Search

With the therapeutic landscape of advanced prostate cancer rapidly evolving and oncological benefits being shown for a plethora of new agents and indications, health-related quality of life (HRQOL)-associated evidence is still subpar. In the current comprehensive review, we discuss the importance of HRQOL for patients with advanced PC (metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC)), and present the most frequently used tools to evaluate HRQOL in recent randomized trials. Furthermore, we discuss the ease of use of these validated questionnaires for clinicians and try to focus on the suggested appropriate use in clinical practice, as well as potential strategies for improvement of HRQOL evaluation in these clinical scenarios of advanced prostate cancer.

Objective: To access the feasibility of palliative cystoprostatectomy/pelvic exenteration in patients with bladder/rectal invasion due to prostate cancer (PC). Patients and methods: Twenty-five men with cT4 PC were retrospectively identified in the institutional databases of six tertiary referral centers in the last decade. Local invasion was documented by CT or MRI scans and was confirmed by urethrocystoscopy. Oncological therapies, local symptoms, previous local treatments, time from diagnosis to intervention and type of surgical procedure were recorded. Patients were divided into groups: ADT group (12 pts) and 13 pts without any history of previous local/systemic treatments for PCa (nonADT groups). Perioperative complications were classified using the Clavien–Dindo system. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from surgery to death from any cause. A Cox regression analysis, stratified for ISUP score and previous hormonal treatment (ADT) was also performed for survival analysis. Results: Ileal conduit was the main urinary diversion in both cohorts. For the entire cohort, complication rate was 44%. No significant differences regarding perioperative complications and complication severity between both subgroups were observed (p = 0.2). Median follow-up was 15months (range 3–41) for the entire cohort with a median survival of 15months (95% CI 10.1–19.9). In Cox regression analysis stratified for ISUP score, no statistically significant differences in OS in patients with and without previous ADT before cystectomy or exenteration were observed (HR 3.26, 95% CI 0.62–17.23, p = 0.164). Conclusion: Palliative cystoprostatectomy and pelvic exenteration represent viable treatment options associated with acceptable morbidity and good short-term survival outcome.

Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment Enhancement Through the Power of Big Data in Europe (PIONEER) is a European network of excellence for big data in prostate cancer, consisting of 32 private and public stakeholders from 9 countries across Europe. Launched by the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 and part of the Big Data for Better Outcomes Programme (BD4BO), the overarching goal of PIONEER is to provide high-quality evidence on prostate cancer management by unlocking the potential of big data. The project has identified critical evidence gaps in prostate cancer care, via a detailed prioritization exercise including all key stakeholders. By standardizing and integrating existing high-quality and multidisciplinary data sources from patients with prostate cancer across different stages of the disease, the resulting big data will be assembled into a single innovative data platform for research. Based on a unique set of methodologies, PIONEER aims to advance the field of prostate cancer care with a particular focus on improving prostate-cancer-related outcomes, health system efficiency by streamlining patient management, and the quality of health and social care delivered to all men with prostate cancer and their families worldwide.Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment Enhancement Through the Power of Big Data in Europe (PIONEER) is a European network of excellence for big data in prostate cancer, consisting of 32 private and public stakeholders from 9 countries across Europe. In this Perspectives article, the authors introduce the PIONEER project and describe its aims and plans for ultimately improving prostate cancer care through the use of big data.

The role and timing of radiotherapy (RT) in prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) remains controversial. While recent trials support the oncological safety of early salvage RT (SRT) compared to adjuvant RT (ART) in selected patients, previous randomized studies demonstrated that ART might improve recurrence-free survival in patients at high risk for local recurrence based on adverse pathology. Although ART might improve survival, this approach is characterized by a risk of overtreatment in up to 40% of cases. SRT is defined as the administration of RT to the prostatic bed and to the surrounding tissues in the patient with PSA recurrence after surgery but no evidence of distant metastatic disease. The delivery of salvage therapies exclusively in men who experience biochemical recurrence (BCR) has the potential advantage of reducing the risk of side effects without theoretically compromising outcomes. However, how to select patients at risk of progression who are more likely to benefit from a more aggressive treatment after RP, the exact timing of RT after RP, and the use of hormone therapy and its duration at the time of RT are still open issues. Moreover, what the role of novel imaging techniques and genomic classifiers are in identifying the most optimal post-operative management of PCa patients treated with RP is yet to be clarified. This narrative review summarizes most relevant published data to guide a multidisciplinary team in selecting appropriate candidates for post-prostatectomy radiation therapy.

