1
|
Carrie S, Fouweather T, Homer T, O'Hara J, Rousseau N, Rooshenas L, Bray A, Stocken DD, Ternent L, Rennie K, Clark E, Waugh N, Steel AJ, Dooley J, Drinnan M, Hamilton D, Lloyd K, Oluboyede Y, Wilson C, Gardiner Q, Kara N, Khwaja S, Leong SC, Maini S, Morrison J, Nix P, Wilson JA, Teare MD. Effectiveness of septoplasty compared to medical management in adults with obstruction associated with a deviated nasal septum: the NAIROS RCT. Health Technol Assess 2024; 28:1-213. [PMID: 38477237 PMCID: PMC11017631 DOI: 10.3310/mvfr4028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/14/2024] Open
Abstract
Background The indications for septoplasty are practice-based, rather than evidence-based. In addition, internationally accepted guidelines for the management of nasal obstruction associated with nasal septal deviation are lacking. Objective The objective was to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of septoplasty, with or without turbinate reduction, compared with medical management, in the management of nasal obstruction associated with a deviated nasal septum. Design This was a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing septoplasty, with or without turbinate reduction, with defined medical management; it incorporated a mixed-methods process evaluation and an economic evaluation. Setting The trial was set in 17 NHS secondary care hospitals in the UK. Participants A total of 378 eligible participants aged > 18 years were recruited. Interventions Participants were randomised on a 1: 1 basis and stratified by baseline severity and gender to either (1) septoplasty, with or without turbinate surgery (n = 188) or (2) medical management with intranasal steroid spray and saline spray (n = 190). Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items score at 6 months (patient-reported outcome). The secondary outcomes were as follows: patient-reported outcomes - Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation score at 6 and 12 months, Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items subscales at 12 months, Double Ordinal Airway Subjective Scale at 6 and 12 months, the Short Form questionnaire-36 items and costs; objective measurements - peak nasal inspiratory flow and rhinospirometry. The number of adverse events experienced was also recorded. A within-trial economic evaluation from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective estimated the incremental cost per (1) improvement (of ≥ 9 points) in Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items score, (2) adverse event avoided and (3) quality-adjusted life-year gained at 12 months. An economic model estimated the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 24 and 36 months. A mixed-methods process evaluation was undertaken to understand/address recruitment issues and examine the acceptability of trial processes and treatment arms. Results At the 6-month time point, 307 participants provided primary outcome data (septoplasty, n = 152; medical management, n = 155). An intention-to-treat analysis revealed a greater and more sustained improvement in the primary outcome measure in the surgical arm. The 6-month mean Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items scores were -20.0 points lower (better) for participants randomised to septoplasty than for those randomised to medical management [the score for the septoplasty arm was 19.9 and the score for the medical management arm was 39.5 (95% confidence interval -23.6 to -16.4; p < 0.0001)]. This was confirmed by sensitivity analyses and through the analysis of secondary outcomes. Outcomes were statistically significantly related to baseline severity, but not to gender or turbinate reduction. In the surgical and medical management arms, 132 and 95 adverse events occurred, respectively; 14 serious adverse events occurred in the surgical arm and nine in the medical management arm. On average, septoplasty was more costly and more effective in improving Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items scores and quality-adjusted life-years than medical management, but incurred a larger number of adverse events. Septoplasty had a 15% probability of being considered cost-effective at 12 months at a £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold for an additional quality-adjusted life-year. This probability increased to 99% and 100% at 24 and 36 months, respectively. Limitations COVID-19 had an impact on participant-facing data collection from March 2020. Conclusions Septoplasty, with or without turbinate reduction, is more effective than medical management with a nasal steroid and saline spray. Baseline severity predicts the degree of improvement in symptoms. Septoplasty has a low probability of cost-effectiveness at 12 months, but may be considered cost-effective at 24 months. Future work should focus on developing a septoplasty patient decision aid. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN16168569 and EudraCT 2017-000893-12. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/226/07) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 10. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sean Carrie
- Ear, Nose and Throat Department, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
- Honorary affiliation with Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Tony Fouweather
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Tara Homer
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - James O'Hara
- Ear, Nose and Throat Department, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Nikki Rousseau
- Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Leila Rooshenas
- Bristol Population Health Science Institute, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Alison Bray
- Honorary affiliation with Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
- Northern Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Deborah D Stocken
- Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Laura Ternent
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Katherine Rennie
- Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Emma Clark
- Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Nichola Waugh
- Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Alison J Steel
- Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Jemima Dooley
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Michael Drinnan
- Honorary affiliation with Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
- Northern Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - David Hamilton
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Kelly Lloyd
- Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Yemi Oluboyede
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Caroline Wilson
- Bristol Population Health Science Institute, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Quentin Gardiner
- Ear, Nose and Throat Department, Ninewells Hospital, NHS Tayside, Dundee, UK
| | - Naveed Kara
- Ear, Nose and Throat Department, Darlington Memorial Hospital, County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, Durham, UK
| | - Sadie Khwaja
- Ear, Nose and Throat Department, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester University Foundation NHS Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Samuel Chee Leong
- Ear, Nose and Throat Department, Aintree Hospital, Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - Sangeeta Maini
- Ear, Nose and Throat Department, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK
| | | | - Paul Nix
- Ear, Nose and Throat Department, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Janet A Wilson
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - M Dawn Teare
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Malewski W, Milecki T, Szempliński S, Tayara O, Kuncman Ł, Kryst P, Nyk Ł. Prostate Biopsy in the Case of PIRADS 5-Is Systematic Biopsy Mandatory? J Clin Med 2023; 12:5612. [PMID: 37685679 PMCID: PMC10488368 DOI: 10.3390/jcm12175612] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2023] [Revised: 08/07/2023] [Accepted: 08/11/2023] [Indexed: 09/10/2023] Open
Abstract
Combining systematic biopsy (SB) with targeted biopsy (TB) in the case of a positive result from multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is a matter of debate. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) score of 5 indicates the highest probability of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) detection in TB. Potentially, omitting SB in the case of PIRADS 5 may have a marginal impact on the csPC detection rate. The aim of this study was to determine whether SB can be avoided in the case of PIRADS 5 and to identify potential factors allowing for performing TB only. This cohort study involved n = 225 patients with PIRADS 5 on mpMRI (PIRADS 2.0/2.1) who underwent transperineal or transrectal combined biopsy (CB). CsPC was diagnosed in 51.6% (n = 116/225) of cases. TB and SB resulted in the detection of csPC in 48% (n = 108/225) and 20.4% (n = 46/225) of cases, respectively (TB vs. SB, p < 0.001). When the TB was positive, SB detected csPC in n = 38 of the cases (38/108 = 35%). SB added to TB significantly improved csPC detection in 6.9% of cases in absolute terms (n = 8/116) (TB vs. CB, p = 0.008). The multivariate regression model proved that the significant predictors of csPC detection via SB were the densities of the prostate-specific antigen-PSAD > 0.17 ng/mL2 (OR = 4.038, 95%CI: 1.568-10.398); primary biopsy setting (OR = 2.818, 95%CI: 1.334-5.952); and abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) (OR = 2.746, 95%CI: 1.328-5.678). In a primary biopsy setting (n = 103), SB detected 10% (n = 6/60) of the additional cases of csPC (p = 0.031), while in a repeat biopsy setting (n = 122), SB detected 3.5% (n = 2/56) of the additional cases of csPC (p = 0.5). In the case of PSAD > 0.17 ng/mL2 (n = 151), SB detected 7.4% (n = 7/95) of additional cases of csPC (p = 0.016), while in the case of PSAD < 0.17 ng/mL2 (n = 74), SB detected 4.8% (n = 1/21) of the additional cases of csPC (p = 1.0). The omission of SB had an impact on the csPC diagnosis rate in patients with PIRADS 5 score lesions. Patients who have already undergone prostate biopsy and those with low PSAD are at a lower risk of missing csPC when SB is avoided. However, performing TB only may result in missing other csPC foci located outside the index lesion, which can alter treatment decisions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wojciech Malewski
- Second Department of Urology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, 01-809 Warsaw, Poland; (W.M.); (P.K.)
| | - Tomasz Milecki
- Department of Urology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-701 Poznan, Poland
| | - Stanisław Szempliński
- Second Department of Urology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, 01-809 Warsaw, Poland; (W.M.); (P.K.)
| | - Omar Tayara
- Second Department of Urology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, 01-809 Warsaw, Poland; (W.M.); (P.K.)
| | - Łukasz Kuncman
- Department of Radiotherapy, Medical University of Lodz, 90-419 Lodz, Poland;
| | - Piotr Kryst
- Second Department of Urology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, 01-809 Warsaw, Poland; (W.M.); (P.K.)
| | - Łukasz Nyk
- Second Department of Urology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, 01-809 Warsaw, Poland; (W.M.); (P.K.)
