With the new policy recommendation in 2022 to explore the possibilities of screening for prostate cancer by the European Commission, the landscape for prostate cancer early detection is evolving. In line with this recommendation, the PRAISE-U project aims to evaluate the early detection and diagnosis of prostate cancer through customised and risk-based screening programmes, with the goal to align protocols across European Union member states. This systematic review is part of the PRAISE-U project, with the goal to review the policy, medical guideline recommendations, and the current level of opportunistic screening presented in the scientific literature on prostate cancer early detection from 2016 to 2023 in European Union member states. An extensive literature search was performed on 1 June 2023 in a large number of databases, including Embase.com, Medline (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, Google Scholar, and Policy Commons. We identified 318 articles (qualitative, quantitative, and reviews), of which 41 were included in the full-text screening. Seventeen articles were ultimately identified as eligible for inclusion. The included articles revealed significant variations towards PSA-based early detection policies for prostate cancer in nine European countries. Despite official recommendations, opportunistic screening was prevalent across all nine countries regardless of recommendations for or against PSA-based early detection. This systematic review suggests that the current early detection policies are not fit for purpose. High levels of opportunistic screening and overdiagnosis persist, prompting policy recommendations for standardised guidelines, informed decision making, and increased awareness to improve efficiency and effectiveness in early detection.

Background: Routine electronic assessment of patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) can improve cancer care; yet, its implementation in routine practice and long-term sustainability remain unclear. Understanding these aspects is critical to advancing the field. Objective: To review and describe the past and current status, time trends, and long-term sustainability of clinical ePRO applications in routine oncology care. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of publications on ePRO use in oncology care up to December 31, 2023, searching PubMed and Web of Science and extracting data on clinical ePRO applications. We included peer-reviewed studies including patients with cancer using ePRO assessments in clinical practice, excluding research letters and conference abstracts. Data from the review were analyzed using descriptive statistics and univariate regression models to evaluate time trends, with year of publication as the predictor. A follow-up survey was sent to authors of published ePRO applications to assess their current use of the application or reasons for discontinuation. Responses from the follow-up survey were analyzed descriptively. Results: For the review, we screened 2933 references, and 303 met inclusion criteria. Results showed that Europe was the most common region (n=141, 46.5%), and study populations consisted mostly of adult patients (n=276, 91.1%) under chemotherapy treatment (n=124, 40.9%) assessed in an outpatient setting (n=261, 86.1%). The EORTC (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer; n=77, 25.4%) and PRO-CTCAE (Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) questionnaires (n=65, 21.5%) were most frequently integrated into ePRO applications. In the univariate analysis, we found that publications increased significantly over time (2003-2023, P<.001). Trends showed a rise in mobile app use (odds ratio [OR] 1.211, P<.001), remote assessments (OR 1.094, P=.002), and feedback provided to patients (OR 1.060, P=.04). Of the 303 studies, 221 unique clinical ePRO applications were identified, merging publications at the application level. The follow-up survey had a 35.3% response rate (78/221), with 61.1% of ePRO applications still in use, lasting a median of 5 years. The most common reason for discontinuation was a lack of funding and resources (42.9%, 12/28). Conclusions: The field of ePRO assessment in oncology is rapidly evolving, with a shift toward remote, app-based tools and a growing emphasis on providing feedback to patients. We present, for the first time, data on the sustainability of ePRO use in routine care. While our findings offer valuable insights, they should be interpreted in light of potential response bias in the follow-up survey. Several ePRO applications remain in active use, highlighting potential for long-term integration into clinical practice. However, financial constraints, limited reimbursement models, and challenges with workflow integration continue to hinder broader and more sustainable adoption. Addressing these barriers will be essential to support the continued use of ePROs in clinical care.