Objective: Radical prostatectomy (RP) is a frequent treatment for men suffering from localized prostate cancer (PCa). Whilst offering a high chance for cure, it does not come without a significant impact on health-related quality of life. Herein we review the common adverse effects RP may have over the course of time. Methods: A collaborative narrative review was performed with the identification of the principal studies on the topic. The search was executed by a relevant term search on PubMed from 2010 to February 2021. Results: Rates of major complications in patients undergoing RP are generally low. The main adverse effects are erectile dysfunction varying from 11 to 87% and urinary incontinence varying from 0 to 87% with a peak in functional decline shortly after surgery, and dependent on definitions. Different less frequent side effects also need to be taken into account. The highest rate of recovery is seen within the first year after RP, but even long-term improvements are possible. Nevertheless, for some men these adverse effects are long lasting and different, less frequent side effects also need to be taken into account. Despite many technical advances over the last two decades no surgical approach can be clearly favored when looking at long-term outcome, as surgical volume and experience as well as individual patient characteristics are still the most influential variables. Conclusions: The frequency of erectile function and urinary continence side effects after RP, and the trajectory of recovery, need to be taken into account when counseling patients about their treatment options for prostate cancer.

Focal therapy is a modern alternative to selectively treat a specific part of the prostate harboring clinically significant disease while preserving the rest of the gland. The aim of this therapeutic approach is to retain the oncological benefit of active treatment and to minimize the side-effects of common radical treatments. The oncological effectiveness of focal therapy is yet to be proven in long-term robust trials. In contrast, the toxicity profile is well-established in randomized controlled trials and multiple robust prospective cohort studies. This narrative review summarizes the relevant evidence on complications and their management after focal therapy. When compared to whole gland treatments, focal therapy provides a substantial benefit in terms of adverse events reduction and preservation of genito-urinary function. The most common complications occur in the peri-operative period. Urinary tract infection and acute urinary retention can occur in up to 17% of patients, while dysuria and haematuria are more common. Urinary incontinence following focal therapy is very rare (0-5%), and the vast majority of patients recover in few weeks. Erectile dysfunction can occur after focal therapy in 0-46%: the baseline function and the ablation template are the most important factors predicting post-operative erectile dysfunction. Focal therapy in the salvage setting after external beam radiotherapy has a significantly higher rate of complications. Up to one man in 10 will present a severe complication.

Item does not contain fulltext PURPOSE: The diagnostic strategy implementing multiparametric magnet resonance tomography (mpMRI) and targeted biopsies (TB) improves the detection and characterization of significant prostate cancer (PCa). We aimed to assess the clinical usefulness of systematic biopsies (SB) in the setting of patients having a pre-biopsy positive MRI. METHODS: A review of the literature was performed in March 2018. All studies investigating the performance of SB in addition to TB (all techniques) were assessed, both in the biopsy-naive and repeat biopsy setting. RESULTS: Evidence demonstrates that TB improves the detection of index-significant PCa compared with SB alone, in both initial and repeat biopsy settings. However, the combination of both TB and SB improved the overall (around 30%) and significant (around 10%) PCa detection rates as compared with TB alone. Significant differences between both biopsy approaches exist regarding cancer location favoring SB for the far lateral sampling, and TB for the anterior zone. Main current pitfalls of pure TB strategy are the learning curve and experience required for mpMRI reading and biopsy targeting, as well as the precision assessment in TB techniques. CONCLUSION: A pure TB strategy omitting SB leads to the risk of missing up to 15% of significant cancer, due to limitations of mpMRI performance/reading and of precision during lesion targeting. SB remain necessary, in addition to the TB, to obtain the most accurate assessment of the entire prostate gland in this sub-group of patients at risk of significant disease.

