1
|
Leenen RCA, Venderbos LDF, Helleman J, Gómez Rivas J, Vynckier P, Annemans L, Chloupková R, Májek O, Briers E, Vasilyeva V, Remmers S, van Harten MJ, Denijs FB, de Vos II, Chandran A, Basu P, van den Bergh RCN, Collen S, Van Poppel H, Roobol MJ, Beyer K. Prostate Cancer Early Detection in the European Union and UK. Eur Urol 2024:S0302-2838(24)02502-8. [PMID: 39183092 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2024.07.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2024] [Revised: 06/21/2024] [Accepted: 07/08/2024] [Indexed: 08/27/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE While prostate cancer (PCa) incidence and mortality rates continue to rise, early detection of PCa remains highly controversial, and the research landscape is rapidly evolving. Existing systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) provide valuable insights, but often focus on single aspects of early detection, hindering a comprehensive understanding of the topic. We aim to fill this gap by providing a comprehensive SR of contemporary SRs covering different aspects of early detection of PCa in the European Union (EU) and the UK. METHODS On June 1, 2023, we searched four databases (Medline ALL via Ovid, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and Google Scholar. To avoid repetition of previous studies, only SRs (qualitative, quantitative, and/or MAs) were considered eligible. In the data, common themes were identified to present the evidence systematically. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS We identified 1358 citations, resulting in 26 SRs eligible for inclusion. Six themes were identified: (1) invitation: men at general risk should be invited at >50 yr of age, and testing should be discontinued at >70 yr or with <10 yr of life expectancy; (2) decision-making: most health authorities discourage population-based screening and instead recommend a shared decision-making (SDM) approach, but implementation of SDM in clinical practice varies widely; decision aids help men make more informed and value-consistent screening decisions and decrease men's intention to attempt screening, but these do not affect screening uptake; (3) acceptance: facilitators for men considering screening include social prompting by partners and clinician recommendations, while barriers include a lack of knowledge, low-risk perception, and masculinity attributes; (4) screening test and algorithm: prostate-specific antigen-based screening reduces PCa-specific mortality and metastatic disease in men aged 55-69 yr at randomisation if screened at least twice; (5) harms and benefits: these benefits come at the cost of unnecessary biopsies, overdiagnosis, and subsequent overtreatment; and (6) future of screening: risk-adapted screening including (prebiopsy) risk calculators, magnetic resonance imaging, and blood- and urine-based biomarkers could reduce these harms. To enable a comprehensive overview, we focused on SRs. These do not include the most recent prospective studies, which were therefore incorporated in the discussion. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS By identifying consistent and conflicting evidence, this review highlights the evidence-based foundations that can be built upon, as well as areas requiring further research and improvement to reduce the burden of PCa in the EU and UK. PATIENT SUMMARY This review of 26 reviews covers various aspects of prostate cancer screening such as invitation, decision-making, screening tests, harms, and benefits. This review provides insights into existing evidence, highlighting the areas of consensus and discrepancies, to guide future research and improve prostate cancer screening strategies in Europe.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Renée C A Leenen
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Lionne D F Venderbos
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jozien Helleman
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Juan Gómez Rivas
- Department of Urology, Clínico San Carlos University Hospital, Madrid, Spain
| | - Pieter Vynckier
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Lieven Annemans
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Renata Chloupková
- National Screening Centre, Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czechia; Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia
| | - Ondřej Májek
- National Screening Centre, Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czechia; Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia
| | | | - Vera Vasilyeva
- European Association of Urology, Policy Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - Sebastiaan Remmers
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Meike J van Harten
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Frederique B Denijs
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ivo I de Vos
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Arunah Chandran
- International Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organization, Lyon, France
| | - Partha Basu
- International Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organization, Lyon, France
| | - Roderick C N van den Bergh
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sarah Collen
- European Association of Urology, Policy Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - Hein Van Poppel
- European Association of Urology, Policy Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands; Department of Urology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Monique J Roobol
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Katharina Beyer
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Pack AP, Zuleta A, Daugerdas E, Huang W, Batio S, Svoboda S, Zeitler EP, Kumar N, Watt S, Fernandez-Arias MI, Bader M, Assaf AR, Bailey SC. Developing, optimizing, and evaluating patient infographics for diagnosing cardiac amyloidosis. PEC INNOVATION 2023; 3:100212. [PMID: 37743956 PMCID: PMC10514075 DOI: 10.1016/j.pecinn.2023.100212] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/03/2023] [Revised: 09/05/2023] [Accepted: 09/08/2023] [Indexed: 09/26/2023]
Abstract
Objective Advancements in diagnostics and treatment options for cardiac amyloidosis have improved patient outcomes, yet few patient education materials exist to help patients understand the disease and diagnosis process. We sought to develop and evaluate a set of plain language, patient-centered infographics describing the condition and common diagnostic tests. Methods Using health literacy best practices, we developed 7 infographics which were further revised based on multilevel stakeholder feedback. To evaluate the materials, we recruited 100 patients from healthcare settings in Chicago, IL; participants completed a web-assisted interview during which they were randomized 1:1 to first view either our infographics or a standard material. Participants completed a knowledge assessment on their assigned material and subsequently reported impressions of both materials. Results No differences were found between study arms in knowledge. The infographics took significantly less time to read and were more highly rated by participants in terms of appearance and understandability. Over two-thirds of participants preferred the infographics to the standard. Conclusions The infographics created may improve the learning process about a complex condition and diagnosis process unknown to most adults. Innovation These infographics are the first of their kind for cardiac amyloidosis and were created using health literacy best practices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Allison P. Pack
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, United States of America
| | - Andrea Zuleta
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, United States of America
| | - Eleanor Daugerdas
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, United States of America
| | - Wei Huang
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, United States of America
| | - Stephanie Batio
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, United States of America
| | - Sophia Svoboda
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, United States of America
| | - Emily P. Zeitler
- Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Heart and Vascular Center, Cardiovascular Section, The Dartmouth Institute, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, United States of America
| | | | | | | | | | - Annlouise R. Assaf
- Pfizer, Inc, United States of America
- Brown University School of Public Health, United States of America
| | - Stacy Cooper Bailey
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|