1
|
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL. Reply to Greg Shaw, John D. Kelly, and Monique J. Roobol's Letter to the Editor re: Freddie C. Hamdy, Jenny L. Donovan, J. Athene Lane, et al. Fifteen-Year Outcomes After Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med 2023;388:1547-58. Eur Urol 2024; 85:e54-e55. [PMID: 37949699 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.10.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2023] [Accepted: 10/25/2023] [Indexed: 11/12/2023]
|
2
|
Eldred-Evans D, Burak P, Klimowska-Nassar N, Tam H, Sokhi H, Padhani AR, Connor M, Price D, Gammon M, Day E, Fiorentino F, Winkler M, Ahmed HU. Direct mail from primary care and targeted recruitment strategies achieved a representative uptake of prostate cancer screening. J Clin Epidemiol 2022; 149:98-109. [PMID: 35654264 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/30/2021] [Revised: 04/08/2022] [Accepted: 05/24/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Prostate cancer screening studies has previously not been able to reflect a diverse group of participants. We evaluated a range of recruitment strategies and their ability to recruit from the Black population and areas of deprivation. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS IP1-PROSTAGRAM was a prospective, population-based, paired screening study of 408 participants conducted at seven UK primary care practices and two imaging centres. All participants underwent screening with a PSA test, MRI and transrectal ultrasound. A number of recruitment strategies were embedded including direct mail, media campaigns and a targeted recruitment strategy to increase participation among harder-to-reach groups. RESULTS 1,316 expressions of interest in total were received (20th September 2018 to 15th May 2019). The direct mail strategy generated 317 expressions of interest from 1707 invitation letters. 387 expressions of interest were received following the targeted strategy and 612 from media campaigns. The recruitment target was met 19 months ahead of schedule. Of 411 participants, ethnicity was White (38.0%), Black (32.4%), Asian (23.0%) and Other/Mixed (4.4%) ethnic groups. This higher recruitment of black men was driven by the targeted recruitment strategy. A comparison of recruitment methods showed marked differences between ethnicities recruited (p<0.001). The proportion of black participants recruited by direct mail (8%) was similar to the prevalence of black local population (9%) whereas targeted recruitment was 88% (115) and media recruitment 1.7% (1). The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) distribution was similar to the local population with marginal higher recruitment from more deprived areas; proportion increasing from 26% to 40% from least to most deprived IMD quintiles (Quintiles 4/5 vs. 1/2). Direct mail recruited a close-to-normal distribution for deprivation with targeted recruitment trending towards recruiting from most deprived areas. CONCLUSIONS Direct mail and targeted strategies designed to engage a diverse population can achieve a representative uptake from black participants and those from a lower socioeconomic group.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David Eldred-Evans
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Paula Burak
- Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK; Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Natalia Klimowska-Nassar
- Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK; Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Henry Tam
- Department of Radiology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Heminder Sokhi
- Department of Radiology, The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Hospital, Middlesex, UK
| | - Anwar R Padhani
- Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Hospital, Middlesex, UK
| | - Martin Connor
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Derek Price
- Public and patient representative, Solihull, UK
| | - Martin Gammon
- Public and patient representative, Dorking, Surrey, UK
| | - Emily Day
- Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK; Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Francesca Fiorentino
- Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK; Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Mathias Winkler
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Hashim U Ahmed
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, Wade J, Noble S, Garfield K, Young G, Davis M, Peters TJ, Turner EL, Martin RM, Oxley J, Robinson M, Staffurth J, Walsh E, Blazeby J, Bryant R, Bollina P, Catto J, Doble A, Doherty A, Gillatt D, Gnanapragasam V, Hughes O, Kockelbergh R, Kynaston H, Paul A, Paez E, Powell P, Prescott S, Rosario D, Rowe E, Neal D. Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy in PSA-detected clinically localised prostate cancer: the ProtecT three-arm RCT. Health Technol Assess 2020; 24:1-176. [PMID: 32773013 PMCID: PMC7443739 DOI: 10.3310/hta24370] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the UK. Prostate-specific antigen testing followed by biopsy leads to overdetection, overtreatment as well as undertreatment of the disease. Evidence of treatment effectiveness has lacked because of the paucity of randomised controlled trials comparing conventional treatments. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effectiveness of conventional treatments for localised prostate cancer (active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy) in men aged 50-69 years. DESIGN A prospective, multicentre prostate-specific antigen testing programme followed by a randomised trial of treatment, with a comprehensive cohort follow-up. SETTING Prostate-specific antigen testing in primary care and treatment in nine urology departments in the UK. PARTICIPANTS Between 2001 and 2009, 228,966 men aged 50-69 years received an invitation to attend an appointment for information about the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study and a prostate-specific antigen test; 82,429 men were tested, 2664 were diagnosed with localised prostate cancer, 1643 agreed to randomisation to active monitoring (n = 545), radical prostatectomy (n = 553) or radical radiotherapy (n = 545) and 997 chose a treatment. INTERVENTIONS The interventions were active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy. TRIAL PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE Definite or probable disease-specific mortality at the 10-year median follow-up in randomised participants. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES Overall mortality, metastases, disease progression, treatment complications, resource utilisation and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for 17 prostate cancer-specific (p = 0.48) and 169 all-cause (p = 0.87) deaths. Eight men died of prostate cancer in the active monitoring group (1.5 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.0); five died of prostate cancer in the radical prostatectomy group (0.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 2.2 per 1000 person years) and four died of prostate cancer in the radical radiotherapy group (0.7 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.0 per 1000 person years). More men developed metastases in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring, n = 33 (6.3 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 4.5 to 8.8); radical prostatectomy, n = 13 (2.4 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.4 to 4.2 per 1000 person years); and radical radiotherapy, n = 16 (3.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.9 to 4.9 per 1000 person-years; p = 0.004). There were higher rates of disease progression in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring (n = 112; 22.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 19.0 to 27.5 per 1000 person years); radical prostatectomy (n = 46; 8.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 11.9 per 1000 person-years); and radical radiotherapy (n = 46; 9.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 12.0 per 1000 person years; p < 0.001). Radical prostatectomy had the greatest impact on sexual function/urinary continence and remained worse than radical radiotherapy and active monitoring. Radical radiotherapy's impact on sexual function was greatest at 6 months, but recovered somewhat in the majority of participants. Sexual and urinary function gradually declined in the active monitoring group. Bowel function was worse with radical radiotherapy at 6 months, but it recovered with the exception of bloody stools. Urinary voiding and nocturia worsened in the radical radiotherapy group at 6 months but recovered. Condition-specific quality-of-life effects mirrored functional changes. No differences in anxiety/depression or generic or cancer-related quality of life were found. At the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the probabilities that each arm was the most cost-effective option were 58% (radical radiotherapy), 32% (active monitoring) and 10% (radical prostatectomy). LIMITATIONS A single prostate-specific antigen test and transrectal ultrasound biopsies were used. There were very few non-white men in the trial. The majority of men had low- and intermediate-risk disease. Longer follow-up is needed. CONCLUSIONS At a median follow-up point of 10 years, prostate cancer-specific mortality was low, irrespective of the assigned treatment. Radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy reduced disease progression and metastases, but with side effects. Further work is needed to follow up participants at a median of 15 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20141297. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 37. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Freddie C Hamdy
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - J Athene Lane
- Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Malcolm Mason
- School of Medicine, University of Cardiff, Cardiff, UK
| | - Chris Metcalfe
- Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Peter Holding
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Julia Wade
- Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Sian Noble
- Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | | | - Grace Young
- Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Michael Davis
- Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Tim J Peters
- Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Emma L Turner
- Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | | | - Jon Oxley
- Department of Cellular Pathology, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Mary Robinson
- Department of Cellular Pathology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - John Staffurth
- Division of Cancer and Genetics, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Eleanor Walsh
- Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Jane Blazeby
- Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Richard Bryant
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Prasad Bollina
- Department of Urology and Surgery, Western General Hospital, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - James Catto
- Academic Urology Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Andrew Doble