Item does not contain fulltext PURPOSE: To review the evidence addressing current controversies around prostate biopsy. Specific questions explored were (1) mpMRI targeted (TgBx) alone versus combined with systematic (SBx) biopsy; (2) cognitive versus software-based targeted biopsy; (3) transrectal or transperineal route (TP). METHODS: We performed a literature search of peer-reviewed English language articles using PubMed and the words "prostate" AND "biopsy". Web search was implemented by manual search. RESULTS: Prostate mpMRI is revolutionizing prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis, and TgBx improves the detection of clinically significant (cs) PCa compared to SBx alone. The utility of combining SBx-TgBx is variable, but in non-expert centres the two should be combined to overcome learning curve-limitations. Whether SBx should be maintained in expert centres depends on what rate of missed cancer the urological community and patients are prone to accept; this has implications for insignificant cancer diagnosis as well. TgBx may be more precise using a software-based-approach despite cognitive TgBx proved non-inferior in some studies, and may be used for large accessible lesions. TP-biopsies are feasible in an in-office setting. Avoidance of the rectum and accessibility of virtually all prostate areas are attractive features. However, this has to be balanced with local setting and resources implications. Ongoing trials will shed light on unsolved issues. CONCLUSION: The prostate biopsy strategy should be tailored to local expertise, needs and resources availability. Targeted biopsy enhance the ratio between cs and insignificant cancer diagnosis, although some csPCa might be missed. Software-based TgBx are likely to be more precise, especially for new users, although the additional cost might be not justified in all cases. TPBx have ideal attributes for performing TgBx and avoiding infection, although this has resources implications.

Introduction: The urological community's opinion over focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa) has never been assessed. Our aim was to investigate the current opinion on FT in the European urological community. Methods: A 25 -item questionnaire was devised according to the Cherries checklist and distributed through SurveyMonkey using a web link from November 2016 to October 2017. After a pilot validation (n=40 urologists), the survey was sent through EAU and 9 other national European urological societies mailing list. Twitter was also used. Results: We received 484 replies from 51 countries. Almost half (44.8%, n=217) stated FT would represent a step forward, and 52.0% (n=252) would suggest FT to a patient. Almost three-quarters (70.8%, n=343) agreed FT will become a standard option after improvements in patient selection (n=66) or when its effectiveness will be proven (n=78), or both (n=199). Most frequently used definition of FT was treatment of all significant (life -threatening) cancer foci whilst leaving untreated the rest of the gland (39.3%, n=190). FT use was considered as an alternative to whole -gland treatments by 29.7% (n=144), and to AS by 25.0% (n=121). On multivariate analysis, FT availability and publications were associated with a positive opinion on FT. Conversely, attending International congresses, treating high PCa volumes and high percentages of high -risk PCa was associated with a negative opinion. Conclusions: FT is considered as an attractive option for PCa treatment by the European urological community sampled by our survey. FT availability positively influences these thoughts. The present survey suggests whilst some early adopters already embraced FT, the relative majority of the urological community is prone to embrace FT in the near future, once current areas of debate are solved. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Contains fulltext : 215808.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) PURPOSE: Along with a number of other malignancies, the term "oligometastatic" prostate cancer has recently emerged. It represents an attempt to define a subtype of cancer with a limited metastatic load that might perform more favorably than a distinctly disseminated disease, or even one that may be managed in a potentially curative way. Since there is currently a knowledge gap of what imaging modalities should be utilized to classify patients as having this type of tumor, we aimed to shed light on the role of conventional and marker-based imaging in the setting of synchronous oligometastatic prostate cancer as well as summarize the available evidence for its clinical application. METHODS: A literature search on December 15th 2017 was conducted using the Pubmed database. RESULTS: Functional imaging techniques like (68)Ga PSMA. (68)Ga PSMA PET-CT has currently been shown the best detection rates for the assessment of nodal, bone and visceral metastases, especially for smaller lesions at low PSA levels. CONCLUSIONS: Functional imaging helps detect low-burden disease metastatic patients. However, these imaging modalities are not available in every center and thus clinicians may be prone to prescribe systemic treatment rather than referring patients for cytoreductive treatments. We hope that the ongoing prospective trials will help guide clinicians in making a more personalized management of synchronous metastatic patients.

