LAUSR

In 1961, CS Lewis observed that grief felt like fear, or being con‐ cussed, with ‘an invisible blanket between the world and me’ (Lewis, 1961). During his exploration of grief, Lewis observes that from feel‐ ings one can move to thinking, that is, to apply the rational self as a point from which to move forward. And so to prostate cancer. The global burden of prostate cancer is escalating with over 1.2 million men diagnosed each year (Bray et al., 2018). The face of prostate cancer has changed over the past three decades since the ad‐ vent of the prostate‐specific antigen test and the promise of early de‐ tection and cure (Schröder, Hugosson, Carlsson, et al., 2012; Schröder, Hugosson, Roobol, et al., 2012), and new approaches to the treatment of advanced disease (Emmett et al., 2017). Clinical research and tech‐ nological advances have expanded treatment possibilities for these men—theranostics and personalised medicine offer new hope (Huey, Hawk, & Offodile, 2019). However, the personal experience of pros‐ tate cancer and the feelings that surround prostate cancer are con‐ nected to physical, social, psychological and relationship challenges that for many men will be long term, if not lifelong (Chambers, Ng, et al., 2017; Chambers, Occhipinti, et al., 2019). The data are clear. After diagnosis, up to one in four men experience anxiety and up to one in five report depression (Watts et al., 2015). Heightened distress occurs across all treatment approaches, exacerbated when disease or symp‐ tom effects are advanced (Chambers, Ng, et al., 2017; Coughlin et al., 2018; Meissner, Herkommer, Marten‐Mittag, Gschwend, & Dinkel, 2017). Risk of suicide is increased after a diagnosis of prostate cancer in comparison with controls (Bill‐Axelson et al., 2010; Carlsson et al., 2013; Dalela et al., 2016), particularly in the first 6–12 months after di‐ agnosis (Guo et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2018). Unmet needs for support for psychological care are widely prevalent (Hyde et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2007). For many, the diagnosis of prostate cancer will generate strong feelings and a life permanently changed. And so to thinking, to act. Brief distress screening for people with cancer is an accepted standard in oncology care (Holland, Watson, & Dunn, 2011); it is well validated in men with prostate cancer (Chambers, Zajdlewicz, Youlden, Holland, & Dunn, 2014); and evidence‐based and accessible psychosocial interventions have been developed (Chambers, Hyde, et al., 2017; Crawford‐Williams et al., 2018). Psychosocial care is at the core of best practice survivorship care (Andersen et al., 2014). Unless men experiencing high levels of distress are identified within the care pathway, and referred for intervention or support, they are unlikely to receive the care they need (Chambers & Heathcote, 2018). To date, in Australia and likely elsewhere, distress screening for men with prostate cancer has not been universally implemented and so, many men will have their psychological needs left both un‐ noticed and unaddressed. By and large, psycho‐oncology research has not addressed implementation and systems‐based interventions that focus on sustainable improvements in psychosocial care are scant (Sanson‐Fisher et al., 2019). Consonant with this, for men with prostate cancer and their partners, psychosocial and survivorship care implementation studies are largely absent (Chambers, Hyde, et al., 2017; Crawford‐Williams et al., 2018). Herein lies the problem. The Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia and Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Centre for Research Excellence in Prostate Cancer Survivorship partnered with key Australian medical, nursing and research leaders to develop a po‐ sition statement on screening for distress and on providing psy‐ chosocial care for men with prostate cancer (available at https :// www.pcfa.org.au/). The statement was launched on 11 September 2019 in Canberra to encourage and guide advocacy to enhance psychosocial outcomes for men and their families as well as cancer survivorship more broadly. Importantly, the statement is endorsed by the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand; Australia and New Zealand Urological Nursing Society; Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists; Medical Oncology Group of Australia; Australia and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group; European Association of Urology Nurses; and universities across Australia. The statement recommends: