Development, validation and evaluation of an instrument for active monitoring of men with clinically localised prostate cancer: systematic review, cohort studies and qualitative study

Prediction of Clinically Significant Cancer Using Radiomics Features of Pre-Biopsy of Multiparametric MRI in Men Suspected of Prostate Cancer

Background: Texture features based on the spatial relationship of pixels, known as the gray-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM), may play an important role in providing the accurate classification of suspected prostate cancer. The purpose of this study was to use quantitative imaging parameters of pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for the prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer. Methods: This was a prospective study, recruiting 200 men suspected of having prostate cancer. Participants were imaged using a protocol-based 3T MRI in the pre-biopsy setting. Radiomics parameters were extracted from the T2WI and ADC texture features of the gray-level co-occurrence matrix were delineated from the region of interest. Radical prostatectomy histopathology was used as a reference standard. A Kruskal–Wallis test was applied first to identify the significant radiomic features between the three groups of Gleason scores (i.e., G1, G2 and G3). Subsequently, the Holm–Bonferroni method was applied to correct and control the probability of false rejections. We compared the probability of correctly predicting significant prostate cancer between the explanatory GLCM radiomic features, PIRADS and PSAD, using the area under the receiver operation characteristic curves. Results: We identified the significant difference in radiomic features between the three groups of Gleason scores. In total, 12 features out of 22 radiomics features correlated with the Gleason groups. Our model demonstrated excellent discriminative ability (C-statistic = 0.901, 95%CI 0.859–0.943). When comparing the probability of correctly predicting significant prostate cancer between explanatory GLCM radiomic features (Sum Variance T2WI, Sum Entropy T2WI, Difference Variance T2WI, Entropy ADC and Difference Variance ADC), PSAD and PIRADS via area under the ROC curve, radiomic features were 35.0% and 34.4% more successful than PIRADS and PSAD, respectively, in correctly predicting significant prostate cancer in our patients (p < 0.001). The Sum Entropy T2WI score had the greatest impact followed by the Sum Variance T2WI. Conclusion: Quantitative GLCM texture analyses of pre-biopsy MRI has the potential to be used as a non-invasive imaging technique to predict clinically significant cancer in men suspected of having prostate cancer.

Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy in PSA-detected clinically localised prostate cancer: the ProtecT three-arm RCT

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.

Using others' experiences. Cancer patients' expectations and navigation of a website providing narratives on prostate, breast and colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To understand what cancer patients expect and may learn from other patients' experiences, as analyzed and sorted for presentation on a website called krankheitserfahrungen.de (meaning "illness experiences").

METHODS

Mixed methods approach including log file analyses, survey data analyses and thematic analysis of focus group discussions.

RESULTS

Users highly valued the wide range of patient experiences presented. The academic leadership of krankheitserfahrungen.de made them trust the information quality. Reading, watching and listening to other cancer patients' experiences gave users a feeling of hope and confidence. Searching for persons with similar experiences was a major way of navigating the website.

CONCLUSION

Patient narratives as presented on krankheitserfahrungen.de provide a helpful resource, supporting cancer patients' engagement with their disease. Having access to such research-informed accounts of everyday cancer experiences was seen as a great contribution to existing available patient information.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

When health information websites include experiences, they should adhere to quality standards of qualitative research and encompass a wide range, so that users are able to find patients similar to themselves. Filter options are a helpful tool. A mix of written text and videos is beneficial, as users have different preferences. The inclusion of patient photographs and video interviews facilitates authenticity and closeness.

Establishing nurse-led active surveillance for men with localised prostate cancer: development and formative evaluation of a model of care in the ProtecT trial

OBJECTIVES

To develop a nurse-led, urologist-supported model of care for men managed by active surveillance or active monitoring (AS/AM) for localised prostate cancer and provide a formative evaluation of its acceptability to patients, clinicians and nurses. Nurse-led care, comprising an explicit nurse-led protocol with support from urologists, was developed as part of the AM arm of the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial.

DESIGN

Interviews and questionnaire surveys of clinicians, nurses and patients assessed acceptability.

SETTING

Nurse-led clinics were established in 9 centres in the ProtecT trial and compared with 3 non-ProtecT urology centres elsewhere in UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Within ProtecT, 22 men receiving AM nurse-led care were interviewed about experiences of care; 11 urologists and 23 research nurses delivering ProtecT trial care completed a questionnaire about its acceptability; 20 men managed in urology clinics elsewhere in the UK were interviewed about models of AS/AM care; 12 urologists and three specialist nurses working in these clinics were also interviewed about management of AS/AM.

RESULTS

Nurse-led care was commended by ProtecT trial participants, who valued the flexibility, accessibility and continuity of the service and felt confident about the quality of care. ProtecT consultant urologists and nurses also rated it highly, identifying continuity of care and resource savings as key attributes. Clinicians and patients outside the ProtecT trial believed that nurse-led care could relieve pressure on urology clinics without compromising patient care.

CONCLUSIONS

The ProtecT AM nurse-led model of care was acceptable to men with localised prostate cancer and clinical specialists in urology. The protocol is available for implementation; we aim to evaluate its impact on routine clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

NCT02044172; ISRCTN20141297.