Background Pretreatment tables for the prediction of pathologic stage have been published and validated for localized prostate cancer (PCa). No such tables are available for locally advanced (cT3a) PCa. Objective To construct tables predicting pathologic outcome after radical prostatectomy (RP) for patients with cT3a PCa with the aim to help guide treatment decisions in clinical practice. Design, setting, and participants This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study including 759 consecutive patients with cT3a PCa treated with RP between 1987 and 2010. Intervention Retropubic RP and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Patients were divided into pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and biopsy Gleason score (GS) subgroups. These parameters were used to construct tables predicting pathologic outcome and the presence of positive lymph nodes (LNs) after RP for cT3a PCa using ordinal logistic regression. Results and limitations In the model predicting pathologic outcome, the main effects of biopsy GS and pretreatment PSA were significant. A higher GS and/or higher PSA level was associated with a more unfavorable pathologic outcome. The validation procedure, using a repeated split-sample method, showed good predictive ability. Regression analysis also showed an increasing probability of positive LNs with increasing PSA levels and/or higher GS. Limitations of the study are the retrospective design and the long study period. Conclusions These novel tables predict pathologic stage after RP for patients with cT3a PCa based on pretreatment PSA level and biopsy GS. They can be used to guide decision making in men with locally advanced PCa. Patient summary Our study might provide physicians with a useful tool to predict pathologic stage in locally advanced prostate cancer that might help select patients who may need multimodal treatment.

BACKGROUNDThere is few data on what constitutes the distribution of metastatic sites in prostate cancer (PCa). The aim of our study was to systematically describe the most common sites of metastases in a contemporary cohort of PCa patients. METHODSPatients with metastatic PCa were abstracted from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (1998-2010). Most common metastatic sites within the entire population were described. Stratification was performed according to the presence of single or multiple (2 sites) metastases. Additionally, we evaluated the distribution of metastatic sites amongst patients with and without bone metastases. RESULTSOverall, 74,826 patients with metastatic PCa were identified. The most common metastatic sites were bone (84%), distant lymph nodes (10.6%), liver (10.2%), and thorax (9.1%). Overall, 18.4% of patients had multiple metastatic sites involved. When stratifying patients according to the site of metastases, only 19.4% of men with bone metastases had multiple sites involved. Conversely, among patients with lymph nodes, liver, thorax, brain, digestive system, retroperitoneum, and kidney and adrenal gland metastases the proportion of men with multiple sites involved was 43.4%, 76.0%, 76.7%, 73.0%, 52.2%, 60.9%, and 76.4%, respectively. When focusing exclusively on patients with bone metastases, the most common sites of secondary metastases were liver (39.1%), thorax (35.2%), distant lymph nodes (24.6%), and brain (12.4%). CONCLUSIONSAlthough the majority of patients with metastatic PCa experience bone location, the proportion of patients with atypical metastases is not negligible. These findings might be helpful when planning diagnostic imaging procedures in patients with advanced PCa. Prostate 74:210-216, 2014. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Objective To describe the survival benefit associated with radical prostatectomy (RP), as compared with initial observation, in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa).Patients and Methods Overall, 1382 patients with locally advanced PCa treated with RP or initial observation between 1995 and 2009 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Medicare insurance programme-linked database. Patients were matched using propensity-score methodology, then 10-year cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates were estimated and the number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated. Competing-risks regression analyses tested the relationship between treatment type and CSM.Results Overall, the 10-year CSM rates were 11.8 and 19.3% for patients treated with RP and initial observation, respectively (P < 0.001). The corresponding 10-year NNT was 13. The 10-year CSM rates for the same treatment groups were 8.9 vs 13.9%, respectively, for Gleason score ≤7, 16.8 vs 27.8%, respectively, for Gleason score 8-10, 10.1 vs 15.8%, respectively, for clinical stage T3a, and 17.0 vs 29.3%, respectively, for T3b/T4, respectively (all P ≤ 0.04). The corresponding NNTs were 20, 9, 17 and 8, respectively. In multivariable analyses, RP was an independent predictor of more favourable CSM rates in all categories (all P ≤ 0.04). In separate sensitivity analyses, no differences were recorded when patients treated with radiotherapy were compared with those receiving RP (P = 0.4). Conversely, patients undergoing initial observation had a higher risk of CSM compared with those treated with radiotherapy (P = 0.03).Conclusions RP leads to a significant survival advantage compared with observation in patients with locally advanced disease. The highest benefit was observed in patients with T3b/T4 and Gleason score 8-10 disease.

