What do the screening trials really tell us and where do we go from here?

Insights from UKCTOCS for design, conduct and analyses of large randomised controlled trials

Abstract

Randomised controlled trials are challenging to deliver. There is a constant need to review and refine recruitment and implementation strategies if they are to be completed on time and within budget. We present the strategies adopted in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, one of the largest individually randomised controlled trials in the world. The trial recruited over 202,000 women (2001-5) and delivered over 670,000 annual screens (2001-11) and over 3 million women-years of follow-up (2001-20). Key to the successful completion were the involvement of senior investigators in the day-to-day running of the trial, proactive trial management and willingness to innovate and use technology. Our underlying ethos was that trial participants should always be at the centre of all our processes. We ensured that they were able to contact either the site or the coordinating centre teams for clarifications about their results, for follow-up and for rescheduling of appointments. To facilitate this, we shared personal identifiers (with consent) with both teams and had dedicated reception staff at both site and coordinating centre. Key aspects were a comprehensive online trial management system which included an electronic data capture system (resulting in an almost paperless trial), biobanking, monitoring and project management modules. The automation of algorithms (to ascertain eligibility and classify results and ensuing actions) and processes (scheduling of appointments, printing of letters, etc.) ensured the protocol was closely followed and timelines were met. Significant engagement with participants ensured retention and low rates of complaints. Our solutions to the design, conduct and analyses issues we faced are highly relevant, given the renewed focus on trials for early detection of cancer.

Future work

There is a pressing need to increase the evidence base to support decision making about all aspects of trial methodology.

Trial registration

ISRCTN-22488978; ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT00058032.

Funding

This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 16/46/01. The long-term follow-up UKCTOCS (2015 20) was supported by National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR HTA grant 16/46/01), Cancer Research UK, and The Eve Appeal. UKCTOCS (2001-14) was funded by the MRC (G9901012 and G0801228), Cancer Research UK (C1479/A2884), and the UK Department of Health, with additional support from The Eve Appeal. Researchers at UCL were supported by the NIHR UCL Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre and by the MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL core funding (MC_UU_00004/09, MC_UU_00004/08, MC_UU_00004/07). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the UK Department of Health and Social Care.

UKCTOCS update: applying insights of delayed effects in cancer screening trials to the long-term follow-up mortality analysis

BACKGROUND

During trials that span decades, new evidence including progress in statistical methodology, may require revision of original assumptions. An example is the continued use of a constant-effect approach to analyse the mortality reduction which is often delayed in cancer-screening trials. The latter led us to re-examine our approach for the upcoming primary mortality analysis (2020) of long-term follow-up of the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (LTFU UKCTOCS), having initially (2014) used the proportional hazards (PH) Cox model.

METHODS

We wrote to 12 experts in statistics/epidemiology/screening trials, setting out current evidence, the importance of pre-specification, our previous mortality analysis (2014) and three possible choices for the follow-up analysis (2020) of the mortality outcome: (A) all data (2001-2020) using the Cox model (2014), (B) new data (2015-2020) only and (C) all data (2001-2020) using a test that allows for delayed effects.

RESULTS

Of 11 respondents, eight supported changing the 2014 approach to allow for a potential delayed effect (option C), suggesting various tests while three favoured retaining the Cox model (option A). Consequently, we opted for the Versatile test introduced in 2016 which maintains good power for early, constant or delayed effects. We retained the Royston-Parmar model to estimate absolute differences in disease-specific mortality at 5, 10, 15 and 18 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision to alter the follow-up analysis for the primary outcome on the basis of new evidence and using new statistical methodology for long-term follow-up is novel and has implications beyond UKCTOCS. There is an urgent need for consensus building on how best to design, test, estimate and report mortality outcomes from long-term randomised cancer screening trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN22488978 . Registered on 6 April 2000.

Personalized early detection and prevention of breast cancer: ENVISION consensus statement

The European Collaborative on Personalized Early Detection and Prevention of Breast Cancer (ENVISION) brings together several international research consortia working on different aspects of the personalized early detection and prevention of breast cancer. In a consensus conference held in 2019, the members of this network identified research areas requiring development to enable evidence-based personalized interventions that might improve the benefits and reduce the harms of existing breast cancer screening and prevention programmes. The priority areas identified were: 1) breast cancer subtype-specific risk assessment tools applicable to women of all ancestries; 2) intermediate surrogate markers of response to preventive measures; 3) novel non-surgical preventive measures to reduce the incidence of breast cancer of poor prognosis; and 4) hybrid effectiveness-implementation research combined with modelling studies to evaluate the long-term population outcomes of risk-based early detection strategies. The implementation of such programmes would require health-care systems to be open to learning and adapting, the engagement of a diverse range of stakeholders and tailoring to societal norms and values, while also addressing the ethical and legal issues. In this Consensus Statement, we discuss the current state of breast cancer risk prediction, risk-stratified prevention and early detection strategies, and their implementation. Throughout, we highlight priorities for advancing each of these areas.

