[Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer-data from 17,149 patients from 125 certified centers]. / Harninkontinenz nach radikaler Prostatektomie beim Prostatakarzinom ­ aktuelle Daten von 17.149 Patienten aus 125 zertifizierten Zentren.

BACKGROUND: In addition to erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence is the most common functional limitation after radical prostatectomy (RPE) for prostate cancer (PCa). The German S3 guideline recommends informing patients about possible effects of the therapy options, including incontinence. However, only little data on continence from routine care in German-speaking countries after RPE are currently available, which makes it difficult to inform patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work is to present data on the frequency and severity of urinary incontinence after RPE from routine care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Information from the PCO (Prostate Cancer Outcomes) study is used, which was collected between 2016 and 2022 in 125 German Cancer Society (DKG)-certified prostate cancer centers in 17,149 patients using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form (EPIC-26). Changes in the "incontinence" score before (T0) and 12 months after RPE (T1) and the proportion of patients who used pads, stratified by age and risk group, are reported. RESULTS: The average score for urinary incontinence (value range: 0-worst possible to 100-best possible) was 93 points at T0 and 73 points 12 months later. At T0, 97% of the patients did not use a pad, compared to 56% at T1. 43% of the patients who did not use a pad before surgery used at least one pad a day 12 months later, while 13% use two or more. The proportion of patients using pads differs by age and risk classification. CONCLUSION: The results provide a comprehensive insight into functional outcome 12 months after RPE and can be taken into account when informing patients.

Predictors for the utilization of social service counseling by prostate cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Social service counseling (SSC) is an important instrument to support cancer patients, for example, regarding legal support, or rehabilitation. Several countries have established on-site SSC in routine care. Previous analyses have shown that SSC utilization varies across cancer centers. This analysis investigates patient and center-level predictors that explain variations in SSC utilization between centers. METHODS: Logistic multilevel analysis was performed with data from 19,865 prostate cancer patients from 102 prostate cancer centers in Germany and Switzerland. Data was collected within an observational study between July 2016 and June 2020 using survey (online and paper) and tumor documentation. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient for the null model implies that 51% of variance in SSC utilization is attributable to the center a patient is treated in. Patients aged 80 years and older, with higher education, private insurance, without comorbidities, localized intermediate risk, and undergoing androgen deprivation therapy before study inclusion were less likely to utilize SSC. Undergoing primary radiotherapy, active surveillance, or watchful waiting as compared to prostatectomy was associated with a lower likelihood of SSC utilization. Significant negative predictors at the center level were university hospital, center's location in Switzerland, and a short period of certification. CONCLUSION: The results show that patient and center characteristics contribute to explaining the variance in SSC utilization in prostate cancer centers to a large extent. The findings may indicate different organizational processes in the countries included and barriers in the sectoral structure of the healthcare system. In-depth analyses of processes within cancer centers may provide further insights into the reasons for variance in SSC utilization.

PSMA-PET/MRI-Based Focal Dose Escalation in Patients with Primary Prostate Cancer Treated with Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (HypoFocal-SBRT): Study Protocol of a Randomized, Multicentric Phase III Trial.

Technical advances in radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning and delivery have substantially changed RT concepts for primary prostate cancer (PCa) by (i) enabling a reduction of treatment time, and by (ii) enabling safe delivery of high RT doses. Several studies proposed a dose-response relationship for patients with primary PCa and especially in patients with high-risk features, as dose escalation leads to improved tumor control. In parallel to the improvements in RT techniques, diagnostic imaging techniques like multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and positron-emission tomography targeting prostate-specific-membrane antigen (PSMA-PET) evolved and enable an accurate depiction of the intraprostatic tumor mass for the first time. The HypoFocal-SBRT study combines ultra-hypofractionated RT/stereotactic body RT, with focal RT dose escalation on intraprostatic tumor sides by applying state of the art diagnostic imaging and most modern RT concepts. This novel strategy will be compared with moderate hypofractionated RT (MHRT), one option for the curative primary treatment of PCa, which has been proven by several prospective trials and is recommended and carried out worldwide. We suspect an increase in relapse-free survival (RFS), and we will assess quality of life in order to detect potential changes.