Objective To examine and quantify the contemporary association between androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and three separate endpoints: coronary artery disease (CAD), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and sudden cardiac death (SCD), in a large USA contemporary cohort of patients with prostate cancer.Patients and Methods In all, 140474 patients diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer between 1995 and 2009 within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database were abstracted. Patients treated with ADT and those not receiving ADT were matched using propensity score methodology. The 10-year CAD, AMI, and SCD rates were estimated. Competing-risks regression analyses tested the association between the type of ADT (GnRH agonists vs bilateral orchidectomy) and CAD, AMI, and SCD, after adjusting for the risk of dying during follow-up.Results Overall, the 10-year rates of CAD, AMI, and SCD were 25.9%, 15.6%, and 15.8%, respectively. After stratification according to ADT status (ADT-naïve vs GnRH agonists vs bilateral orchidectomy), the CAD rates were 25.1% vs 26.9% vs 23.2%, the AMI rates were 14.8% vs 16.6% vs 14.8%, and the SCD rates were 14.2% vs 17.7% vs 16.4%, respectively. In competing-risks multivariable regression analyses, the administration of GnRH agonists (all P < 0.001), but not bilateral orchidectomy (all P ≥ 0.7), was associated with higher risk of CAD, AMI, and SCD.Conclusions The administration of GnRH agonists, but not orchidectomy, is still associated with a significantly increased risk of CAD, AMI, and, especially, SCD in patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer. Alternative forms of ADT should be considered in patients at higher risk of CV events.

Background High-risk prostate cancer (PCa) is an extremely heterogeneous disease. A clear definition of prognostic subgroups is mandatory. Objective To develop a pretreatment prognostic model for PCa-specific survival (PCSS) in high-risk PCa based on combinations of unfavorable risk factors. Design, setting, and participants We conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study including 1360 consecutive patients with high-risk PCa treated at eight European high-volume centers. Intervention Retropubic radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Two Cox multivariable regression models were constructed to predict PCSS as a function of dichotomization of clinical stage ( 20 ng/ml). The first "extended" model includes all seven possible combinations; the second "simplified" model includes three subgroups: a good prognosis subgroup (one single high-risk factor); an intermediate prognosis subgroup (PSA > 20 ng/ml and stage cT3-4); and a poor prognosis subgroup (GS 8-10 in combination with at least one other high-risk factor). The predictive accuracy of the models was summarized and compared. Survival estimates and clinical and pathologic outcomes were compared between the three subgroups. Results and limitations The simplified model yielded an R of 33% with a 5-yr area under the curve (AUC) of 0.70 with no significant loss of predictive accuracy compared with the extended model (R: 34%; AUC: 0.71). The 5- and 10-yr PCSS rates were 98.7% and 95.4%, 96.5% and 88.3%, 88.8% and 79.7%, for the good, intermediate, and poor prognosis subgroups, respectively (p = 0.0003). Overall survival, clinical progression-free survival, and histopathologic outcomes significantly worsened in a stepwise fashion from the good to the poor prognosis subgroups. Limitations of the study are the retrospective design and the long study period. Conclusions This study presents an intuitive and easy-to-use stratification of high-risk PCa into three prognostic subgroups. The model is useful for counseling and decision making in the pretreatment setting.