Development and initial clinical correlation of a DNA methylation-based blood test for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

One of the principle limitations for more precise management of advanced prostate cancer is the lack of accurate biomarkers allowing estimation of tumor burden, ongoing assessment of progression, and response to treatment. Although prostate-specific antigen (PSA) performs modestly, nonsecreting cancers including those with early castrate-resistance warrant investigation of other predictive biomarkers. The objectives of these studies were to develop and perform initial validation of a circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) methylation assay.

METHODS

Methylation DETection of Circulating Tumor DNA (mDETECT) is a highly multiplexed targeted sequencing DNA methylation-based ctDNA blood test that captures the vast majority of prostate cancer phenotypes due to a careful development process that ensures that each probe region is methylated in at least 50% of all methylation-based subtypes and is not methylated in normal tissues. Next-generation sequencing of targeted polymerase chain reaction (PCR) products whose amplification is biased towards methylated DNA ensures the specificity of the assay by identifying multiple tumor-specific methylated CpG residues in each read.

RESULTS

The final test is comprised of 46 PCR probes to 40 regions. It is relatively resistant to contaminating normal DNA and as a result functions in both serum and plasma samples. The assay was initially validated in a variety of prostate cancer cell lines to ensure specificity. Using a small number of longitudinal samples from prostate cancer patients initiating androgen deprivation therapy, the ability of mDETECT to track tumor burden was assessed compared with PSA. The mDETECT test signal generally paralleled that of PSA increasing and decreasing commensurate with tumor evolution in these patients. In two cases it appeared to anticipate clinical progression by a number of months compared to PSA and in a PSA nonproducing case, it was able to track tumor progression.

CONCLUSIONS

mDETECT offers a promising tool for the assessment of prostate cancer burden based on the sensitive detection of prostate-specific ctDNA and requires further validation.

Prostate Cancer Screening

During the prostate-specific antigen-based prostate cancer (PCa) screening era there has been a 53% decrease in the US PCa mortality rate. Concerns about overdiagnosis and overtreatment combined with misinterpretation of clinical trial data led to a recommendation against PCa screening, resulting in a subsequent reversion to more high-risk disease at diagnosis. Re-evaluation of trial data and increasing acceptance of active surveillance led to a new draft recommendation for shared decision making for men aged 55 to 69 years old. Further consideration is needed for more intensive screening in men with high-risk factors. PCa screening significantly reduces PCa morbidity and mortality.

Evolving Recommendations on Prostate Cancer Screening

Results of a number of studies demonstrate that the serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in and of itself is an inadequate screening test. Today, one of the most pressing questions in prostate cancer medicine is how can screening be honed to identify those who have life-threatening disease and need aggressive treatment. A number of efforts are underway. One such effort is the assessment of men in the landmark Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial that has led to a prostate cancer risk calculator (PCPTRC), which is available online. PCPTRC version 2.0 predicts the probability of the diagnosis of no cancer, low-grade cancer, or high-grade cancer when variables such as PSA, age, race, family history, and physical findings are input. Modern biomarker development promises to provide tests with fewer false positives and improved ability to find high-grade cancers. Stockholm III (STHLM3) is a prospective, population-based, paired, screen-positive, prostate cancer diagnostic study assessing a combination of plasma protein biomarkers along with age, family history, previous biopsy, and prostate examination for prediction of prostate cancer. Multiparametric MRI incorporates anatomic and functional imaging to better characterize and predict future behavior of tumors within the prostate. After diagnosis of cancer, several genomic tests promise to better distinguish the cancers that need treatment versus those that need observation. Although the new technologies are promising, there is an urgent need for evaluation of these new tests in high-quality, large population-based studies. Until these technologies are proven, most professional organizations have evolved to a recommendation of informed or shared decision making in which there is a discussion between the doctor and patient.

The effect of the USPSTF PSA screening recommendation on prostate cancer incidence patterns in the USA

Guidelines regarding recommendations for PSA screening for early detection of prostate cancer are conflicting. In 2012, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) assigned a grade of D (recommending against screening) for men aged ≥75 years in 2008 and for men of all ages in 2012. Understanding temporal trends in rates of screening before and after the 2012 recommendation in terms of usage patterns in PSA screening, changes in prostate cancer incidence and biopsy patterns, and how the recommendation has influenced physician's and men's attitudes about PSA screening and subsequent ordering of other screening tests is essential within the scope of prostate cancer screening policy. Since the 2012 recommendation, rates of PSA screening decreased by 3-10% in all age groups and across most geographical regions of the USA. Rates of prostate biopsy and prostate cancer incidence have declined in unison, with a shift towards tumours being of higher grade and stage upon detection. Despite the recommendation, some physicians report ongoing willingness to screen appropriately selected men, and many men report intending to continue to ask for the PSA test from their physician. In the coming years, we expect to have an improved understanding of whether these decreased rates of screening will affect prostate cancer metastasis and mortality.