In 2022, the European Commission updated its recommendation on cancer screening, inviting the Member States (MSs) to explore the feasibility of stepwise implementation of population-based screening for prostate cancer (PCa). In line with this recommendation, the PRAISE-U (Prostate Cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union (EU)) project was initiated. As part of the PRAISE-U, we aim to understand the current practice towards early detection in the EU MSs, the barriers to implementing or planning population-based screening programmes, and potential solutions to overcome these barriers. Methods: We adapted the Barriers to Effective Screening Tool (BEST) survey to the PCa context. However, it has not been validated in this context. We translated it into all spoken languages in the EU27 and disseminated it to different stakeholders across the EU using a snowballing approach. Results: We received 410 responses from 55 countries, of which 301 (73%) were from the 27 EU MSs. The most represented stakeholder group was urologists (218 (54%)), followed by general practitioners (GPs) (83 (21%)), patient representatives (35 (9%)), policy stakeholders (27 (7%)), researchers (23 (6%)), oncologists, pathologists, radiologists, nurses, and others (16 (4%)) and one industry representative. Among all respondents, 286 (69%) reported the absence of a population-based screening programme, mainly attributed to resource limitations and a lack of political and medical society support. Out of these 286 respondents, 196 (69%) indicated that opportunistic screening is being applied in their country, and 199 (70%) expressed their support for population-based screening programmes (which was highest amongst patient representatives and urologists and lowest amongst GPs and policy stakeholders). The highest scored barriers were lack of political support, insufficient operational resources, and inadequate participation. Suggested solutions to overcome these included awareness campaigns, consensus meetings, political lobbying and European guidelines (to overcome political support barriers), compatible IT systems (to overcome operational barriers), and easy access (to overcome participation barriers). Conclusions: Participants have noted the presence of opportunistic screening, and particularly urologists and patient representatives expressed their support for the establishment of a population-based PCa screening programme. Nevertheless, successful implementation of population-based screening programmes is complex; it requires political and medical society support, operational resources and capacity, awareness campaigns, as well as the development of protocols, guidelines, and legal frameworks.

Over the last three decades, the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the US-based Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening have steered the conversation around the early detection of prostate cancer. These two randomized trials assessed the effect of screening on prostate cancer disease-specific mortality. Elevated PSA levels were followed by a systematic sextant prostate biopsy. Standard repeat testing intervals were applied. After controversies from 2009 to 2016 due to contradicting results of the two trials, the results aligned in 2016 and showed that early PSA detection reduces prostate cancer-specific mortality. However, overdiagnosis rates of up to 50% were reported, and this sparked an intense debate on harms and benefits for almost 20 years. The balance between harms and benefits is highly debated and has initiated further research to investigate new ways of early detection. In the meantime, the knowledge and tools for the diagnostic algorithm improved. This is a continuously ongoing effort which focuses on individual risk-based screening algorithms that preserve the benefits of the purely PSA-based screening algorithms, while reducing the side effects. An important push towards investigating new techniques for early detection came from the European Commission on the 20th of September 2022. The European Commission published its updated recommendation to investigate prostate, lung, and gastric cancer early detection programs. This opened a new window of opportunity to move away from the trial setting to population-based early detection settings. With this review, we aim to review 30 years of historical evidence of prostate cancer screening, which led to the initiation of the ‘The Prostate Cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union’ (PRAISE-U) project, which aims to encourage the early detection and diagnosis of PCa through customized and risk-based screening programs.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Objective: To explore patients’ experience of decision making regarding treatment of localised kidney cancer. Methods: A total of 21 patients with localised kidney cancer, across three countries, participated in either four focus groups or seven semi‐structured interviews that lasted on average 2 h. Focus groups and interviews were all conducted in the participants' native language, recorded, transcribed and (if applicable) translated into English. Thematic analysis was used to develop a codebook and identify themes. Results: All participants expressed a desire to be actively involved in the treatment decision‐making process. However, due to the emotional toll of the cancer journey, which often necessitates quick decisions, actively engaging in the decision‐making process was described as challenging. The study revealed 12 key themes. These themes included the impact of diagnostic paths, patient characteristics, patient empowerment, health literacy, source of support, fear of recurrence, trust in treatment and healthcare providers, shared decision making (SDM), professional interaction, personal belief system, and organisational and administrative issues. Conclusions: The findings highlight the complexity of decision making, underscoring the desire for patient involvement, SDM, and clear communication. We reveal a significant gap between research recommendations and clinical practice, emphasising the need to translate research findings to clinical application to enhance patient‐centred care.