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Li G, Li Y, Wang J, Gao X, Zhong Q, He L, Li C, Liu M, Liu Y, Ma M, Wang H, Wang X, Zhu H. Guidelines for radiotherapy of prostate cancer (2020 edition). PRECISION RADIATION ONCOLOGY 2021. [DOI: 10.1002/pro6.1129] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Gaofeng Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology; Institute of Geriatric Medicine Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Beijing P. R. China
| | - Yexiong Li
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology and Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) and Peking Union Medical College (PUMC) Beijing P. R. China
| | - Junjie Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology Peking University Third Hospital Beijing P. R. China
| | - Xianshu Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology Peking University First Hospital Beijing P. R. China
| | - Qiuzi Zhong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology; Institute of Geriatric Medicine Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Beijing P. R. China
| | - Liru He
- Department of Radiation Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine Sun Yat‐sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou 510060 P. R. China
| | - Chunmei Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology; Institute of Geriatric Medicine Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Beijing P. R. China
| | - Ming Liu
- Department of Urology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Beijing P. R. China
| | - Yueping Liu
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology and Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) and Peking Union Medical College (PUMC) Beijing P. R. China
| | - Mingwei Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology Peking University First Hospital Beijing P. R. China
| | - Hao Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology Peking University Third Hospital Beijing P. R. China
| | - Xuan Wang
- Department of Urology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Beijing P. R. China
| | - Hui Zhu
- Department of Nuclear Medicine Department, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Beijing P. R. China
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Karakoc S, Celik S, Kaya N, Bozkurt O, Ellidokuz H, Tuna B, Yorukoglu K, Mungan MU. Prognostic value of intraductal carcinoma for adjuvant radiotherapy candidates after radical prostatectomy. Int J Clin Pract 2021; 75:e14099. [PMID: 33619822 DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.14099] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2020] [Accepted: 02/18/2021] [Indexed: 01/17/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To investigate the prognostic significance of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens and predictive value of IDC-P for biochemical recurrence and adjuvant therapy decision. METHOD We retrospectively evaluated patients who were performed RP between 2000 and 2014. Among, 67 patients who had stage pT3a tumour with negative surgical margin (Group 1, n = 35) and who had stage pT2 tumour with positive surgical margin (Group 2, n = 32) were included in the study. RP specimens were re-evaluated for the presence of IDC-P component and other prognostic factors. In both the groups, prognostic factors were compared according to the presence of IDC-P and biochemical recurrence status. RESULTS In Group 1, IDC-P was detected in five cases and biochemical recurrence was detected in three cases. Patients with IDC-P showed significantly higher biochemical recurrence than those without IDC-P (P = .002). In univariate analysis, IDC-P was found to be significantly associated with worse progression-free survival (P < .001). In Group 2, IDC-P was detected in four cases and biochemical recurrence was detected in 10 cases. Also, tumour volume was significantly higher in patients with IDC-P than those without IDC-P (P = .02). IDC-P was also significantly associated with worse progression-free survival in Group 2 (P = .033). CONCLUSIONS In both the groups, IDC-P was a prognostic factor for progression-free survival and/or biochemical recurrence. Especially in these patients, the presence of IDC-P might be helpful for postoperative adjuvant therapy management decision.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sedat Karakoc
- Department of Urology, Dokuz Eylul University Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Serdar Celik
- Department of Urology, Dokuz Eylul University Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Nilhan Kaya
- Department of Pathology, Dokuz Eylul University Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Ozan Bozkurt
- Department of Urology, Dokuz Eylul University Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Hulya Ellidokuz
- Institute of Oncology, Department of Preventive Oncology, Dokuz Eylul University Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Burcin Tuna
- Department of Pathology, Dokuz Eylul University Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Kutsal Yorukoglu
- Department of Pathology, Dokuz Eylul University Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Sutton E, Lane JA, Davis M, Walsh EI, Neal DE, Hamdy FC, Mason M, Staffurth J, Martin RM, Metcalfe C, Peters TJ, Donovan JL, Wade J. Men's experiences of radiotherapy treatment for localized prostate cancer and its long-term treatment side effects: a longitudinal qualitative study. Cancer Causes Control 2021; 32:261-269. [PMID: 33394204 PMCID: PMC7870600 DOI: 10.1007/s10552-020-01380-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/05/2019] [Accepted: 12/04/2020] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate men's experiences of receiving external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with neoadjuvant Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) for localized prostate cancer (LPCa) in the ProtecT trial. METHODS A longitudinal qualitative interview study was embedded in the ProtecT RCT. Sixteen men with clinically LPCa who underwent EBRT in ProtecT were purposively sampled to include a range of socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. They participated in serial in-depth qualitative interviews for up to 8 years post-treatment, exploring experiences of treatment and its side effects over time. RESULTS Men experienced bowel, sexual, and urinary side effects, mostly in the short term but some persisted and were bothersome. Most men downplayed the impacts, voicing expectations of age-related decline, and normalizing these changes. There was some reticence to seek help, with men prioritizing their relationships and overall health and well-being over returning to pretreatment levels of function. Some unmet needs with regard to information about treatment schedules and side effects were reported, particularly among men with continuing functional symptoms. CONCLUSIONS These findings reinforce the importance of providing universal clear, concise, and timely information and supportive resources in the short term, and more targeted and detailed information and care in the longer term to maintain and improve treatment experiences for men undergoing EBRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E. Sutton
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Bristol, UK
| | - J. A. Lane
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Bristol, UK
- Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Clifton, Bristol, BS8 2PS UK
| | - M. Davis
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Bristol, UK
| | - E. I. Walsh
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Bristol, UK
| | - D. E. Neal
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - F. C. Hamdy
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - M. Mason
- Division of Cancer & Genetics, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - J. Staffurth
- Department of Oncology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - R. M. Martin
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Bristol, UK
| | - C. Metcalfe
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Bristol, UK
| | - T. J. Peters
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Bristol, UK
| | - J. L. Donovan
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Bristol, UK
- National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (NIHR CLAHRC) West, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - J. Wade
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
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
|
7
|
Bryant RJ, Oxley J, Young GJ, Lane JA, Metcalfe C, Davis M, Turner EL, Martin RM, Goepel JR, Varma M, Griffiths DF, Grigor K, Mayer N, Warren AY, Bhattarai S, Dormer J, Mason M, Staffurth J, Walsh E, Rosario DJ, Catto JW, Neal DE, Donovan JL, Hamdy FC. The ProtecT trial: analysis of the patient cohort, baseline risk stratification and disease progression. BJU Int 2020; 125:506-514. [PMID: 31900963 PMCID: PMC7187290 DOI: 10.1111/bju.14987] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To test the hypothesis that the baseline clinico-pathological features of the men with localized prostate cancer (PCa) included in the ProtecT (Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment) trial who progressed (n = 198) at a 10-year median follow-up were different from those of men with stable disease (n = 1409). PATIENTS AND METHODS We stratified the study participants at baseline according to risk of progression using clinical disease stage, pathological grade and PSA level, using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS The findings showed that 34% of participants (n = 505) had intermediate- or high-risk PCa, and 66% (n = 973) had low-risk PCa. Of 198 participants who progressed, 101 (51%) had baseline International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group 1, 59 (30%) Grade Group 2, and 38 (19%) Grade Group 3 PCa, compared with 79%, 17% and 5%, respectively, for 1409 participants without progression (P < 0.001). In participants with progression, 38% and 62% had baseline low- and intermediate-/high-risk disease, compared with 69% and 31% of participants with stable disease (P < 0.001). Treatment received, age (65-69 vs 50-64 years), PSA level, Grade Group, clinical stage, risk group, number of positive cores, tumour length and perineural invasion were associated with time to progression (P ≤ 0.005). Men progressing after surgery (n = 19) were more likely to have a higher Grade Group and pathological stage at surgery, larger tumours, lymph node involvement and positive margins. CONCLUSIONS We demonstrate that one-third of the ProtecT cohort consists of people with intermediate-/high-risk disease, and the outcomes data at an average of 10 years' follow-up are generalizable beyond men with low-risk PCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard J. Bryant
- Nuffield Department of Surgical SciencesUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
| | - Jon Oxley
- Department of Cellular PathologyNorth Bristol NHS TrustBristolUK
| | - Grace J. Young
- Bristol Medical SchoolUniversity of BristolBristolUK
- The Bristol Randomised Trials CollaborationUniversity of BristolBristolUK
| | - Janet A. Lane
- Bristol Medical SchoolUniversity of BristolBristolUK
- The Bristol Randomised Trials CollaborationUniversity of BristolBristolUK
| | - Chris Metcalfe
- Bristol Medical SchoolUniversity of BristolBristolUK
- The Bristol Randomised Trials CollaborationUniversity of BristolBristolUK
| | - Michael Davis
- Bristol Medical SchoolUniversity of BristolBristolUK
| | | | | | - John R. Goepel
- Department of PathologyRoyal Hallamshire HospitalSheffieldUK
| | - Murali Varma
- Department of PathologyUniversity Hospital of WalesCardiffUK
| | | | - Ken Grigor
- Department of PathologyWestern General HospitalEdinburghUK
| | - Nick Mayer
- Department of PathologyUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK
| | - Anne Y. Warren
- Department of PathologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
| | - Selina Bhattarai
- Department of PathologyLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS TrustLeedsUK
| | - John Dormer
- Department of PathologyUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK
| | | | - John Staffurth
- Division of Cancer and GeneticsSchool of MedicineCardiff UniversityCardiffUK
| | - Eleanor Walsh
- Bristol Medical SchoolUniversity of BristolBristolUK
| | | | | | - David E. Neal
- Nuffield Department of Surgical SciencesUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
- Academic Urology GroupUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
| | - Jenny L. Donovan
- Bristol Medical SchoolUniversity of BristolBristolUK
- National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care WestUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation TrustBristolUK
| | - Freddie C. Hamdy
- Nuffield Department of Surgical SciencesUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Berg S, Hanske J, von Landenberg N, Noldus J, Brock M. Institutional Adoption and Apprenticeship of Fusion Targeted Prostate Biopsy: Does Experience Affect the Cancer Detection Rate? Urol Int 2020; 104:476-482. [PMID: 32036374 DOI: 10.1159/000505654] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/23/2019] [Accepted: 12/28/2019] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION There are limited data on the learning curve of magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound (MRI/TRUS)-fusion targeted prostate biopsies (tBx). OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to investigate the difference in prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate between an experienced urologist and novice resident performing tBx. METHODS A total of 183 patients underwent tBx from 2012 to 2016 for a total of 518 tBx cores. Biopsies in this study were performed by an experienced urologist (investigator A) or a novice resident (investigator B). The outcome was the detection of PCa on tBx. Using a multivariable logistic regression model, we estimated odds ratios for the detection of PCa. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance patients' baseline characteristics and compare detection rates of PCa. Before performance of tBx, all patients underwent MRI. RESULTS On multivariable logistic regression analysis, investigator experience was associated with a higher odds of detection of PCa (OR = 1.003; 95% confidence interval 1.002-1.006, p = 0.037). After IPTW adjustment, there was no significant difference between the detection rate of investigator A (23%) and investigator B (32%; p = 0.457). CONCLUSIONS Data revealed a positive association between investigator experience and the odds of PCa detection, although there was no difference in the detection rates of the investigators.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sebastian Berg
- Department of Urology and Neurourology, Marien Hospital Herne, Ruhr-University Bochum, Herne, Germany, .,Division of Urological Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA,
| | - Julian Hanske
- Department of Urology and Neurourology, Marien Hospital Herne, Ruhr-University Bochum, Herne, Germany
| | - Nicolas von Landenberg
- Department of Urology and Neurourology, Marien Hospital Herne, Ruhr-University Bochum, Herne, Germany
| | - Joachim Noldus
- Department of Urology and Neurourology, Marien Hospital Herne, Ruhr-University Bochum, Herne, Germany
| | - Marko Brock
- Department of Urology and Neurourology, Marien Hospital Herne, Ruhr-University Bochum, Herne, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Beasant L, Brigden A, Parslow R, Apperley H, Keep T, Northam A, Wray C, King H, Langdon R, Mills N, Young B, Crawley E. Treatment preference and recruitment to pediatric RCTs: A systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials Commun 2019; 14:100335. [PMID: 30949611 PMCID: PMC6430075 DOI: 10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100335] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/07/2018] [Revised: 01/25/2019] [Accepted: 02/13/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recruitment to pediatric randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be a challenge, with ethical issues surrounding assent and consent. Pediatric RCTs frequently recruit from a smaller pool of patients making adequate recruitment difficult. One factor which influences recruitment and retention in pediatric trials is patient and parent preferences for treatment. PURPOSE To systematically review pediatric RCTs reporting treatment preference. METHODS Database searches included: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and COCHRANE.Qualitative or quantitative papers were eligible if they reported: pediatric population, (0-17 years) recruited to an RCT and reported treatment preference for all or some of the participants/parents in any clinical area. Data extraction included: Number of eligible participants consenting to randomisation arms, number of eligible patients not randomised because of treatment preference, and any further information reported on preferences (e.g., if parent preference was different from child). RESULTS Fifty-two studies were included. The number of eligible families declining participation in an RCT because of preference for treatment varied widely (between 2 and 70%) in feasibility, conventional and preference trial designs. Some families consented to trial involvement despite having preferences for a specific treatment. Data relating to 'participant flow and recruitment' was not always reported consistently, therefore numbers who were lost to follow-up or withdrew due to preference could not be extracted. CONCLUSIONS Families often have treatment preferences which may affect trial recruitment. Whilst children appear to hold treatment preferences, this is rarely reported. Further investigation is needed to understand the reasons for preference and the impact preference has on RCT recruitment, retention and outcome.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L. Beasant
- Centre for Academic Child Health, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK
| | - A. Brigden
- Centre for Academic Child Health, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK
| | - R.M. Parslow
- Centre for Academic Child Health, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK
| | - H. Apperley
- Department of Academic Paediatrics, Royal Alexandra Children's Hospital, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals, UK
| | - T. Keep
- NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, UK
| | - A. Northam
- Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, UK
| | - C. Wray
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK
| | - H. King
- Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Trust, UK
| | - R. Langdon
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK
| | - N. Mills
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK
| | - B. Young
- Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, UK
| | - E. Crawley
- Centre for Academic Child Health, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Narayan VM. A critical appraisal of biomarkers in prostate cancer. World J Urol 2019; 38:547-554. [PMID: 30993424 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-019-02759-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2018] [Accepted: 04/04/2019] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE A number of urine and blood-based biomarker tests have been described for prostate cancer, although to date there has only been a limited exploration of the methodology behind the validation studies that underpin these tests. METHODS In this review, a selection of commercially available urine and blood-based biomarker tests for prostate cancer are described, and the underlying key validation studies for each test are critically appraised using the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015 statement. RESULTS The ExoDx Prostate Intelliscore, SelectMDx, Progensa PCA3, Mi-Prostate Score, 4K Score, and Prostate Health Index (PHI) tests were reviewed. Most of the validation studies supporting these tests perform exploratory analyses to determine cut-off values in a post hoc manner, comprise cohorts that are primarily Caucasian, report receiver operating characteristic curves that combine the biomarker's result with established clinical nomograms and are based on a reference standard (prostate biopsy) that lacks central pathology review. Deficiencies in STARD reporting guidelines include frequent failure to provide a published study protocol, prospective study registration in a registry, a flow diagram, justification for sample size determination, a discussion of adverse events with testing, and information on how missing or indeterminate test results should be managed. CONCLUSIONS Key validation studies that support many commercially available urine and blood-based biomarkers for prostate cancers have deficiencies in transparency based on STARD reporting guidelines, and limitations in methodology must be considered when deciding when these tests should be applied in clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vikram M Narayan
- Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware Street SE, MMC 394, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Hosseinnejad K, Yin T, Gaskins JT, Bailen JL, Jortani SA. Discovery of the Long Interspersed Nuclear Element-1 activation product [Open Reading Frame-1 (ORF1) protein] in human blood. Clin Chim Acta 2018; 487:228-232. [DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2018.09.040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/16/2018] [Accepted: 09/30/2018] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
|
12
|
Crocker JC, Ricci-Cabello I, Parker A, Hirst JA, Chant A, Petit-Zeman S, Evans D, Rees S. Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2018; 363:k4738. [PMID: 30487232 PMCID: PMC6259046 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.k4738] [Citation(s) in RCA: 256] [Impact Index Per Article: 42.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To investigate the impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) on rates of enrolment and retention in clinical trials and explore how this varies with the context and nature of PPI. DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES Ten electronic databases, including Medline, INVOLVE Evidence Library, and clinical trial registries. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Experimental and observational studies quantitatively evaluating the impact of a PPI intervention, compared with no intervention or non-PPI intervention(s), on participant enrolment and/or retention rates in a clinical trial or trials. PPI interventions could include additional non-PPI components inseparable from the PPI (for example, other stakeholder involvement). DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS Two independent reviewers extracted data on enrolment and retention rates, as well as on the context and characteristics of PPI intervention, and assessed risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to determine the average effect of PPI interventions on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: main analysis including randomised studies only, secondary analysis adding non-randomised studies, and several exploratory subgroup and sensitivity analyses. RESULTS 26 studies were included in the review; 19 were eligible for enrolment meta-analysis and five for retention meta-analysis. Various PPI interventions were identified with different degrees of involvement, different numbers and types of people involved, and input at different stages of the trial process. On average, PPI interventions modestly but significantly increased the odds of participant enrolment in the main analysis (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval and prediction interval 1.01 to 1.34). Non-PPI components of interventions may have contributed to this effect. In exploratory subgroup analyses, the involvement of people with lived experience of the condition under study was significantly associated with improved enrolment (odds ratio 3.14 v 1.07; P=0.02). The findings for retention were inconclusive owing to the paucity of eligible studies (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 4.14), for main analysis). CONCLUSIONS These findings add weight to the case for PPI in clinical trials by indicating that it is likely to improve enrolment of participants, especially if it includes people with lived experience of the health condition under study. Further research is needed to assess which types of PPI work best in particular contexts, the cost effectiveness of PPI, the impact of PPI at earlier stages of trial design, and the impact of PPI interventions specifically targeting retention. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42016043808.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joanna C Crocker
- Health Experiences Research Group, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Ignacio Ricci-Cabello
- Balearic Islands Health Research Institute (IdISBa), Palma de Mallorca, Spain
- Primary Care Research Unit of Mallorca, Balearic Islands Health Service, Palma de Mallorca, Spain
- Ciber de Epidemiologia y Salud Publica (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain
| | - Adwoa Parker
- York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
| | - Jennifer A Hirst
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Alan Chant
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Sophie Petit-Zeman
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - David Evans
- University of the West of England, Bristol, UK
| | - Sian Rees
- Oxford Academic Health Science Network, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Ortelli L, Spitale A, Mazzucchelli L, Bordoni A. Quality indicators of clinical cancer care for prostate cancer: a population-based study in southern Switzerland. BMC Cancer 2018; 18:733. [PMID: 29996904 PMCID: PMC6042390 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4604-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2018] [Accepted: 06/18/2018] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Quality of cancer care (QoCC) has become an important item for providers, regulators and purchasers of care worldwide. Aim of this study is to present the results of some evidence-based quality indicators (QI) for prostate cancer (PC) at the population-based level and to compare the outcomes with data available in the literature. Methods The study included all PC diagnosed on a three years period analysis (01.01.2011–31.12.2013) in the population of Canton Ticino (Southern Switzerland) extracted from the Ticino Cancer Registry database. 13 QI, approved through the validated Delphi methodology, were calculated using the “available case” approach: 2 for diagnosis, 4 for pathology, 6 for treatment and 1 for outcome. The selection of the computed QI was based on the availability of medical documentation. QI are presented as proportion (%) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval. Results 700 PC were detected during the three-year period 2011–2013: 78.3% of them were diagnosed through a prostatic biopsy and for 72.5% 8 or more biopsy cores were taken. 46.5% of the low risk PC patients underwent active surveillance, while 69.2% of high risk PC underwent a radical treatment (radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy or brachytherapy) and 73.5% of patients with metastatic PC were treated with hormonal therapy. The overall 30-day postoperative mortality was 0.5%. Conclusions Results emerging from this study on the QoCC for PC in Canton Ticino are encouraging: the choice of treatment modalities seems to respect the international guidelines and our results are comparable to the scarce number of available international studies. Additional national and international standardisation of the QI and further QI population-based studies are needed in order to get a real picture of the PC diagnostic-therapeutic process progress through the definition of thresholds of minimal standard of care. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4604-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura Ortelli
- Ticino Cancer Registry, Cantonal Institute of Pathology, Via in Selva 24, 6600, Locarno, Switzerland.
| | - Alessandra Spitale
- Ticino Cancer Registry, Cantonal Institute of Pathology, Via in Selva 24, 6600, Locarno, Switzerland
| | - Luca Mazzucchelli
- Clinical Pathology, Cantonal Institute of Pathology, 6600, Locarno, Switzerland
| | - Andrea Bordoni
- Ticino Cancer Registry, Cantonal Institute of Pathology, Via in Selva 24, 6600, Locarno, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Jansen BHE, Oudshoorn FHK, Tijans AM, Yska MJ, Lont AP, Collette ERP, Nieuwenhuijzen JA, Vis AN. Local staging with multiparametric MRI in daily clinical practice: diagnostic accuracy and evaluation of a radiologic learning curve. World J Urol 2018; 36:1409-1415. [PMID: 29680949 PMCID: PMC6105169 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2295-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2017] [Accepted: 04/05/2018] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for the detection of locally advanced prostate cancer (T-stage 3-4) prior to radical prostatectomy, in a multicenter cohort representing daily clinical practice. In addition, the radiologic learning curve for the detection of locally advanced disease is evaluated. METHODS Preoperative mpMRI findings of 430 patients (2012-2016) were compared to pathology results following radical prostatectomy. The diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV) for the detection of locally advanced disease was calculated and compared for all years separately, to evaluate the presence of a radiological learning curve. RESULTS Of all 137 patients with locally advanced disease, 62 patients were preoperatively detected with mpMRI [sensitivity 45.3% (95% CI 36.9-53.6%), specificity 75.8% (CI 70.9-80.7%), PPV 46.6% (CI 38.1-55.1%), and NPV 74.7% (CI 69.8-79.7%)]. The diagnostic accuracy did not improve significantly over time (sensitivity p = 0.12; specificity p = 0.57). CONCLUSIONS In daily clinical practice, the diagnostic accuracy of mpMRI for the detection of locally advanced prostate cancer remains limited. It, therefore, seems questionable whether mpMRI is adequate to guide preoperative decision-making. No significant radiologic learning curve for the detection of locally advance disease was observed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B H E Jansen
- VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | | | - A M Tijans
- VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M J Yska
- Maasstad Ziekenhuis, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A P Lont
- Meander Medisch Centrum, Amersfoort, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - A N Vis
- VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
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
|
16
|
Griffin D, Wall P, Realpe A, Adams A, Parsons N, Hobson R, Achten J, Fry J, Costa M, Petrou S, Foster N, Donovan J. UK FASHIoN: feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for hip impingement compared with best conservative care. Health Technol Assess 2018; 20:1-172. [PMID: 27117505 DOI: 10.3310/hta20320] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is a syndrome of hip or groin pain associated with shape abnormalities of the hip joint. Treatments include arthroscopic surgery and conservative care. This study explored the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial to compare these treatments. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this study were to estimate the number of patients available for a full randomised controlled trial (RCT); to explore clinician and patient willingness to participate in such a RCT; to develop consensus on eligibility criteria, surgical and best conservative care protocols; to examine possible outcome measures and estimate the sample size for a full RCT; and to develop trial procedures and estimate recruitment and follow-up rates. METHODS Pre-pilot work: we surveyed all UK NHS hospital trusts (n = 197) to identify all FAI surgeons and to estimate how much arthroscopic FAI surgery they performed. We interviewed a purposive sample of 18 patients, 36 physiotherapists, 18 surgeons and two sports physicians to explore attitudes towards a RCT and used consensus-building methods among them to develop treatment protocols and patient information. Pilot RCT: we performed a pilot RCT in 10 hospital trusts. Patients were randomised to receive either hip arthroscopy or best conservative care and then followed up at 3, 6 and 12 months using patient-reported questionnaires for hip pain and function, activity level, quality of life, and a resource-use questionnaire. Qualitative recruitment intervention: we performed semistructured interviews with all researchers and clinicians involved in the pilot RCT in eight hospital trusts and recorded and analysed diagnostic and recruitment consultations with eligible patients. RESULTS We identified 120 surgeons who reported treating at least 1908 patients with FAI by hip arthroscopy in the NHS in the financial year 2011/12. There were 34 hospital trusts that performed ≥ 20 arthroscopic FAI operations in the year. We found that clinicians were positive about a RCT: only half reported equipoise, but most said that they would be prepared to randomise patients. Patients strongly supported a RCT, but expressed concerns about its design; these were used to develop patient information for the pilot RCT. We developed a surgical protocol and showed that this could be used in a RCT. We developed a physiotherapy-led exercise-based package of best conservative care called 'personalised hip therapy' and showed that this was practicable. In the pilot RCT, we recruited 42 out of 60 eligible patients (70%) across nine sites. The mean duration and recruitment rate across all sites were 4.5 months and one patient per site per month, respectively. The lead site recruited for the longest period (9.3 months) and accrued the largest number of patients (2.1 patients per month). We recorded and analysed 84 diagnostic and recruitment consultations in 60 patients and used these to develop a model for an optimal recruitment consultation. We identified the International Hip Outcome Tool at 12 months as an appropriate outcome measure and estimated the sample size for a full trial as 344 participants: a number that could be recruited in 25 centres over 18 months. CONCLUSION We have demonstrated that it is feasible to perform a RCT to establish the clinical effectiveness of hip arthroscopy compared with best conservative care for FAI. We have designed a full trial and developed and tested procedures for it, including an innovative approach to recruitment. We propose that a full trial be implemented. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Damian Griffin
- Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK
| | - Peter Wall
- Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK
| | - Alba Realpe
- Division of Mental Health and Wellbeing, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK
| | - Ann Adams
- Division of Mental Health and Wellbeing, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK
| | - Nick Parsons
- Department of Statistics and Epidemiology, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK
| | - Rachel Hobson
- Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK
| | - Juul Achten
- Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK
| | | | - Matthew Costa
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK
| | - Stavros Petrou
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK
| | - Nadine Foster
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Jenny Donovan
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
A 12-year follow-up of ANNA/C-TRUS image-targeted biopsies in patients suspicious for prostate cancer. World J Urol 2017; 36:699-704. [PMID: 29275507 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-017-2160-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/08/2017] [Accepted: 12/20/2017] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE PSA screening has been rehabilitated. PSA is not specific and can be elevated by benign reasons. Additionally, a subgroup of patients with prostate hyperplasia may harbor prostate cancer (PCa). During monitoring, the clinician aims to detect significant tumors in time, submitting patients to minimal psychological and physical burden, especially in men with high serum PSA and repeat biopsies. We aimed to determine long-term outcomes with respect to ANNA/C-TRUS ability to detect PCa with six targeted biopsies. METHODS A subset of 71 patients were enrolled. During monitoring, they were subjected to primary, secondary, or even multiple prostate biopsies when needed. Protocol monitoring included PSA measurements, digital rectal examination (DRE) and imaging. RESULTS The median follow-up was 12 years. Forty-one patients had a history of negative systematic random biopsies (1-3 sessions). Their age ranges 62-85 years, PSA 0.5-47.3 ng/ml, and the median prostate volume 11-255 cc. During monitoring, 15 patients were diagnosed with PCa. Only two harbored aggressive tumors. The median time to diagnosis was 6 years. All PCa patients are free from biochemical relapse. From the remaining 56 patients, 11 did not have any biopsies, 12 had one, 13 had two, and 20 had three or more biopsy sessions. CONCLUSIONS ANNA/C-TRUS is a useful method monitoring patients with a risk of PCa. 50-75% of the usually performed biopsy cores could be spared and, after 12 years, 97% of the patients were either without evidence of a PCa or were diagnosed with a good prognosis tumor.