Background: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) remains controversial, and no improvement in cancer control outcomes has been demonstrated over open radical prostatectomy (ORP). Objective: To examine population-based, comparative effectiveness of RARP versus ORP pertaining surgical margin status and use of additional cancer therapy. Design, setting, and participants: This was a retrospective observational study of 5556 RARP and 7878 ORP cases from 2004 to 2009 from Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked data. Intervention: RARP versus ORP. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Propensity-based analyses were performed to minimize treatment selection biases. Generalized linear regression models were computed for comparison of RP surgical margin status and use of additional cancer therapy (radiation therapy [RT] or androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]) by surgical approach. Results and limitations: In the propensity-adjusted analysis, RARP was associated with fewer positive surgical margins (13.6% vs 18.3%; odds ratio [OR]: 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-0.75), largely because of fewer RARP positive margins for intermediate-risk (15.0% vs 21.0%; OR: 0.66; 95% CI, 0.59-0.75) and high-risk (15.1% vs 20.6%; OR: 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63-0.77) disease. In addition, RARP was associated with less use of additional cancer therapy within 6 mo (4.5% vs 6.2%; OR: 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.81), 12 mo (OR: 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.86), and 24 mo (OR: 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57-0.78) of surgery. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and the absence of prostate-specific antigen levels to determine biochemical recurrence. Conclusions: RARP is associated with improved surgical margin status relative to ORP for intermediate- and high-risk disease and less use of postprostatectomy ADT and RT. This has important implications for quality of life, health care delivery, and costs. Patient summary: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RP) versus open RP is associated with fewer positive margins and better early cancer control because of less use of additional androgen deprivation and radiation therapy within 2 yr of surgery. © 2014 European Association of Urology.

Contains fulltext : 288444.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) CONTEXT: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common cancer among men worldwide. Urinary, bowel, and sexual function, as well as hormonal symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), were prioritised by patients and professionals as part of a core outcome set for localised PCa regardless of treatment type. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in localised PCa and recommend PROMs for use in routine practice and research settings. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The psychometric properties of PROMs measuring functional and HRQoL domains used in randomised controlled trials including patients with localised PCa were assessed according to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology. MEDLINE and Embase were searched to identify publications evaluating psychometric properties of the PROMs. The characteristics and methodological quality of the studies included were extracted, tabulated, and assessed according to the COSMIN criteria. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, 27 studies evaluating psychometric properties of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), University of California-Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life core 30 (QLQ-C30) and prostate cancer 25 (QLQ-PR25) modules, International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), and the 36-item (SF-36) and 12-item Short-Form health survey (SF-12) PROMs were identified and included in the systematic review. EPIC and EORTC QLQ-C30, a general module that assesses patients' physical, psychological, and social functions, were characterised by high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.46-0.96 and 0.68-0.94 respectively) but low content validity. EORTC QLQ-PR25, which is primarily designed to assess PCa-specific HRQoL, had moderate content validity and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.39-0.87). UCLA-PCI was characterised by moderate content validity and high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.21-0.94). However, it does not directly assess hormonal symptoms, whereas EORTC QLQ-PR25 does. CONCLUSION: The tools with the best evidence for psychometric properties and feasibility for use in routine practice and research settings to assess PROMs in patients with localised PCa were EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25. Since EORTC QLQ-C30 is a general module that does not directly assess PCa-specific issues, it should be adopted in conjunction with the QLQ-PR25 module. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed and appraised the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measure questionnaires used for patients with localised prostate cancer. We found good evidence to suggest that two questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25) can be used to measure urinary, bowel, and sexual functions and health-related quality of life.