Experiences of randomization: interviews with patients and clinicians in the SPCG-IV trial

"The Truth Is, We Must Miss Some": A Qualitative Study of the Patient Eligibility Screening Process, and Automation Perspectives, for Cancer Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Recruitment of cancer patients into clinical trials (CTs) is a challenge. We aimed to explore how patient eligibility assessment is conducted in practice, what factors support or hinder this process, and to assess the potential usefulness of Clinical Trial Recruitment Support Systems (CTRSS) for patient-to-trial matching.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews in France with healthcare professionals involved in cancer CTs and experts on trial recruitment. We focused on the stages in-between trial feasibility, and patient information and consent. Interviews were recorded, and the transcripts were analyzed thematically. We used the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) 2.0 framework to organize our results.

RESULTS

We interviewed 25 participants. We identified common steps for cancer patient eligibility assessment: prescreening under medical supervision, followed by the validation of patient-trial matching based on manual chart review. This process built on rich interactions between clinicians, other professionals (clinical research assistants, data scientists, medical coding experts), and patients. Technological factors, mainly related to data infrastructure (both for patient data and trial data), and organizational factors (research culture, incentives, formal and informal research networks) mediated the performance of the recruitment process. Participants had mixed feelings towards CTRSSs; they welcomed automated pre-screening but insisted on manual verification. Given the necessary collaborative nature of multisite trials, coordinated efforts to support a common data infrastructure could be helpful.

CONCLUSIONS

Material, organizational, and human factors affect cancer patient eligibility assessment for CTs. Patient-to-trial matching tools bear potential, but good understanding of the ecosystem, including stakeholders' motivations, is a prerequisite.

The challenge of equipoise in trials with a surgical and non-surgical comparison: a qualitative synthesis using meta-ethnography

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials in surgery can be a challenge to design and conduct, especially when including a non-surgical comparison. As few as half of initiated surgical trials reach their recruitment target, and failure to recruit is cited as the most frequent reason for premature closure of surgical RCTs. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis was to identify and synthesise findings from qualitative studies exploring the challenges in the design and conduct of trials directly comparing surgical and non-surgical interventions.

METHODS

A qualitative evidence synthesis using meta-ethnography was conducted. Six electronic bibliographic databases (Medline, Central, Cinahl, Embase and PsycInfo) were searched up to the end of February 2018. Studies that explored patients' and health care professionals' experiences regarding participating in RCTs with a surgical and non-surgical comparison were included. The GRADE-CERQual framework was used to assess confidence in review findings.

RESULTS

In total, 3697 abstracts and 49 full texts were screened and 26 published studies reporting experiences of patients and healthcare professionals were included. The focus of the studies (24/26) was primarily related to the challenge of recruitment. Two studies explored reasons for non-compliance to treatment allocation following randomisation. Five themes related to the challenges to these types of trials were identified: (1) radical choice between treatments; (2) patients' discomfort with randomisation: I want the best treatment for me as an individual; (3) challenge of equipoise: patients' a priori preferences for treatment; (4) challenge of equipoise: clinicians' a priori preferences for treatment and (5) imbalanced presentation of interventions.

CONCLUSION

The marked dichotomy between the surgical and non-surgical interventions was highlighted in this review as making recruitment to these types of trials particularly challenging. This review identified factors that increase our understanding of why patients and clinicians may find equipoise more challenging in these types of trials compared to other trial comparisons. Trialists may wish to consider exploring the balance of potential factors influencing patient and clinician preferences towards treatments before they start recruitment, to enable issues specific to a particular trial to be identified and addressed. This may enable trial teams to make more efficient considered design choices and benefit the delivery of such trials.

Views of healthcare professionals on recruiting to a psychosocial randomised controlled trial: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials, and in particular those of psychosocial interventions, often fail to recruit to target, resulting in underpowered trials with poor generalisability of findings. The objectives of this study were to explore the views of healthcare professionals on recruiting to psychosocial research studies, and to explore their views on factors that may hinder or facilitate recruitment.