Collapse
|
18
|
Brindle LA. GP-patient communication about possible cancer in primary care: Re-evaluating GP as gatekeeper. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2017; 26. [PMID: 28489299 DOI: 10.1111/ecc.12699] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/06/2017] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
As possibilities for the early detection of indolent cancers, and precursors to cancer, multiply, GPs will increasingly be involved in discussions with patients about risks and benefits of early diagnosis and treatment. Over time, improvements in evidence may decrease uncertainty about outcomes for patients and clinicians. However, where survival benefits are small, or uncertain, or risks are unacceptable to patients, grounds for preference-sensitive decision-making will remain. How risks and benefits of early detection, and the significance of indolent or low risk cancers, are communicated, will be key, if overtreatment and overdiagnosis are to be avoided.
Collapse
|
19
|
Prostat adenokarsinomlarında iğne biyopsileri ve radikal prostatektomi materyallerinin Gleason skoru açısından karşılaştırılması. KAHRAMANMARAŞ SÜTÇÜ İMAM ÜNIVERSITESI TIP FAKÜLTESI DERGISI 2017. [DOI: 10.17517/ksutfd.205510] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
|
20
|
Johnston TJ, Shaw GL, Lamb AD, Parashar D, Greenberg D, Xiong T, Edwards AL, Gnanapragasam V, Holding P, Herbert P, Davis M, Mizielinsk E, Lane JA, Oxley J, Robinson M, Mason M, Staffurth J, Bollina P, Catto J, Doble A, Doherty A, Gillatt D, Kockelbergh R, Kynaston H, Prescott S, Paul A, Powell P, Rosario D, Rowe E, Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Neal DE. Mortality Among Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer Excluded from the ProtecT Trial. Eur Urol 2016; 71:381-388. [PMID: 27720537 PMCID: PMC5289293 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.09.040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2016] [Accepted: 09/26/2016] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
Background Early detection and treatment of asymptomatic men with advanced and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) may improve survival rates. Objective To determine outcomes for men diagnosed with advanced PCa following prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing who were excluded from the ProtecT randomised trial. Design, setting, and participants Mortality was compared for 492 men followed up for a median of 7.4 yr to a contemporaneous cohort of men from the UK Anglia Cancer Network (ACN) and with a matched subset from the ACN. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis PCa-specific and all-cause mortality were compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox's proportional hazards regression. Results and limitations Of the 492 men excluded from the ProtecT cohort, 37 (8%) had metastases (N1, M0 = 5, M1 = 32) and 305 had locally advanced disease (62%). The median PSA was 17 μg/l. Treatments included radical prostatectomy (RP; n = 54; 11%), radiotherapy (RT; n = 245; 50%), androgen deprivation therapy (ADT; n = 122; 25%), other treatments (n = 11; 2%), and unknown (n = 60; 12%). There were 49 PCa-specific deaths (10%), of whom 14 men had received radical treatment (5%); and 129 all-cause deaths (26%). In matched ProtecT and ACN cohorts, 37 (9%) and 64 (16%), respectively, died of PCa, while 89 (22%) and 103 (26%) died of all causes. ProtecT men had a 45% lower risk of death from PCa compared to matched cases (hazard ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.38–0.83; p = 0.0037), but mortality was similar in those treated radically. The nonrandomised design is a limitation. Conclusions Men with PSA-detected advanced PCa excluded from ProtecT and treated radically had low rates of PCa death at 7.4-yr follow-up. Among men who underwent nonradical treatment, the ProtecT group had a lower rate of PCa death. Early detection through PSA testing, leadtime bias, and group heterogeneity are possible factors in this finding. Patient summary Prostate cancer that has spread outside the prostate gland without causing symptoms can be detected via prostate-specific antigen testing and treated, leading to low rates of death from this disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Greg L Shaw
- Academic Urology Group, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre, Cambridge, UK
| | - Alastair D Lamb
- Academic Urology Group, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre, Cambridge, UK
| | - Deepak Parashar
- Statistics and Epidemiology Unit & Cancer Research Centre, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - David Greenberg
- National Cancer Registration Service - Eastern Office, Public Health England, Cambridge, UK
| | - Tengbin Xiong
- Academic Urology Group, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | | | | | - Peter Holding
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Michael Davis
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | | | - J Athene Lane
- School of Social and Community Medicine, 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
| | - Malcolm Mason
- Division of Cancer and Genetics, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - John Staffurth
- Division of Cancer and Genetics, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, 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
| | - Roger Kockelbergh
- Department of Urology, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Howard Kynaston
- Department of Urology, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Cardiff, UK
| | - Steve Prescott
- Department of Urology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Alan Paul
- Department of Urology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Philip Powell
- Department of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
| | - Derek Rosario
- Academic Urology Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Edward Rowe
- Department of Urology, Southmead Hospital and Bristol Urological Institute, Bristol, UK
| | - Jenny L Donovan
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Freddie C Hamdy
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - David E Neal
- Academic Urology Group, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | | |
Collapse
|
21
|
Neyt M, Christiaens T, Demotes J, Walley T, Hulstaert F. Publicly funded practice-oriented clinical trials: of importance for healthcare payers. J Comp Eff Res 2016; 5:551-560. [PMID: 27595308 DOI: 10.2217/cer-2016-0018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
AIM Many questions of relevance to patients/society are not answered by industry-sponsored clinical trials. We consider whether there are benefits to governments in funding practice-oriented clinical trials. METHODOLOGY A literature search including publications on institutions' websites was performed and supplemented with information gathered from (inter)national stakeholders. RESULTS Areas were identified where public funding of clinical trials is of importance for society, such as head-to-head comparisons or medical areas where companies have no motivation to invest. The available literature suggests publicly funded research programs could provide a positive return on investment. The main hurdles (e.g., sufficient funding and absence of equipoise) and success factors (e.g., selection of research questions and research infrastructure) for the successful conduct of publicly funded trials were identified. CONCLUSION Governments should see public funding of pragmatic practice-oriented clinical trials as a good opportunity to improve the selection and quality of treatments and stimulate efficient use of limited resources.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mattias Neyt
- Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Brussels, Belgium
| | - Thierry Christiaens
- Ghent University, Belgium.,Belgian Centre for Pharmacotherapeutic Information (BCFI), Belguim
| | - Jacques Demotes
- European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN), Paris, France
| | - Tom Walley
- University of Liverpool, UK.,National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK
| | - Frank Hulstaert
- Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Brussels, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Lopera Toro AR, Correa Ochoa JJ, Martínez González CH, Velez Hoyos A, Riveros Angel M. Revisión de biopsias de próstata en un centro de nivel iv de complejidad: ¿realmente hay diferencias? Rev Urol 2016. [DOI: 10.1016/j.uroco.2016.05.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
23
|
Lane A, Metcalfe C, Young GJ, Peters TJ, Blazeby J, Avery KNL, Dedman D, Down L, Mason MD, Neal DE, Hamdy FC, Donovan JL. Patient-reported outcomes in the ProtecT randomized trial of clinically localized prostate cancer treatments: study design, and baseline urinary, bowel and sexual function and quality of life. BJU Int 2016; 118:869-879. [PMID: 27415448 PMCID: PMC5113698 DOI: 10.1111/bju.13582] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
