPTIMA) project, we evaluated the quality of the most frequently used national and international clinical practice guidelines for PCa using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. Methods: The quality of the identified clinical practice guidelines was assessed independently by two assessors using the AGREE II tool. The AGREE II tool comprises 23 different items organised into six domains, rated on a 7-point scale (1: strongly disagree to 7: strongly agree). The total score of the appraisal was the mean value of the two assessments. The agreement between assessors’ scores was calculated using the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Four key recommendations were compared among the included clinical practice guidelines to assess consistency. Key findings and limitations: Sixteen clinical practice guidelines were assessed using their latest available version (cut-off April 2024). The European Association of Urology, S3LL PCa, Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and Prostatacancer—Nationellt vårdprogram guidelines received the highest overall scores with a mean domain score of 82.4% (range: 75.5–88.3%). The de l’Association Française d’Urologie (AFU), American Urological Association, and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence received a mean domain score of 77.6% (range: 73.7–84.0%). Below average were the European Society for Medical Oncology, localised (L) and systemic (S) CPPC American Society of Clinical Oncology, and Nederlandse Vereniging voor Urologie (NVU) with a mean domain score of 58.4% (range: 43.5–76.3%). The reasons for scoring below average included the following: inadequate information about the methodology applied, limited scope of the guideline, and limited patient engagement. The highest inter-rater variability was observed in NVU (ICC: 0.58) and the lowest in AFU-L (ICC: 0.84). When examining the scores of each domain, “clarity of presentation” (domain 4) achieved the highest score with a mean of 86.9% ± 12.6%. The domain with the lowest score was applicability (domain 5), with a mean of 48.3% ± 24.8%. The ICC was calculated to be 0.72 (±0.08). Conclusions and clinical implications: This is the first study in which a comprehensive quality assessment of the majority of international and national clinical practice guidelines was undertaken, and the key recommendations were compared to assess consistency. Our study shows that the majority of international and national clinical practice guidelines demonstrate high-quality standards when assessed using the AGREE II evaluation tool. The clinical practice guidelines that did not meet the expected standards could be improved by adopting several key recommendations outlined by our study. Patient summary: The OPTIMA project used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool to evaluate the quality of 16 commonly used national and international clinical practice guidelines for prostate cancer. While some of these international and national clinical practice guidelines received the highest score, few guidelines scored below average due to methodological deficiencies and limited patient engagement. These findings highlight the need for a standardised process to ensure high-quality, consistent guidelines across practices.

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.

Combination therapies in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), which include the addition of an androgen receptor signaling inhibitor and/or docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy, have been a game changer in the management of this disease stage. However, these therapies come with their fair share of toxicities and side effects. The goal of this observational study is to report drug-related adverse events (AEs), which are correlated with systemic combination therapies for mHSPC. Determining the optimal treatment option requires large cohorts to estimate the tolerability and AEs of these combination therapies in “real-life” patients with mHSPC, as provided in this study. We use a network of databases that includes population-based registries, electronic health records, and insurance claims, containing the overall target population and subgroups of patients defined by unique certain characteristics, demographics, and comorbidities, to compute the incidence of common AEs associated with systemic therapies in the setting of mHSPC. These data sources are standardised using the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model. We perform the descriptive statistics as well as calculate the AE incidence rate separately for each treatment group, stratified by age groups and index year. The time until the first event is estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method within each age group. In the case of episodic events, the anticipated mean cumulative counts of events are calculated. Our study will allow clinicians to tailor optimal therapies for mHSPC patients, and they will serve as a basis for comparative method studies.

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.

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.

Abstract Background Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-directed radioligand therapy (RLT) is a promising yet not curative approach in castration-resistant (CR) prostate cancer (PC). Rational combination therapies may improve treatment efficacy. Here, we explored the effect of androgen receptor blockade (ARB) on PSMA expression visualized by PET and its potential additive effect when combined with 177Lu-PSMA RLT in a mouse model of prostate cancer. Methods Mice bearing human CRPC (C4-2 cells) xenografts were treated with 10 mg/kg enzalutamide (ENZ), with 50 mg/kg bicalutamide (BIC), or vehicle (control) for 21 days. PSMA expression was evaluated by 68Ga-PSMA11 PET/CT and quantified by flow cytometry of tumor fine needle aspirations before treatment and on days 23, 29, 34, and 39 post-therapy induction. For the RLT combination approach, mice bearing C4-2 tumors were treated with 10 mg/kg ENZ or vehicle for 21 days before receiving either 15 MBq (84 GBq/μmol) 177Lu-PSMA617 or vehicle. DNA damage was assessed as phospho-γH2A.X foci in tumor biopsies. Reduction of tumor volume on CT and survival were used as study endpoints. Results Tumor growth was delayed by ARB while 68Ga-PSMA11 uptake increased up to 2.3-fold over time when compared to controls. ABR-induced upregulation of PSMA expression was confirmed by flow cytometry. Phospho-γH2A.X levels increased 1.8- and 3.4-fold at 48 h in response to single treatment ENZ or RLT and ENZ+RLT, respectively. Despite significantly greater DNA damage and persistent increase of PSMA expression at the time of RLT, no additional tumor growth retardation was observed in the ENZ+RLT group (vs. RLT only, p = 0.372 at day 81). Median survival did not improve significantly when ENZ was combined with RLT. Conclusion ARB-mediated increases in PSMA expression in PC xenografts were evident by 68Ga-PSMA11 PET imaging and flow cytometry. 177Lu-PSMA617 effectively decreased C4-2 tumor size. However, while pre-treatment with ARB increased DNA damage significantly, it did not result in synergistic effects when combined with RLT.

Prostate cancer patients with high WNT5A expression in their tumors have been shown to have more favorable prognosis than those with low WNT5A expression. This suggests that reconstitution of Wnt5a in low WNT5A-expressing tumors might be an attractive therapeutic approach. To explore this idea, we have in the present study used Foxy-5, a WNT5A mimicking peptide, to investigate its impact on primary tumor and metastasis in vivo and on prostate cancer cell viability, apoptosis and invasion in vitro. We used an in vivo orthotopic xenograft mouse model with metastatic luciferase-labeled WNT5A-low DU145 cells and metastatic luciferase-labeled WNT5A-high PC3prostate cancer cells. We provide here the first evidence that Foxy-5 significantly inhibits the initial metastatic dissemination of tumor cells to regional and distal lymph nodes by 90% and 75%, respectively. Importantly, this effect was seen only with the WNT5A-low DU145 cells and not with the WNT5A-high PC3 cells. The inhibiting effect in the DU145-based model occurred despite the fact that no effects were observed on primary tumor growth, apoptosis or proliferation. These findings are consistent with and supported by the in vitro data, where Foxy-5 specifically targets invasion without affecting apoptosis or viability of WNT5A-low prostate cancer cells. To conclude, our data indicate that the WNT5A-mimicking peptide Foxy-5, which has been recently used in a phase 1 clinical trial, is an attractive candidate for complimentary anti-metastatic treatment of prostate cancer patients with tumors exhibiting absent or low WNT5A expression.