Clonal evaluation of prostate cancer foci in biopsies with discontinuous tumor involvement by dual ERG/SPINK1 immunohistochemistry

The presence of two or more prostate cancer foci separated by intervening benign tissue in a single core is a well-recognized finding on prostate biopsy. Cancer involvement can be measured by including intervening benign tissue or only including the actual cancer involved area. Importantly, this parameter is a common enrollment criterion for active surveillance protocols. We hypothesized that spatially distinct prostate cancer foci in biopsies may arise from separate clones, impacting cancer involvement assessment. Hence, we used dual ERG/SPINK1 immunohistochemistry to determine the frequency of separate clones-when separate tumor foci showed discordant ERG and/or SPINK1 status-in discontinuously involved prostate biopsy cores from two academic institutions. In our cohort of 97 prostate biopsy cores with spatially discrete tumor foci (from 80 patients), discontinuous cancer involvement including intervening tissue ranged from 20 to 100% and Gleason scores ranged from 6 to 9. Twenty-four (25%) of 97 discontinuously involved cores harbored clonally distinct cancer foci by discordant ERG and/or SPINK1 expression status: 58% (14/24) had one ERG(+) focus, and one ERG(-)/SPINK1(-) focus; 29% (7/24) had one SPINK1(+) focus and one ERG(-)/SPINK1(-) focus; and 13% (3/24) had one ERG(+) focus and one SPINK1(+) focus. ERG and SPINK1 overexpression were mutually exclusive in all tumor foci. In summary, our results show that ~25% of discontinuously involved prostate biopsy cores showed tumor foci with discordant ERG/SPINK1 status, consistent with multiclonal disease. The relatively frequent presence of multiclonality in discontinuously involved prostate biopsy cores warrants studies on the potential clinical impact of clonality assessment, particularly in cases where tumor volume in a discontinuous core may impact active surveillance eligibility.

Quantifying Gleason scores with photoacoustic spectral analysis: feasibility study with human tissues

Gleason score is a highly prognostic factor for prostate cancer describing the microscopic architecture of the tumor tissue. The standard procedure for evaluating Gleason scores, namely biopsy, is to remove prostate tissue for observation under microscope. Currently, biopsies are guided by transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). Due to the low sensitivity of TRUS to prostate cancer (PCa), non-guided and saturated biopsies are frequently employed, unavoidably causing pain, damage to the normal prostate tissues and other complications. More importantly, due to the limited number of biopsy cores, current procedure could either miss early stage small tumors or undersample aggressive cancers. Photoacoustic (PA) measurement has the unique capability of evaluating tissue microscopic architecture information at ultrasonic resolution. By frequency domain analysis of the broadband PA signal, namely PA spectral analysis (PASA), the microscopic architecture within the assessed tissue can be quantified. This study investigates the feasibility of evaluating Gleason scores by PASA. Simulations with the classic Gleason patterns and experiment measurements from human PCa tissues have demonstrated strong correlation between the PASA parameters and the Gleason scores.

Urine TMPRSS2:ERG Plus PCA3 for Individualized Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment

BACKGROUND

TMPRSS2:ERG (T2:ERG) and prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) are the most advanced urine-based prostate cancer (PCa) early detection biomarkers.

OBJECTIVE

Validate logistic regression models, termed Mi-Prostate Score (MiPS), that incorporate serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA; or the multivariate Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator version 1.0 [PCPTrc]) and urine T2:ERG and PCA3 scores for predicting PCa and high-grade PCa on biopsy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

T2:ERG and PCA3 scores were generated using clinical-grade transcription-mediated amplification assays. Pretrained MiPS models were applied to a validation cohort of whole urine samples prospectively collected after digital rectal examination from 1244 men presenting for biopsy.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Area under the curve (AUC) was used to compare the performance of serum PSA (or the PCPTrc) alone and MiPS models. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was used to assess clinical benefit.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Among informative validation cohort samples (n=1225 [98%], 80% from patients presenting for initial biopsy), models incorporating T2:ERG had significantly greater AUC than PSA (or PCPTrc) for predicting PCa (PSA: 0.693 vs 0.585; PCPTrc: 0.718 vs 0.639; both p<0.001) or high-grade (Gleason score >6) PCa on biopsy (PSA: 0.729 vs 0.651, p<0.001; PCPTrc: 0.754 vs 0.707, p=0.006). MiPS models incorporating T2:ERG score had significantly greater AUC (all p<0.001) than models incorporating only PCA3 plus PSA (or PCPTrc or high-grade cancer PCPTrc [PCPThg]). DCA demonstrated net benefit of the MiPS_PCPTrc (or MiPS_PCPThg) model compared with the PCPTrc (or PCPThg) across relevant threshold probabilities.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporating urine T2:ERG and PCA3 scores improves the performance of serum PSA (or PCPTrc) for predicting PCa and high-grade PCa on biopsy.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Incorporation of two prostate cancer (PCa)-specific biomarkers (TMPRSS2:ERG and PCA3) measured in the urine improved on serum prostate-specific antigen (or a multivariate risk calculator) for predicting the presence of PCa and high-grade PCa on biopsy. A combined test, Mi-Prostate Score, uses models validated in this study and is clinically available to provide individualized risk estimates.