Objectives To present the baseline patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) randomized trial comparing active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and external‐beam conformal radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer and to compare results with other populations. Materials and Methods A total of 1643 randomized men, aged 50–69 years and diagnosed with clinically localized disease identified by prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) testing, in nine UK cities in the period 1999–2009 were included. Validated PROMs for disease‐specific (urinary, bowel and sexual function) and condition‐specific impact on quality of life (Expanded Prostate Index Composite [EPIC], 2005 onwards; International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire‐Urinary Incontinence [ICIQ‐UI], 2001 onwards; the International Continence Society short‐form male survey [ICSmaleSF]; anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]), generic mental and physical health (12‐item short‐form health survey [SF‐12]; EuroQol quality‐of‐life survey, the EQ‐5D‐3L) were assessed at prostate biopsy clinics before randomization. Descriptive statistics are presented by treatment allocation and by men's age at biopsy and PSA testing time points for selected measures. Results A total of 1438 participants completed biopsy questionnaires (88%) and 77–88% of these were analysed for individual PROMs. Fewer than 1% of participants were using pads daily (5/754). Storage lower urinary tract symptoms were frequent (e.g. nocturia 22%, 312/1423). Bowel symptoms were rare, except for loose stools (16%, 118/754). One third of participants reported erectile dysfunction (241/735) and for 16% (118/731) this was a moderate or large problem. Depression was infrequent (80/1399, 6%) but 20% of participants (278/1403) reported anxiety. Sexual function and bother were markedly worse in older men (65–70 years), whilst urinary bother and physical health were somewhat worse than in younger men (49–54 years, all P < 0.001). Bowel health, urinary function and depression were unaltered by age, whilst mental health and anxiety were better in older men (P < 0.001). Only minor differences existed in mental or physical health, anxiety and depression between PSA testing and biopsy assessments. Conclusion The ProtecT trial baseline PROMs response rates were high. Symptom frequencies and generic quality of life were similar to those observed in populations screened for prostate cancer and control subjects without cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Athene Lane
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.,Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, 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
| | - Grace J Young
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.,Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Tim J Peters
- School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.,Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West, United Hospitals Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Jane Blazeby
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Kerry N L Avery
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Daniel Dedman
- Clinical Practice Research Datalink Group, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, London, UK
| | - Liz Down
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | | | - David E Neal
- Nuffield Department of Surgery, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Freddie C Hamdy
- Nuffield Department of Surgery, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Jenny L Donovan
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.,Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West, United Hospitals Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Rubio-Briones J, Borque Fernando Á. Responses and advisability of active surveillance in prostate cancer (in response to editorial comments by Dr. Sánchez Badajoz). Actas Urol Esp 2016; 40:72-4. [PMID: 26454355 DOI: 10.1016/j.acuro.2015.08.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/26/2015] [Accepted: 08/29/2015] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- J Rubio-Briones
- Servicio de Urología, Instituto Valenciano de Urología, Valencia, España
| | - Á Borque Fernando
- Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, España.
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Realpe A, Adams A, Wall P, Griffin D, Donovan JL. A new simple six-step model to promote recruitment to RCTs was developed and successfully implemented. J Clin Epidemiol 2016; 76:166-74. [PMID: 26898705 PMCID: PMC5045272 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.02.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2015] [Revised: 01/29/2016] [Accepted: 02/12/2016] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES How a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is explained to patients is a key determinant of recruitment to that trial. This study developed and implemented a simple six-step model to fully inform patients and to support them in deciding whether to take part or not. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Ninety-two consultations with 60 new patients were recorded and analyzed during a pilot RCT comparing surgical and nonsurgical interventions for hip impingement. Recordings were analyzed using techniques of thematic analysis and focused conversation analysis. RESULTS Early findings supported the development of a simple six-step model to provide a framework for good recruitment practice. Model steps are as follows: (1) explain the condition, (2) reassure patients about receiving treatment, (3) establish uncertainty, (4) explain the study purpose, (5) give a balanced view of treatments, and (6) Explain study procedures. There are also two elements throughout the consultation: (1) responding to patients' concerns and (2) showing confidence. The pilot study was successful, with 70% (n = 60) of patients approached across nine centers agreeing to take part in the RCT, so that the full-scale trial was funded. CONCLUSION The six-step model provides a promising framework for successful recruitment to RCTs. Further testing of the model is now required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alba Realpe
- Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom
| | - Ann Adams
- Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom
| | - Peter Wall
- Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom
| | - Damian Griffin
- Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom.
| | - Jenny L Donovan
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, Bristol, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
McDonald ML, Parsons JK. 4-Kallikrein Test and Kallikrein Markers in Prostate Cancer Screening. Urol Clin North Am 2016; 43:39-46. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ucl.2015.08.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
|
27
|
Preliminary results of the Spanish Association of Urology National Registry in Active Surveillance for prostate cancer. Actas Urol Esp 2016; 40:3-10. [PMID: 26115777 DOI: 10.1016/j.acuro.2015.05.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2015] [Accepted: 05/20/2015] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To present a National Registry of patients with prostate cancer as monitored through active surveillance, with the intention of testing the hypothesis that cancer-specific mortality in very low-risk and low-risk patients is less than 5% at 15 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS A multicentre observational study (AEU-PIEM/2014/0001) sponsored by the Spanish Association of Urology was conducted using their platform for multicentre studies. The clinical-pathological inclusion criteria were as follows: cT1a-cT3a, PSA ≤ 20 ng/ml, initial minimum biopsy of 10 cores, number of affected cores ≤ 3, 1st Gleason score of 3 and 2nd Gleason score ≤ 4 and a known prostate volume (in cc). A unified follow-up was not established for all recruiting centres; however, a survey was conducted that reflects the follow-up characteristics based on a number of tangible parameters that allow for their comparison. With the same philosophy of flexibility, the use of certain biomarkers and multiparametric MRI was not considered necessary for inclusion. RESULTS We describe the Registry's characteristics and possibilities, as well as the preliminary results from the 324 patients included in its first 5 months of operation in the 15 recruiting centres. We also report the clinical-pathological variables, biomarkers, radiodiagnosis technique and quality-of-life questionnaires considered for the database, as well as the possibilities for indefinite follow-up, remaining open to any active treatment recognized in clinical guidelines. CONCLUSIONS The AEU-PIEM/2014/0001 represents an extremely useful tool for all Spanish urologists for multicentre clinical research. The registry will undoubtedly enable the dissemination of active surveillance of our patients in a more coordinated manner, thus maintaining the advantages of optimised opportunistic screening for prostate cancer without resulting in overtreatment.
