EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer—2020 Update. Part 1: Screening,Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent

ObjectiveTo present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa).Evidence acquisitionThe panel performed a literature review of new data, covering the time frame between 2016 and 2020. The guidelines were updated and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence.Evidence synthesisA risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50 yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. Risk-adapted screening should be offered to men at increased risk from the age of 45 yr and to breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation carriers, who have been confirmed to be at risk of early and aggressive disease (mainly BRAC2), from around 40 yr of age. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is performed, a combination of targeted and systematic biopsies must be offered. There is currently no place for the routine use of tissue-based biomarkers. Whilst prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography is the most sensitive staging procedure, the lack of outcome benefit remains a major limitation. Active surveillance (AS) should always be discussed with low-risk patients, as well as with selected intermediate-risk patients with favourable International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the AS journey and the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A strong recommendation to consider moderate hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term hormonal treatment.ConclusionsThe evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for their use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management.Patient summaryUpdated prostate cancer guidelines are presented, addressing screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. These guidelines rely on the available scientific evidence, and new insights will need to be considered and included on a regular basis. In some cases, the supporting evidence for new treatment options is not yet strong enough to provide a recommendation, which is why continuous updating is important. Patients must be fully informed of all relevant options and, together with their treating physicians, decide on the most optimal management for them.     

Quantitative interpretation of utterances and movements from videoed interactions between rheumatology nurses and patients commencing methotrexate: a pilot study

Clinical Rheumatology - Educating patients about methotrexate is a core role of rheumatology nurses. We have previously reported the scoring of videoed interviews of rheumatology nurses educating...     

A retrospective cohort study comparing non-fatal self-harm emergency department visits between Canadian veterans living in Ontario and matched civilians

Abstract

This was a retrospective cohort study linking provincial administrative databases to compare rates of non-fatal self-harm between CAF and RCMP veterans living in Ontario and age-matched civilians. This study included male veterans who registered for provincial health insurance between 2002 and 2013. A civilian comparator group was matched 4:1 on age and sex. Self-harm emergency department (ED) visits were identified from provincial ED admission records until death or December 31, 2015. Multivariable Poisson regression compared the risk of self-harm. Analyses adjusted for age, geography, income, rurality, and major physical and mental comorbidities. In total, 9514 male veterans and 38,042 age- and sex-matched civilians were included. Overall, 0.55% of veterans had at least one non-fatal self-harm ED visit, compared with 0.81% of civilians. The rate of ED self-harm visits was 40% lower in the veteran population, compared to the civilian population (RR?=?0.60; 95% CI?=?0.41–0.87). In both groups, psychosocial and physical comorbidities, and death by suicide were more common in those who self-harmed than those who did not. A better understanding of why veterans have a lower rate of self-harm emergency department visits and how it is related to the number of completed suicides is an important area for future consideration.