[Methodological Standard for the Development of Quality Indicators within Clinical Practice Guidelines - Results of a structured consensus process]. / Methodischer Standard für die Entwicklung von Qualitätsindikatoren im Rahmen von S3-Leitlinien ­ Ergebnisse einer strukturierten Konsensfindung.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations of evidence- and formally consensus-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) represent a valuable source of quality indicators (QIs). Nevertheless, a standardized methodological procedure for developing QIs in the context of CPGs does not yet exist in Germany for all CPGs. For this reason, a methodological standard for the guideline-based development of QIs (QI Standard) was developed based on a structured consensus process involving multiple key stakeholders. METHODS: The proposed content of the QI Standard was derived from evidence, drawing upon results of reviews and qualitative studies, and considered German manuals for guideline-based QI development of two guideline programs. A multi-perspective consensus panel, broadly representing key stakeholders from the German healthcare system with expertise in CPGs and/or quality management, was nominated to vote on recommendations for guideline-based development of QIs. The iterative, structured consensus process included a two-stage online survey based on the Delphi method ("preliminary voting") and a moderated final stakeholder conference where all those recommendations were definitely included in the QI Standard that received approval of more than 75 % (consensus criterion) of the consensus panel. RESULTS: Based on the agreed QI Standard, the QI development process starts with a criteria-based selection of "potential" QIs which - in case of adoption - are published in CPGs as "preliminary" QIs and can achieve the status "final" after successful testing. The QI Standard is composed of a total of 30 recommendations, which are allocated to six areas: A) preparatory work steps for the guideline-based recommendation of QIs, B) QI development group and cooperation with the CPG group, C) development of potential QIs, D) critical appraisal of potential QIs, E) formal adoption and publication as well as F) piloting/testing of preliminary QIs and conversion into final QIs. DISCUSSION: Before the QI Standard can be recommended for implementation in future CPGs, it should have been successfully tested in selected German CPG projects. In addition to methodological requirements for the QI development, it must be ensured that guideline groups have adequate resources for the implementation of the QI Standard. CONCLUSION: By using the QI Standard, scientifically sound and healthcare-relevant QIs can be expected.

[DNVF Memorandum Health Services Research in Oncology]. / DNVF-Memorandum Versorgungsforschung in der Onkologie.

Health services research in oncology deals with all situations which cancer patients face. It looks at the different phases of care, i. e. prevention / early detection, prehabilitation, diagnostics, therapy, rehabilitation and palliative care as well as the various actors, including those affected, the carers and self-help. It deals with healthy people (e. g. in the context of prevention / early detection), patients and cancer survivors. Due to the nature of cancer and the existing care structures, there are a number of specific contents for health services research in oncology compared to general health services research while the methods remain essentially identical. This memorandum describes the subject, illustrates the care structures and identifies areas of health services research in oncology. This memorandum has been prepared by the Oncology Section of the German Network for Health Services Research and is the result of intensive discussions.

Use of psycho-oncological services by prostate cancer patients: A multilevel analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients often suffer from psychological distress. Psycho-oncological services (POS) have been established in some health care systems in order to address such issues. This study aims to identify patient and center characteristics that elucidate the use of POS by patients in prostate cancer centers (PCCs). METHODS: Center-reported certification and patient survey data from 3094 patients in 44 certified PCCs in Germany were gathered in the observational study (Prostate Cancer Outcomes). A multilevel analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Model 1 showed that utilization of POS in PCCs is associated with patients' age (OR = 0.98; 95%-CI = 0.96-0.99; P < .001), number of comorbidities (1-2 vs 0, OR = 1.27; 95%-CI = 1.00-1.60; P=.048), disease staging (localized high-risk vs localized intermediate risk, OR = 1.41; 95%-CI = 1.14-1.74; P < .001), receiving androgen deprivation therapy before study inclusion (OR = 0.19; 95%-CI = 0.10-0.34; P < .001), and hospital teaching status (university vs academic, OR = 0.09; 95%-CI = 0.02-0.55; P = .009). Model 2 additionally includes information on treatment after study inclusion and shows that after inclusion, patients who receive primary radiotherapy (OR = 0.05; 95%-CI = 0.03-0.10; P < .001) or undergo active surveillance/watchful waiting (OR = 0.06; 95%-CI = 0.02-0.15; P < .001) are less likely to utilize POS than patients who undergo radical prostatectomy. Disease staging (localized high-risk vs localized intermediate risk, OR = 1.31; 95%-CI = 1.05-1.62; P = .02) and teaching status (university vs academic, OR = 0.08; 95%-CI = 0.01-0.65; P = .02) are also significant predictors for POS use. The second model did not identify any other significant patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should explore the role of institutional teaching status and whether associations with therapy after study inclusion are due to treatment effects - for example, less need following radiotherapy - or because access to POS is more difficult for those receiving radiotherapy.