METHODS

We conducted 14 semi-structured interviews, with healthcare professionals who had been involved in recruitment into a randomised controlled trial of a talking therapy for depression in patients with advanced cancer. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Five primary themes were identified, comprised of 11 subthemes. Attitudes towards research were largely positive. Health care professionals identified lack of time and narrow screening criteria as barriers to recruitment, and also noted the tendency to withhold participants from research for reasons other than eligibility (e.g., gatekeeping). The engagement of the study team with the clinical recruitment site, and the frequent presence of a researcher in clinics, were noted as facilitating recruitment.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare professionals involved in recruiting to trials of psychosocial interventions hold generally positive views of psychosocial research. However, they report that constraints including space and time limit their ability to recruit, and express anxieties about approaching patients for trial recruitment in the palliative phase of their illness. The findings from this study can inform how best to design trials, and in particular trials of psychosocial interventions, and train health care professionals for the study, to maximise recruitment.

Factors that impact on recruitment to randomised trials in health care: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Randomised trials (also referred to as 'randomised controlled trials' or 'trials') are the optimal way to minimise bias in evaluating the effects of competing treatments, therapies and innovations in health care. It is important to achieve the required sample size for a trial, otherwise trialists may not be able to draw conclusive results leading to research waste and raising ethical questions about trial participation. The reasons why potential participants may accept or decline participation are multifaceted. Yet, the evidence of effectiveness of interventions to improve recruitment to trials is not substantial and fails to recognise these individual decision-making processes. It is important to synthesise the experiences and perceptions of those invited to participate in randomised trials to better inform recruitment strategies.

OBJECTIVES

To explore potential trial participants' views and experiences of the recruitment process for participation. The specific objectives are to describe potential participants' perceptions and experiences of accepting or declining to participate in trials, to explore barriers and facilitators to trial participation, and to explore to what extent barriers and facilitators identified are addressed by strategies to improve recruitment evaluated in previous reviews of the effects of interventions including a Cochrane Methodology Review.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, LILACS, PsycINFO, ORRCA, and grey literature sources. We ran the most recent set of searches for which the results were incorporated into the review in July 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included qualitative and mixed-methods studies (with an identifiable qualitative component) that explored potential trial participants' experiences and perceptions of being invited to participate in a trial. We excluded studies that focused only on recruiters' perspectives, and trials solely involving children under 18 years, or adults who were assessed as having impaired mental capacity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Five review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used the CART (completeness, accuracy, relevance, timeliness) criteria to exclude studies that had limited focus on the phenomenon of interest. We used QSR NVivo to extract and manage the data. We assessed methodological limitations using the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool. We used thematic synthesis to analyse and synthesise the evidence. This provided analytical themes and a conceptual model. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. Our findings were integrated with two previous intervention effectiveness reviews by juxtaposing the quantitative and qualitative findings in a matrix.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 studies (published in 30 papers) in our synthesis. Twenty-two key findings were produced under three broad themes (with six subthemes) to capture the experience of being invited to participate in a trial and making the decision whether to participate. Most of these findings had moderate to high confidence. We identified factors from the trial itself that influenced participation. These included how trial information was communicated, and elements of the trial such as the time commitment that might be considered burdensome. The second theme related to personal factors such as how other people can influence the individual's decision; and how a personal understanding of potential harms and benefits could impact on the decision. Finally, the potential benefits of participation were found to be key to the decision to participate, namely personal benefits such as access to new treatments, but also the chance to make a difference and help others. The conceptual model we developed presents the decision-making process as a gauge and the factors that influence whether the person will, or will not, take part.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This qualitative evidence synthesis has provided comprehensive insight into the complexity of factors that influence a person's decision whether to participate in a trial. We developed key questions that trialists can ask when developing their recruitment strategy. In addition, our conceptual model emphasises the need for participant-centred approaches to recruitment. We demonstrated moderate to high level confidence in our findings, which in some way can be attributed to the large volume of highly relevant studies in this field. We recommend that these insights be used to direct or influence or underpin future recruitment strategies that are developed in a participant-driven way that ultimately improves trial conduct and reduces research waste.

A mixed-methods systematic review of patients' experience of being invited to participate in surgical randomised controlled trials

RATIONALE

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of surgical interventions are increasing. Such trials encounter challenges that are not present in RCTs of non-surgical interventions because of the nature of the intervention. Several studies have explored patients' experiences of surgical trials to improve recruitment or identify barriers and facilitators to research in this setting. Synthesizing these studies may reveal further insights or confirm whether saturation of relevant themes has been achieved.

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to understand the experiences of adults who are invited to participate in surgical RCTs.

METHOD

MEDLINE, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched to identify articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Assessment of quality was conducted with studies given an overall quality rating of good, fair, or poor. A segregated approach was used to synthesize the data. This method included a thematic synthesis of the qualitative data and a narrative review of the quantitative data. The findings of both syntheses were then integrated.

RESULTS

Thirty-four articles reporting 28 trials were included. This review found that the decision to participate in a surgical trial is influenced by multiple factors including patients' individual circumstances and attitudes, and the characteristics of the trial itself. The study identified three themes which encompass both qualitative and quantitative findings. These themes reveal it was important for patients to i) make sense of the trial and trial processes, ii) weigh up the risks and benefits of their different treatment options and participation, and iii) trust the trial and staff.

CONCLUSIONS

A patient-centred approach to trial recruitment may help staff build trusting relationships with patients and address their individual concerns about the trial and the risks and benefits of participation.

"And Then He Got into the Wrong Group": A Qualitative Study Exploring the Effects of Randomization in Recruitment to a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are regarded as the most internally valid means of estimating the effectiveness of complex public health interventions, but the recruitment of participants can be difficult. The aim of this study was to explore factors that may have affected the recruitment of employees with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) to a multicenter worksite health promotion program from the perspective of recruiting case managers.

METHODS

Factors in recruitment to the RCT were explored using three focus group discussions with case managers. Data were processed using MAXQDA and analyzed with a combination of content and sequence analysis.

RESULTS

Findings showed that randomization is a major challenge for recruitment. Case managers adapted their communication with, and approaches to possible participants because of the randomization design and employed coping strategies to compensate for allocation into the control arm of the study. Perceptions of the superiority of the intervention group over the control group, perceptions of the (mis)match of participants to one of the groups, as well as the understanding of the necessity of randomization for effectiveness evaluations, further affected recruitment. Perceived expectations of possible participants and their (emotional) reactions to the randomization allocation also complicated recruitment.

CONCLUSION

We were able to gain insight into the challenges of randomization for the recruitment of participants to a multicenter RCT. This study assisted the development of strategies to overcome barriers in the ongoing implementation process of the trial (i.e., the adaption of best practice information sheets and newsletters). There remains a need to develop effective interventions to help those recruiting to trials.

Using evidence when planning for trial recruitment: An international perspective from time-poor trialists

INTRODUCTION

Recruiting participants to trials is challenging. To date, research has focussed on improving recruitment once the trial is underway, rather than planning strategies to support it, e.g. developing trial information leaflets together with people like those to be recruited. We explored whether people involved with participant recruitment have explicit planning strategies; if so, how these are developed, and if not, what prevents effective planning.

METHODS

Design: Individual qualitative semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using a Framework approach, and themes linked through comparison of data within and across stakeholder groups. Participants: 23 international trialists (UK, Canada, South Africa, Italy, the Netherlands); 11 self-identifying as 'Designers'; those who design recruitment methods, and 12 self-identifying as 'Recruiters'; those who recruit participants. Interviewees' had recruitment experience spanning diverse interventions and clinical areas. Setting: Primary, secondary and tertiary-care sites involved in trials, academic institutions, and contract research organisations supporting pharmaceutical companies.

RESULTS

To varying degrees, respondents had prospective strategies for recruitment. These were seldom based on rigorous evidence. When describing their recruitment planning experiences, interviewees identified a range of influences that they believe impacted success: The timing of recruitment strategy development relative to the trial start date, and who is responsible for recruitment planning.The methods used to develop trialists' recruitment strategy design and implementation skills, and when these skills are gained (i.e. before the trial or throughout).The perceived barriers and facilitators to successful recruitment planning; and how trialists modify practice when recruitment is poor.

CONCLUSIONS

Respondents from all countries considered limited time and disproportionate approvals processes as major challenges to recruitment planning. Poor planning is a mistake that trialists live with throughout the trial. The experiences of our participants suggest that effective recruitment requires strategies to increase the time for trial planning, as well as access to easily implementable evidence-based strategies.

Facilitating trial recruitment: A qualitative study of patient and staff experiences of an orthopaedic trauma trial

Background

Qualitative research has been used to explore patients’ and healthcare professionals’ experiences of surgical randomised controlled trials (RCTs). From this research, reasons why patients accept or decline participation and barriers to engaging clinicians in trials have been identified. In a trauma setting, recruitment to surgical trials can be particularly difficult as patients may require urgent treatment and their ability to consider their options, ask questions and reach a decision may be hindered by the impact of their injury. Little research, however, has explored patients’ and healthcare professionals’ experiences of surgical RCTs in a trauma setting. This study aimed to understand patients’ and staff’s experiences of an orthopaedic trauma trial.

Methods

We carried out semi-structured interviews with 11 patients and 24 staff (10 surgeons and 14 research associates) participating in a UK multi-centre feasibility trial comparing intramedullary nails versus distal locking plates for fractures of the distal femur (TrAFFix). Interviews explored patients’ experience of TrAFFix and their reason for participating and staffs' experience of recruiting to TrAFFix and trauma trials more generally. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

Three themes were identified. These were i) navigating research with patients after orthopaedic trauma, ii) knowing that it is the right decision and iii) making it work. These themes reflect: i) how research associates supported and guided patients through the consent process enabling them to participate, ii) the difficulty in engaging surgeons in a trial when individual equipoise and experience of the interventions are low despite the presence of community equipoise and iii) the way in which research teams worked together and encouraged the development of a research culture within the clinical teams in order to facilitate recruitment.

Conclusions

Our findings highlight the pivotal role of research associates (RAs) in facilitating trial recruitment. RAs supported patients to enable them to make a decision about participation and assisted in developing a research culture within the team by promoting studies and communicating research to clinical staff. Our findings also reinforce surgeons’ difficulty with equipoise and suggest that accepting community equipoise could facilitate recruitment.

Improving recruitment and retention of adolescents and young adults with cancer in randomized controlled clinical trials

Participation of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is necessary to advance treatments and psychosocial programs. Exploring AYAs experiences in an RCT will inform strategies to support recruitment and retention. A qualitative design was used to study the experiences of 13 AYAs in the Stories and Music for Adolescent and Young Adult Resilience during Transplant I (SMART I) trial. Key themes included: Weighing the Pros and Cons; Randomization Preferences; Completing Measures; and Worthwhile Experience. The experiences of AYAs during RCTs can bring insights that inform the design and management of AYA trials. Strategies include improving assent/consent processes, design of electronic interfaces and encouraging researcher flexibility.

'It's trying to manage the work': a qualitative evaluation of recruitment processes within a UK multicentre trial

OBJECTIVES

To explore trial site staff's perceptions regarding barriers and facilitators to local recruitment.

DESIGN

Qualitative semi-structured interviews with a range of trial site staff from four trial sites in the UK. Interviews were analysed thematically to identify common themes across sites, barriers that could be addressed and facilitators that could be shared with other sites.

PARTICIPANTS

11 members of staff from four trial sites: clinical grant Co-applicant (n=1); Principal Investigators (n=3); Consultant Urologist (n=1); Research Nurses (n=5); Research Assistant (n=1).

SETTING

Embedded within an ongoing randomised controlled trial (the TISU trial). TISU is a UK multicentre trial comparing therapeutic interventions for ureteric stones.

RESULTS

Our study draws attention to the initial and ongoing burden of trial work that is involved throughout the duration of a clinical trial. In terms of building and sustaining a research culture, trial staff described the ongoing work of engagement that was required to ensure that clinical staff were both educated and motivated to help with the process of identifying and screening potential participants. Having adequate and sufficient organisational and staffing resources was highlighted as being a necessary prerequisite to successful recruitment both in terms of accessing potentially eligible patients and being able to maximise recruitment after patient identification. The nature of the research study design can also potentially generate challenging communicative work for recruiting staff which can prove particularly problematic.

CONCLUSIONS

Our paper adds to existing research highlighting the importance of the hidden and complex work that is involved in clinical trial recruitment. Those designing and supporting the operationalisation of clinical trials must recognise and support the mitigation of this 'work'. While much of the work is likely to be contextually sensitive at the level of local sites and for individual trials, some aspects are ubiquitous issues for delivery of trials more generally.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN No 92289221; Pre-results.

Exploring Women's Preferences for the Mode of Delivery in Twin Gestations: Results of the Twin Birth Study

OBJECTIVE

The Twin Birth Study, an international, multi-center randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the risks of planned cesarean with planned vaginal delivery for twin pregnancies. The aim of this component of the trial was to understand participants' perspectives of study participation and preferences for the mode of delivery.

METHODS

A mixed-methods questionnaire was distributed to study participants 3 months after giving birth. The questionnaire contained Likert scales and open-ended questions about the experience of being enrolled in a clinical trial and of childbirth, including the mode of delivery. Quantitative data were analyzed using SAS to generate descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed to identify categories and themes.

RESULTS

Ninety-one percent of trial participants completed the questionnaire. Across all groups, the majority of women would participate in a study like this one again if given the opportunity. Main benefits of participating were as follows: benefits to one and one's babies, altruism, and receiving quality care. Randomization for the mode of delivery was challenging for women because of the desire to be involved in decision-making. Findings related to childbirth experience and the mode of delivery demonstrated a preference for vaginal birth across all groups. Those who had a vaginal birth were more satisfied with their birth experience.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence to inform practitioners about what women who have twin pregnancies like or dislike about birth and their desire for involvement in decision-making. Vaginal birth was preferred across all study groups and was associated with greater satisfaction with childbirth experience.

Researchers' and clinicians' perceptions of recruiting participants to clinical research: a thematic meta-synthesis

Background

Recruiting the desired number of research participants is frequently problematic with resulting financial and clinical implications. The views of individuals responsible for participant recruitment have not been previously reviewed. This systematic review and thematic meta-synthesis explores researchers’ and clinicians’ experiences and perceptions of recruiting participants to clinical research, with the aim of informing improved recruitment systems and strategies.

Methods

Studies published between January 1995 and May 2013 were identified from: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid PSYCHINFO, ASSIA, British Nursing Index, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL and PubMed. Included studies were original peer reviewed research, with qualitative methodologies and an aim of exploring the views of clinicians and/or researchers on recruitment to clinical research. Studies discussing the recruitment of patients unable to give informed consent were excluded. The findings sections of the relevant studies were free coded to identify key concepts which were grouped into hierarchical themes. The quality of the identified studies was assessed and the relative contribution of each paper was checked to ensure individual studies did not dominate in any theme.

Results

Eighteen relevant papers were identified which examined the views of researchers and clinicians in 10 clinical specialties. Five main themes emerged: building a research community, securing resources, the nature of research, professional identities and recruitment strategies. The views of researchers and clinicians were similar, although the role of ‘researcher’ was inconsistently defined.

Conclusions

The general experience of recruiting participants to clinical research was one of competition and compromise. Competition arose over funding, staffing and participants, and between clinical and research responsibilities. Compromise was needed to create study designs that were acceptable to patients, clinicians and researchers. Forging relationships between clinical and research teams featured extensively, however the involvement of patients and the public within the research community was rarely discussed.

Improving the recruitment activity of clinicians in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review

Background Poor recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is a widespread problem. Provision of interventions aimed at supporting or incentivising clinicians may improve recruitment to RCTs. Objectives To quantify the effects of strategies aimed at improving the recruitment activity of clinicians in RCTs, complemented with a synthesis of qualitative evidence related to clinicians' attitudes towards recruiting to RCTs. Data sources A systematic review of English and non-English articles identified from: The Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid PsycINFO, Ebsco CINAHL, Index to Theses and Open SIGLE from 2001 to March 2011. Additional reports were identified through citation searches of included articles. Study eligibility criteria Quantitative studies were included if they evaluated interventions aimed at improving the recruitment activity of clinicians or compared recruitment by different groups of clinicians. Information about host trial, study design, participants, interventions, outcomes and host RCT was extracted by one researcher and checked by another. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for quality using a standardised tool, the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. Qualitative studies were included if they investigated clinicians' attitudes to recruiting patients to RCTs. All results/findings were extracted, and content analysis was carried out. Overarching themes were abstracted, followed by a metasummary analysis. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist. Data extraction Data extraction was carried out by one researcher using predefined data fields, including study quality indicators, and verified by another. Results Eight quantitative studies were included describing four interventions and a comparison of recruiting clinicians. One study was rated as strong, one as moderate and the remaining six as weak when assessed for quality using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. Effective interventions included the use of qualitative research to identify and overcome barriers to recruitment, reduction of the clinical workload associated with participation in RCTs and the provision of extra training and protected research time. Eleven qualitative studies were identified, and eight themes were abstracted from the data: understanding of research, communication, perceived patient barriers, patient-clinician relationship, effect on patients, effect on clinical practice, individual benefits for clinicians and methods associated with successful recruitment. Metasummary analysis identified the most frequently reported subthemes to be: difficulty communicating trial methods, poor understanding of research and priority given to patient well-being. Overall, the qualitative studies were found to be of good quality when assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Conclusions There were few high-quality trials that tested interventions to improve clinicians' recruitment activity in RCTs. The most promising intervention was the use of qualitative methods to identify and overcome barriers to clinician recruitment activity. More good quality studies of interventions are needed to add to the evidence base. The metasummary of qualitative findings identified understanding and communicating RCT methods as a key target for future interventions to improve recruitment. Reinforcement of the potential benefits, both for clinicians and for their patients, could also be a successful factor in improving recruitment. A bias was found towards investigating barriers to recruitment, so future work should also encompass a focus on successfully recruiting trials.

Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of treatment options for clinically localised prostate cancer continues to impact on clinical decision-making. Two such options are radical prostatectomy (RP) and watchful waiting (WW). WW involves providing no initial treatment and monitoring the patient with the intention of providing palliative treatment if there is evidence of disease progression.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of RP versus WW for the treatment of localised prostate cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, ISI Science Citation Index, DARE and LILACS were searched through 30 July 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing the effects of RP versus WW for clinically localised prostate cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and quality assessment were carried out independently by two authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials met the inclusion criteria. Both trials commenced prior to the widespread availability of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening; hence the results may not be applicable to men with PSA-detected disease.One trial (N = 142), conducted in the US, was judged to be of poor quality. All cause (overall) mortality was not significantly different between RP and WW groups after fifteen years of follow up (Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.9 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.43).The second trial (N = 695), conducted in Scandinavia, was judged to be of good quality. After 12 years of follow up, the trial results were compatible with a beneficial effect of RP on the risks of overall mortality, prostate cancer mortality and distant metastases compared with WW but the precise magnitude of the effect is uncertain as indicated by the width of the confidence intervals for all estimates (risk difference (RD) -7.1% (95% CI -14.7 to 0.5); RD -5.4% (95% CI -11.1 to 0.2); RD -6.7% (95% CI -13.2 to -0.2), respectively).        Compared to WW, RP increased the absolute risks of erectile dysfunction (RD 35% (95% CI 25 to 45)) and urinary leakage (RD 27% (95% CI 17 to 37)). These estimates must be interpreted cautiously as they are derived from data obtained from a self-administered questionnaire survey of a sample of the trial participants (N = 326), no baseline quality of life data were obtained and nerve-sparing surgery was not routinely performed on trial participants undergoing RP.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The existing trials provide insufficient evidence to allow confident statements to be made about the relative beneficial and harmful effects of RP and WW for patients with localised prostate cancer. The results of ongoing trials should help to inform treatment decisions for men with screen-detected localised prostate cancer.