Harmonisation of outcome reporting and definitions for clinical trials and routine patient records can enable health care systems to provide more efficient outcome-driven and patient-centred interventions. We report on the work of the PIONEER Consortium in this context for prostate cancer (PCa). To update and integrate existing core outcome sets (COS) for PCa for the different stages of the disease, assess their applicability, and develop standardised definitions of prioritised outcomes. We followed a four-stage process involving: (1) systematic reviews; (2) qualitative interviews; (3) expert group meetings to agree standardised terminologies; and (4) recommendations for the most appropriate definitions of clinician-reported outcomes. Following four systematic reviews, a multinational interview study, and expert group consensus meetings, we defined the most clinically suitable definitions for (1) COS for localised and locally advanced PCa and (2) COS for metastatic and nonmetastatic castration-resistant PCa. No new outcomes were identified in our COS for localised and locally advanced PCa. For our COS for metastatic and nonmetastatic castration-resistant PCa, nine new core outcomes were identified. These are the first COS for PCa for which the definitions of prioritised outcomes have been surveyed in a systematic, transparent, and replicable way. This is also the first time that outcome definitions across all prostate cancer COS have been agreed on by a multidisciplinary expert group and recommended for use in research and clinical practice. To limit heterogeneity across research, these COS should be recommended for future effectiveness trials, systematic reviews, guidelines and clinical practice of localised and metastatic PCa. Patient outcomes after treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) are difficult to compare because of variability. To allow better use of data from patients with PCa, the PIONEER Consortium has standardised and recommended outcomes (and their definitions) that should be collected as a minimum in all future studies.

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia in February 2022 has resulted in destruction of healthcare infrastructure and triggered the largest wave of internally displaced populations and refugees since World War Two. Conflicts in transitioned countries such as Ukraine create new non-communicable disease (NCD) challenges, especially for cancer care for refugees and humanitarian assistance in host countries. In the early days, rapid attempts were made to model possible impacts. By evaluating open source intelligence used in the first three months of the conflict through snowball search methods, we aimed to address: (i) burden of cancer in Ukrainian population, specifically considering translating to the refugees population, and its cancer care capacity; ii) baseline capacity/strengths of cancer systems in initial host countries. Moreover, using a baseline scenario based on crude cancer incidence in Ukraine, and considering data from UNHCR, we estimated how cancer cases would be distributed across host countries. Finally, a surveillance assessment instrument was created, intersecting health system's capacity and influx of internally displaced populations and refugees. The total new cancer patients per month in pre-conflict Ukraine was estimated as 13,106, of which < 1 % are paediatric cases. The estimated cancer cases in the refugee population (combining prevalent and incident), assuming 7.5 million refugees by July 2022 and a female:male ratio of 9:1, was 33,121 individuals (Poland: 19284; Hungary: 3484; Moldova: 2651; Slovakia: 2421; Romania: 5281). According to our assessments, Poland is the only neighbouring country classified as green/yellow for cancer capacity, i.e. sufficient ablility to absorb additional burden into national health system; Slovakia we graded as yellow, Hungary and Romania as yellow/red and Moldova as red.

Introduction: With a growing number of treatment options for localised kidney cancer, patients and health care professionals have both the opportunity and the burden of selecting the most suitable management option. This mixed method systematic review aims to understand the barriers and facilitators of the treatment decision-making process in localised kidney cancer. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases between first of January 2004 and 23rd of April 2020 using the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement. We identified 553 unique citations, of these 511 were excluded resulting in 42 articles included for synthesis. The Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings and Significance and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist were applied. Results: The key themes describing barriers and facilitators to treatment decision-making were identified and categorised into three domains: (1) kidney cancer specific characteristics; (2) decision-maker related criteria; and (3) contextual factors. The main facilitators identified within these domains were: size at diagnosis, age, comorbidities, BMI, gender, nephrometry scoring systems, biopsy, socio-economic status, family history of cancer, year of diagnosis, geographic region and practice pattern. The key barriers were race, gender, patient anxiety, low confidence in diagnostic and treatment options, cost of procedure and practice patterns. Conclusion: Future interventions designed to improve the decision-making process for localised kidney cancer should consider these barriers and facilitators to ensure a better patient experience.

Objectives As part of the PIONEER Consortium objectives, we have explored which diagnostic and prognostic factors (DPFs) are available in relation to our previously defined clinician and patient-reported outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa). Design We performed a systematic review to identify validated and non-validated studies. Data sources MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched on 21 January 2020. Eligibility criteria Only quantitative studies were included. Single studies with fewer than 50 participants, published before 2014 and looking at outcomes which are not prioritised in the PIONEER core outcome set were excluded. Data extraction and synthesis After initial screening, we extracted data following the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of prognostic factor studies (CHARMS-PF) criteria and discussed the identified factors with a multidisciplinary expert group. The quality of the included papers was scored for applicability and risk of bias using validated tools such as PROBAST, Quality in Prognostic Studies and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Results The search identified 6604 studies, from which 489 DPFs were included. Sixty-four of those were internally or externally validated. However, only three studies on diagnostic and seven studies on prognostic factors had a low risk of bias and a low risk concerning applicability. Conclusion Most of the DPFs identified require additional evaluation and validation in properly designed studies before they can be recommended for use in clinical practice. The PIONEER online search tool for DPFs for PCa will enable researchers to understand the quality of the current research and help them design future studies. Ethics and dissemination There are no ethical implications.

Introduction: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) represent important endpoints in metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa). However, the clinically valid and accurate measurement of health-related quality of life depends on the psychometric properties of the PROMs considered. Objective: To appraise, compare, and summarize the properties of PROMs in mPCa. Evidence acquisition: We performed a review of PROMs used in RCTs, including patients with mPCa, using Medline in September 2021, according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. This systematic review is part of PIONEER (an IMI2 European network of excellence for big data in PCa). Results: The most frequently used PROMs in RCTs of patients with mPCa were the Functional Assessment for Cancer Therapy—Prostate (FACT-P) (n = 18), the Brief Pain Inventory—Short Form (BPI-SF) (n = 8), and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) (n = 6). A total of 283 abstracts were screened and 12 full-text studies were evaluated. A total of two, one, and two studies reported the psychometric proprieties of FACT-P, Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), and BPI-SF, respectively. FACT-P and BPI showed a high content validity, while BPI-SF showed a moderate content validity. FACT-P and BPI showed a high internal consistency (summarized by Cronbach’s α 0.70–0.95). Conclusions: The use of BPI and FACT-P in mPCa patients is supported by their high content validity and internal consistency. Since BPI is focused on pain assessment, we recommend FACT-P, which provides a broader assessment of QoL and wellbeing, for the clinical evaluation of mPCa patients. However, these considerations have been elaborated on in a very limited number of studies. Patient summary: In this paper, we review the psychometric properties of PROMs used with patients with mPCa to find the questionnaires that best assess patients’ QoL, in order to help professionals in their intervention and improve patients’ QoL. We recommend the use of BPI and FACT-P for their high content validity and internal consistency despite the limited number of studies considered.

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.