The National Prostate Cancer Audit — Introducing a New Generation of Cancer Audit

A realist synthesis of multicentre comparative audit implementation: exploring what works and in which healthcare contexts

BACKGROUND

Multicentre comparative clinical audits have the potential to improve patient care, allow benchmarking and inform resource allocation. However, implementing effective and sustainable large-scale audit can be difficult within busy and resource-constrained contemporary healthcare settings. There are little data on what facilitates the successful implementation of multicentre audits. As healthcare environments are complex sociocultural organisational environments, implementing multicentre audits within them is likely to be highly context dependent.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to examine factors that were influential in the implementation process of multicentre comparative audits within healthcare contexts-what worked, why, how and for whom?

METHODS

A realist review was conducted in accordance with the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards reporting standards. A preliminary programme theory informed two systematic literature searches of peer-reviewed and grey literature. The main context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations underlying the implementation processes of multicentre audits were identified and formed a final programme theory.

RESULTS

69 original articles were included in the realist synthesis. Four discrete CMO configurations were deduced from this synthesis, which together made up the final programme theory. These were: (1) generating trustworthy data; (2) encouraging audit participation; (3) ensuring audit sustainability; and (4) facilitating audit cycle completion.

CONCLUSIONS

This study elucidated contexts, mechanisms and outcomes influential to the implementation processes of multicentre or national comparative audits in healthcare. The relevance of these contextual factors and generative mechanisms were supported by established theories of behaviour and findings from previous empirical research. These findings highlight the importance of balancing reliability with pragmatism within complex adaptive systems, generating and protecting human capital, ensuring fair and credible leadership and prioritising change facilitation.

A low prostate specific antigen predicts a worse outcome in high but not in low/intermediate-grade prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

The relationship between prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and prostate cancer (PCa) grade was traditionally thought to be linear but recent reports suggest this is not true in high-grade cancers. We aimed to compare the association between PSA and PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) in clinically localised low/intermediate and high-grade PCa.

SUBJECTS/PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective cohort study using the National Prostate Cancer Audit database in England of men treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), EBRT and brachytherapy boost (EBRT + BT), radical prostatectomy or no radical local treatment between 2014 and 2018. Multivariable competing-risk regression was used to examine the association between PSA, Gleason, and PCSM. Multivariable restricted cubic spline regression was used to explore the non-linear associations of PSA and PCSM.

RESULTS

102,089 men were included, of whom 71,138 had low/intermediate-grade and 22,425 had high-grade PCa. In high-grade, 4-year PCSM was higher with PSA ≤5 than PSA 5.1-10 for men treated with EBRT (hazard ratio 1.96 (95% confidence interval 1.15-3.34) or no radical local treatment (hazard ratio 1.99 (95% confidence interval 1.33-2.98). Restricted cubic spline regression showed that PSA and PCSM have a non-linear association in high-grade but a linear association in low/intermediate-grade PCa.

CONCLUSION

The low-PSA/high-grade combination in M0 PCa treated with EBRT has a higher PCSM than those with high-grade and intermediate PSA levels. In high-grade disease, the PSA association was non-linear; by contrast, low/intermediate-grade had a linear relationship. This confirms a more aggressive biology in low PSA secreting high-grade PCa and a worse outcome following treatment.

Primary radical therapy selection in high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer

As the incidence of prostate cancer rises, the detection and management of men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer is becoming increasingly important. The benefits of radical treatment have been clearly shown in this group from a number of publications. The current mainstays of treatment are radical prostatectomy (with selective use of adjuvant radiation) and radical radiotherapy with concurrent androgen deprivation. The outcomes from these two approaches seem to be remarkably similar and are considered equally valid options for primary treatment. The choice of therapy is critically dependent on a number of factors, but ultimately left to the decision of the patients with advice from clinicians. Clinicians themselves, however, are known to be biased towards their particular skill set and experiences. Attempts at randomised comparisons between these two modalities have so far failed and are confounded by patient-clinician bias, the continual advances in therapy as well as the long natural history of the disease. In the lack of level 1 comparable evidence, this article explores the existing literature as to the key factors that should be considered in radical treatment selection for high-risk prostate cancer. These factors include disease aggressiveness, comorbidity and life expectancy, functional outcomes and the consequences of therapy failure with regards to salvage treatment. We propose that these factors may be useful in developing a decision guide for rationale radical therapy selection in the light of two apparently equally effective treatments. Ultimately, however, there is an urgent need for added clinical and biological markers that can provide a more precise approach to therapy selection.