- Department of Urology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK
| | - Alan Doherty
- Department of Urology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | - David Gillatt
- Department of Urology, Southmead Hospital and Bristol Urological Institute, Bristol, UK
| | | | - Owen Hughes
- Department of Urology, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Cardiff, UK
| | - Roger Kockelbergh
- Department of Urology, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Howard Kynaston
- Department of Urology, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Cardiff, UK
| | - Alan Paul
- Department of Urology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Edgar Paez
- Department of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Philip Powell
- Department of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Stephen Prescott
- Department of Urology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Derek Rosario
- Academic Urology Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Edward Rowe
- Department of Urology, Southmead Hospital and Bristol Urological Institute, Bristol, UK
| | - David Neal
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Academic Urology Group, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Donovan JL, Young GJ, Walsh EI, Metcalfe C, Lane JA, Martin RM, Tazewell MK, Davis M, Peters TJ, Turner EL, Mills N, Khazragui H, Khera TK, Neal DE, Hamdy FC. A prospective cohort and extended comprehensive-cohort design provided insights about the generalizability of a pragmatic trial: the ProtecT prostate cancer trial. J Clin Epidemiol 2018; 96:35-46. [PMID: 29288137 PMCID: PMC5854278 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2017] [Revised: 11/27/2017] [Accepted: 12/11/2017] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) deliver robust internally valid evidence but generalizability is often neglected. Design features built into the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) RCT of treatments for localized prostate cancer (PCa) provided insights into its generalizability. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Population-based cluster randomization created a prospective study of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and a comprehensive-cohort study including groups choosing treatment or excluded from the RCT, as well as those randomized. Baseline information assessed selection and response during RCT conduct. RESULTS The prospective study (82,430 PSA-tested men) represented healthy men likely to respond to a screening invitation. The extended comprehensive cohort comprised 1,643 randomized, 997 choosing treatment, and 557 excluded with advanced cancer/comorbidities. Men choosing treatment were very similar to randomized men except for having more professional/managerial occupations. Excluded men were similar to the randomized socio-demographically but different clinically, representing less healthy men with more advanced PCa. CONCLUSION The design features of the ProtecT RCT provided data to assess the representativeness of the prospective cohort and generalizability of the findings of the RCT. Greater attention to collecting data at the design stage of pragmatic trials would better support later judgments by clinicians/policy-makers about the generalizability of RCT findings in clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jenny L Donovan
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West, Hosted by University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
| | - Grace J Young
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Eleanor I Walsh
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Chris Metcalfe
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - J Athene Lane
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Richard M Martin
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, National Institute for Health Research, Bristol Nutrition Biomedical Research Unit, Bristol, UK
| | - Marta K Tazewell
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Michael Davis
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Tim J Peters
- School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Emma L Turner
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Nicola Mills
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Hanan Khazragui
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Tarnjit K Khera
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - David E Neal
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Freddie C Hamdy
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Martin RM, Donovan JL, Turner EL, Metcalfe C, Young GJ, Walsh EI, Lane JA, Noble S, Oliver SE, Evans S, Sterne JAC, Holding P, Ben-Shlomo Y, Brindle P, Williams NJ, Hill EM, Ng SY, Toole J, Tazewell MK, Hughes LJ, Davies CF, Thorn JC, Down E, Davey Smith G, Neal DE, Hamdy FC. Effect of a Low-Intensity PSA-Based Screening Intervention on Prostate Cancer Mortality: The CAP Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2018; 319:883-895. [PMID: 29509864 PMCID: PMC5885905 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2018.0154] [Citation(s) in RCA: 249] [Impact Index Per Article: 41.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2017] [Accepted: 01/17/2018] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
Abstract
Importance Prostate cancer screening remains controversial because potential mortality or quality-of-life benefits may be outweighed by harms from overdetection and overtreatment. Objective To evaluate the effect of a single prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening intervention and standardized diagnostic pathway on prostate cancer-specific mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants The Cluster Randomized Trial of PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer (CAP) included 419 582 men aged 50 to 69 years and was conducted at 573 primary care practices across the United Kingdom. Randomization and recruitment of the practices occurred between 2001 and 2009; patient follow-up ended on March 31, 2016. Intervention An invitation to attend a PSA testing clinic and receive a single PSA test vs standard (unscreened) practice. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcome: prostate cancer-specific mortality at a median follow-up of 10 years. Prespecified secondary outcomes: diagnostic cancer stage and Gleason grade (range, 2-10; higher scores indicate a poorer prognosis) of prostate cancers identified, all-cause mortality, and an instrumental variable analysis estimating the causal effect of attending the PSA screening clinic. Results Among 415 357 randomized men (mean [SD] age, 59.0 [5.6] years), 189 386 in the intervention group and 219 439 in the control group were included in the analysis (n = 408 825; 98%). In the intervention group, 75 707 (40%) attended the PSA testing clinic and 67 313 (36%) underwent PSA testing. Of 64 436 with a valid PSA test result, 6857 (11%) had a PSA level between 3 ng/mL and 19.9 ng/mL, of whom 5850 (85%) had a prostate biopsy. After a median follow-up of 10 years, 549 (0.30 per 1000 person-years) died of prostate cancer in the intervention group vs 647 (0.31 per 1000 person-years) in the control group (rate difference, -0.013 per 1000 person-years [95% CI, -0.047 to 0.022]; rate ratio [RR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.85 to 1.08]; P = .50). The number diagnosed with prostate cancer was higher in the intervention group (n = 8054; 4.3%) than in the control group (n = 7853; 3.6%) (RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.14 to 1.25]; P < .001). More prostate cancer tumors with a Gleason grade of 6 or lower were identified in the intervention group (n = 3263/189 386 [1.7%]) than in the control group (n = 2440/219 439 [1.1%]) (difference per 1000 men, 6.11 [95% CI, 5.38 to 6.84]; P < .001). In the analysis of all-cause mortality, there were 25 459 deaths in the intervention group vs 28 306 deaths in the control group (RR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.94 to 1.03]; P = .49). In the instrumental variable analysis for prostate cancer mortality, the adherence-adjusted causal RR was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.29; P = .66). Conclusions and Relevance Among practices randomized to a single PSA screening intervention vs standard practice without screening, there was no significant difference in prostate cancer mortality after a median follow-up of 10 years but the detection of low-risk prostate cancer cases increased. Although longer-term follow-up is under way, the findings do not support single PSA testing for population-based screening. Trial Registration ISRCTN Identifier: ISRCTN92187251.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard M. Martin
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Jenny L. Donovan
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
- National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, England
| | - Emma L. Turner
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Chris Metcalfe
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
- Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Grace J. Young
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
- Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Eleanor I. Walsh
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - J. Athene Lane
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
- Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Sian Noble
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Steven E. Oliver
- Department of Health Sciences, University of York and Hull York Medical School, York, England
| | - Simon Evans
- Urology Department, Royal United Hospital, Bath, England
| | - Jonathan A. C. Sterne
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Peter Holding
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England
| | - Yoav Ben-Shlomo
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
- National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, England
| | - Peter Brindle
- Bristol, North Somerset, and South Gloucestershire Clinical Commissioning Group, Bristol, England
| | - Naomi J. Williams
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Elizabeth M. Hill
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Siaw Yein Ng
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Jessica Toole
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Marta K. Tazewell
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Laura J. Hughes
- Department of Oncology, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England
| | - Charlotte F. Davies
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Joanna C. Thorn
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - Elizabeth Down
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - George Davey Smith
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
- Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, England
| | - David E. Neal
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England
- Department of Oncology, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England
| | - Freddie C. Hamdy
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England
| |
Collapse
|