ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The UK has an informed choice testing policy for prostate cancer. The prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test is available for free to any man aged ≥50 years who requests it and has been informed of the harms and benefits. This policy leads to differences in PSA testing rates, which can exacerbate health inequalities. AIM: To assess whether Prostate Cancer UK's risk checker helps men at risk of prostate cancer make an informed choice about the PSA test. DESIGN & SETTING: Mixed-methods study in the UK. METHOD: In total, 1181 men at risk, their partners, and clinical experts participated in surveys, focus groups, and one-to-one interviews. Data on risk checker completions by sociodemographic factors were analysed over time. Data from general practices that sent the risk checker to their patients were collected and analysed for service monitoring purposes. RESULTS: There was a strong assumption that testing must be good, and therefore a need to emphasise the pros and cons of the test and that having it was the patient's decision. Men believed their GP would invite them for PSA testing. On the impact of the risk checker, 79.6% of men who completed it had at least one prostate cancer risk factor; the average time they interacted with the information in the tool was 9 minutes 28 seconds; and 75.7% felt the tool had equipped them to make an informed choice. CONCLUSION: Online decision-making tools, such as the risk checker, can help reach men at high risk of prostate cancer and support them in making an informed choice about the PSA test.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To develop a consensus statement on current best practice of active surveillance (AS) in the UK, informed by patients and clinical experts. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A consensus statement was drafted on the basis of three sources of data: systematic literature search of national and international guidelines; data arising from a Freedom of Information Act request to UK urology departments regarding their current practice of AS; and survey and interview responses from men with localized prostate cancer regarding their experiences and views of AS. The Prostate Cancer UK Expert Reference Group (ERG) on AS was then convened to discuss and refine the statement. RESULTS: Guidelines and protocols for AS varied significantly in terms of risk stratification, criteria for offering AS, and protocols for AS between and within countries. Patients and healthcare professionals identified clinical, emotional and process needs for AS to be effective. Men with prostate cancer wanted more information and psychological support at the time of discussing AS with the treating team and in the first 2 years of AS, and a named healthcare professional to discuss any questions or concerns they had. The ERG agreed 30 consensus statements regarding best practice for AS. Statements were grouped under headings: 'Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria'; 'AS follow-up protocol' and 'When to stop AS'. CONCLUSION: Significant variation currently exists in the practice of AS in the UK and internationally. Men have clear views on the level of involvement in treatment decisions and support from their treating professionals when receiving AS. The Prostate Cancer UK AS ERG has developed a set of consensus statements for best practice in AS. Evidence for best practice in AS, and the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in AS, is still evolving, and further studies are needed to determine how to optimize AS outcomes.