Collapse
|
28
|
Raftery J, Young A, Stanton L, Milne R, Cook A, Turner D, Davidson P. Clinical trial metadata: defining and extracting metadata on the design, conduct, results and costs of 125 randomised clinical trials funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. Health Technol Assess 2015; 19:1-138. [PMID: 25671821 DOI: 10.3310/hta19110] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND By 2011, the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme had published the results of over 100 trials with another 220 in progress. The aim of the project was to develop and pilot 'metadata' on clinical trials funded by the HTA programme. OBJECTIVES The aim of the project was to develop and pilot questions describing clinical trials funded by the HTA programme in terms of it meeting the needs of the NHS with scientifically robust studies. The objectives were to develop relevant classification systems and definitions for use in answering relevant questions and to assess their utility. DATA SOURCES Published monographs and internal HTA documents. REVIEW METHODS A database was developed, 'populated' using retrospective data and used to answer questions under six prespecified themes. Questions were screened for feasibility in terms of data availability and/or ease of extraction. Answers were assessed by the authors in terms of completeness, success of the classification system used and resources required. Each question was scored to be retained, amended or dropped. RESULTS One hundred and twenty-five randomised trials were included in the database from 109 monographs. Neither the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number nor the term 'randomised trial' in the title proved a reliable way of identifying randomised trials. Only limited data were available on how the trials aimed to meet the needs of the NHS. Most trials were shown to follow their protocols but updates were often necessary as hardly any trials recruited as planned. Details were often lacking on planned statistical analyses, but we did not have access to the relevant statistical plans. Almost all the trials reported on cost-effectiveness, often in terms of both the primary outcome and quality-adjusted life-years. The cost of trials was shown to depend on the number of centres and the duration of the trial. Of the 78 questions explored, 61 were well answered, 33 fully with 28 requiring amendment were the analysis updated. The other 17 could not be answered with readily available data. LIMITATIONS The study was limited by being confined to 125 randomised trials by one funder. CONCLUSIONS Metadata on randomised controlled trials can be expanded to include aspects of design, performance, results and costs. The HTA programme should continue and extend the work reported here. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research HTA programme.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James Raftery
- Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Amanda Young
- Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Louise Stanton
- University of Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK
| | - Ruairidh Milne
- Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Andrew Cook
- Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - David Turner
- Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Peter Davidson
- Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Boehm K, Tennstedt P, Beyer B, Schiffmann J, Beckmann A, Michl U, Beyersdorff D, Budäus L, Graefen M, Karakiewicz PI, Salomon G. Additional elastography-targeted biopsy improves the agreement between biopsy Gleason grade and Gleason grade at radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 2015; 34:805-10. [DOI: 10.1007/s00345-015-1714-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2015] [Accepted: 10/13/2015] [Indexed: 10/22/2022] Open
|
30
|
Pashayan N, Duffy SW, Neal DE, Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Martin RM, Harrington P, Benlloch S, Amin Al Olama A, Shah M, Kote-Jarai Z, Easton DF, Eeles R, Pharoah PD. Implications of polygenic risk-stratified screening for prostate cancer on overdiagnosis. Genet Med 2015; 17:789-95. [PMID: 25569441 PMCID: PMC4430305 DOI: 10.1038/gim.2014.192] [Citation(s) in RCA: 72] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2014] [Accepted: 11/20/2014] [Indexed: 01/19/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE This study aimed to quantify the probability of overdiagnosis of prostate cancer by polygenic risk. METHODS We calculated the polygenic risk score based on 66 known prostate cancer susceptibility variants for 17,012 men aged 50-69 years (9,404 men identified with prostate cancer and 7,608 with no cancer) derived from three UK-based ongoing studies. We derived the probabilities of overdiagnosis by quartiles of polygenic risk considering that the observed prevalence of screen-detected prostate cancer is a combination of underlying incidence, mean sojourn time (MST), test sensitivity, and overdiagnosis. RESULTS Polygenic risk quartiles 1 to 4 comprised 9, 18, 25, and 48% of the cases, respectively. For a prostate-specific antigen test sensitivity of 80% and MST of 9 years, 43, 30, 25, and 19% of the prevalent screen-detected cancers in quartiles 1 to 4, respectively, were likely to be overdiagnosed cancers. Overdiagnosis decreased with increasing polygenic risk, with 56% decrease between the lowest and the highest polygenic risk quartiles. CONCLUSION Targeting screening to men at higher polygenic risk could reduce the problem of overdiagnosis and lead to a better benefit-to-harm balance in screening for prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nora Pashayan
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK
| | - Stephen W. Duffy
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Mathematics and Statistics, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - David E. Neal
- Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Freddie C. Hamdy
- Nuffield Department of Surgery, Oxford John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford, UK
| | - Jenny L. Donovan
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Richard M. Martin
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Patricia Harrington
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Strangeways Research Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Sara Benlloch
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Strangeways Research Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Ali Amin Al Olama
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Strangeways Research Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Mitul Shah
- Department of Oncology, Strangeways Research Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Zsofia Kote-Jarai
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research & Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Douglas F. Easton
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Strangeways Research Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Rosalind Eeles
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research & Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Paul D. Pharoah
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Strangeways Research Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Little J, Wilson B, Carter R, Walker K, Santaguida P, Tomiak E, Beyene J, Usman Ali M, Raina P. Multigene panels in prostate cancer risk assessment: a systematic review. Genet Med 2015; 18:535-44. [PMID: 26426883 DOI: 10.1038/gim.2015.125] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/19/2015] [Accepted: 07/27/2015] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel tests have been proposed for use in the detection of, and prediction of risk for, prostate cancer and as prognostic indicator in affected men. A systematic review was undertaken to address three research questions to evaluate the analytic validity, clinical validity, clinical utility, and prognostic validity of SNP-based panels. METHODS Data sources comprised MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and EMBASE; these were searched from inception to April 2013. The gray-literature searches included contact with manufacturers. Eligible studies included English-language studies evaluating commercially available SNP panels. Study selection and risk of bias assessment were undertaken by two independent reviewers. RESULTS Twenty-one studies met eligibility criteria. All focused on clinical validity and evaluated 18 individual panels with 2 to 35 SNPs. All had poor discriminative ability (overall area under receiver-operator characteristic curves, 58-74%; incremental gain resulting from inclusion of SNP data, 2.5-11%) for predicting risk of prostate cancer and/or distinguishing between aggressive and asymptomatic/latent disease. The risk of bias of the studies, as assessed by the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tools, was moderate. CONCLUSION The evidence on currently available SNP panels is insufficient to assess analytic validity, and at best the panels assessed would add a small and clinically unimportant improvement to factors such as age and family history in risk stratification (clinical validity). No evidence on the clinical utility of current panels is available.Genet Med 18 6, 535-544.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julian Little
- School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Brenda Wilson
- School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ron Carter
- Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Kate Walker
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Pasqualina Santaguida
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Eva Tomiak
- The Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Joseph Beyene
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Muhammad Usman Ali
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Parminder Raina
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Wade J, Holding PN, Bonnington S, Rooshenas L, Lane JA, Salter CE, Tilling K, Speakman MJ, Brewster SF, Evans S, Neal DE, Hamdy FC, Donovan JL. Establishing nurse-led active surveillance for men with localised prostate cancer: development and formative evaluation of a model of care in the ProtecT trial. BMJ Open 2015; 5:e008953. [PMID: 26384727 PMCID: PMC4577970 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008953] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2015] [Revised: 08/18/2015] [Accepted: 08/21/2015] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julia Wade
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK
| | - Peter N Holding
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Susan Bonnington
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Leila Rooshenas
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK
| | - J Athene Lane
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK
| | | | - Kate Tilling
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK
| | - Mark J Speakman
- Department of Urology, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, UK
| | - Simon F Brewster
- Department of Urology, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Simon Evans
- Department of Urology, Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK
| | - David E Neal
- University Department of Oncology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, University of Cambridge, UK
| | - Freddie C Hamdy
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Jenny L Donovan
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK
- NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Hoffman RM, Shi Y, Freedland SJ, Keating NL, Walter LC. Treatment patterns for older veterans with localized prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol 2015; 39:769-77. [PMID: 26228494 DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2015.07.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2015] [Revised: 05/28/2015] [Accepted: 07/13/2015] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Concerns about over-treatment have led to practice guidelines discouraging active treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) in men with limited life expectancies and/or low-risk tumors. We evaluated treatment patterns for older veterans with localized PCa, particularly those with low-risk features. METHODS We used VA Cancer Registry data to identify men aged 65+ diagnosed with clinically localized PCa between January 1st, 2003 and December 31st, 2008. We obtained baseline data on demographics, tumor characteristics, comorbidities, and initial treatment within 6 months of diagnosis: radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy, primary androgen-deprivation therapy (PADT), or no active treatment. National VA surveys provided facility data, including academic affiliation, availability of oncologic specialists, and distance to radiotherapy facilities. Multinomial regression analyses determined associations between patient and facility characteristics and cancer treatment for men with localized (stage<III) and low-risk PCa (stage≤IIa, PSA<10ng/mL, Gleason ≤6). RESULTS 17,206 veterans had localized PCa, 32% age 75+, 12% had comorbidity scores ≥3, and 33% had low-risk tumors. Overall, 39% received radiotherapy, 6% surgery, 20% PADT, and 35% no active treatment. For those with low-risk cancers, older men (RR=0.36, 95% CI 0.30-0.43) and sicker men (RR=0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.90) were less likely to receive surgery or radiotherapy versus no active treatment. Over time, more of these men received no active treatment (from 41% to 57%, P<0.001) while fewer received PADT (from 11% to 4%, P<0.001). CONCLUSION VA treatment patterns followed evidence-based guidelines against treating older and sicker men with surgery or radiotherapy, for decreasing use of PADT, and for increasingly withholding active treatment, particularly for men with low-risk PCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard M Hoffman
- Department of Medicine, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
| | - Ying Shi
- San Francisco VA Medical Center, San Francisco, California, USA; Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
| | - Stephen J Freedland
- Urology Division, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
| | - Nancy L Keating
- Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, and Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
| | - Louise C Walter
- San Francisco VA Medical Center, San Francisco, California, USA; Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Simpkin AJ, Rooshenas L, Wade J, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Martin RM, Metcalfe C, Albertsen PC, Hamdy FC, Holmberg L, Neal DE, Tilling K. Development, validation and evaluation of an instrument for active monitoring of men with clinically localised prostate cancer: systematic review, cohort studies and qualitative study. HEALTH SERVICES AND DELIVERY RESEARCH 2015. [DOI: 10.3310/hsdr03300] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BackgroundActive surveillance [(AS), sometimes called active monitoring (AM)],is a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended management option for men with clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). It aims to target radical treatment only to those who would benefit most. Little consensus exists nationally or internationally about safe and effective protocols for AM/AS or triggers that indicate if or when men should move to radical treatment.ObjectiveThe aims of this project were to review how prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has been used in AM/AS programmes; to develop and test the validity of a new model for predicting future PSA levels; to develop an instrument, based on PSA, that would be acceptable and effective for men and clinicians to use in clinical practice; and to design a robust study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the instrument.MethodsA systematic review was conducted to investigate how PSA is currently used to monitor men in worldwide AM/AS studies. A model for PSA change with age was developed using Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) data and validated using data from two PSA-era cohorts and two pre-PSA-era cohorts. The model was used to derive 95% PSA reference ranges (PSARRs) across ages. These reference ranges were used to predict the onset of metastases or death from PCa in one of the pre-PSA-era cohorts. PSARRs were incorporated into an active monitoring system (AMS) and demonstrated to 18 clinicians and 20 men with PCa from four NHS trusts. Qualitative interviews investigated patients’ and clinicians’ views about current AM/AS protocols and the acceptability of the AMS within current practice.ResultsThe systematic review found that the most commonly used triggers for clinical review of PCa were PSA doubling time (PSADT) < 3 years or PSA velocity (PSAv) > 1 ng/ml/year. The model for PSA change (developed using ProtecT study data) predicted PSA values in AM/AS cohorts within 2 ng/ml of observed PSA in up to 79% of men. Comparing the three PSA markers, there was no clear optimal approach to alerting men to worsening cancer. The PSARR and PSADT markers improved the modelc-statistic for predicting death from PCa by 0.11 (21%) and 0.13 (25%), respectively, compared with using diagnostic information alone [PSA, age, tumour stage (T-stage)]. Interviews revealed variation in clinical practice regarding eligibility and follow-up protocols. Patients and clinicians perceive current AM/AS practice to be framed by uncertainty, ranging from uncertainty about selection of eligible AM/AS candidates to uncertainty about optimum follow-up protocols and thresholds for clinical review/radical treatment. Patients and clinicians generally responded positively to the AMS. The impact of the AMS on clinicians’ decision-making was limited by a lack of data linking AMS values to long-term outcomes and by current clinical practice, which viewed PSA measures as one of several tools guiding clinical decisions in AM/AS. Patients reported that they would look to clinicians, rather than to a tool, to direct decision-making.LimitationsThe quantitative findings were severely hampered by a lack of clinical outcomes or events (such as metastases). The qualitative findings were limited through reliance on participants’ reports of practices and recollections of events rather than observations of actual interactions.ConclusionsPatients and clinicians found that the instrument provided additional, potentially helpful, information but were uncertain about the current usefulness of the risk model we developed for routine management. Comparison of the model with other monitoring strategies will require clinical outcomes from ongoing AM/AS studies.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew J Simpkin
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Leila Rooshenas
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Julia Wade
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Jenny L Donovan
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - J Athene Lane
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Richard M Martin
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Chris Metcalfe
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Peter C Albertsen
- Division of Urology, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT, USA
| | - Freddie C Hamdy
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Lars Holmberg
- Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King’s College London, London, UK
- Regional Cancer Centre, Uppsala/Örebro Region, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - David E Neal
- Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Kate Tilling
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
When to biopsy seminal vesicles. Actas Urol Esp 2015; 39:203-9. [PMID: 25466644 DOI: 10.1016/j.acuro.2014.10.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/10/2014] [Revised: 10/07/2014] [Accepted: 10/09/2014] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The involvement of seminal vesicles in prostate cancer can affect the prognosis and determine the treatment. The objective of this study was to determine whether we could predict its infiltration at the time of the prostate biopsy to know when to indicate the biopsy of the seminal vesicles. MATERIAL AND METHODS observational retrospective study of 466 patients who underwent seminal vesicle biopsy. The indication for this biopsy was a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level greater than 10 ng/ml or an asymmetric or obliterated prostatoseminal angle. The following variables were included in the analysis: PSA level, PSA density, prostate volume, number of cores biopsied, suspicious rectal examination, and preservation of the prostatoseminal angle, studying its relationship with the involvement of the seminal vesicles. RESULTS Forty-one patients (8.8%) had infiltrated seminal vesicles and 425 (91.2%) had no involvement. In the univariate analysis, the cases with infiltration had a higher mean PSA level (P < .01) and PSA density (P < .01), as well as a lower mean prostate volume (P < .01). A suspicious rectal examination (20.7% of the infiltrated vesicles) and the obliteration or asymmetry of the prostatoseminal angle (33.3% of the infiltrated vesicles) were significantly related to the involvement (P < .01). In the multivariate analysis, we concluded that the probability of having infiltrated seminal vesicles is 5.19 times higher if the prostatoseminal angle is not preserved (P < .01), 4.65 times higher for PSA levels >19.60 ng/dL (P < .01) and 2.95 times higher if there is a suspicious rectal examination (P = .014). Furthermore, this probability increases by 1.04 times for each unit of prostate volume lower (P < .01). The ROC curves showed maximum sensitivity and specificity at 19.6 ng/mL for PSA and 0.39 for PSA density. CONCLUSIONS In this series, greater involvement of seminal vesicles was associated with a PSA level ≥20 ng/ml, a suspicious rectal examination and a lack of prostatoseminal angle preservation.
Collapse
|
36
|
Bryant RJ, Sjoberg DD, Vickers AJ, Robinson MC, Kumar R, Marsden L, Davis M, Scardino PT, Donovan J, Neal DE, Lilja H, Hamdy FC. Predicting high-grade cancer at ten-core prostate biopsy using four kallikrein markers measured in blood in the ProtecT study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015; 107:djv095. [PMID: 25863334 PMCID: PMC4554254 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djv095] [Citation(s) in RCA: 125] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Many men with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels in serum do not have aggressive prostate cancer and undergo unnecessary biopsy. Retrospective studies using cryopreserved serum suggest that four kallikrein markers can predict biopsy outcome. Methods: Free, intact and total PSA, and kallikrein-related peptidase 2 were measured in cryopreserved blood from 6129 men with elevated PSA (≥3.0ng/mL) participating in the prospective, randomized trial Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment. Marker levels from 4765 men providing anticoagulated plasma were incorporated into statistical models to predict any-grade and high-grade (Gleason score ≥7) prostate cancer at 10-core biopsy. The models were corrected for optimism by 10-fold cross validation and independently validated using markers measured in serum from 1364 men. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: The four kallikreins enhanced prostate cancer detection compared with PSA and age alone. Area under the curve (AUC) for the four kallikreins was 0.719 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.704 to 0.734) vs 0.634 (95% CI = 0.617 to 0.651, P < .001) for PSA and age alone for any-grade cancer, and 0.820 (95% CI = 0.802 to 0.838) vs 0.738 (95% CI = 0.716 to 0.761) for high-grade cancer. Using a 6% risk of high-grade cancer as an illustrative cutoff, for 1000 biopsied men with PSA levels of 3.0ng/mL or higher, the model would reduce the need for biopsy in 428 men, detect 119 high-grade cancers, and delay diagnosis of 14 of 133 high-grade cancers. Models exhibited excellent discrimination on independent validation among men with only serum samples available for analysis. Conclusions: A statistical model based on kallikrein markers was validated in a large prospective study and reduces unnecessary biopsies while delaying diagnosis of high-grade cancers in few men.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard J Bryant
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, UK (RJB, RK, LM, HL, FCH); Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (DDS, AJV); Department of Cellular Pathology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK (MCR); School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK (MD); Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (PTS, HL); Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, UK (DEN); Departments of Laboratory Medicine (Clinical Chemistry Service) and Medicine (Genitourinary Oncology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (HL); Department of Laboratory Medicine and Clinical Sciences in Malmö, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden; and Institute of Biomedical Technology, University of Tampere, Finland (HL)
| | - Daniel D Sjoberg
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, UK (RJB, RK, LM, HL, FCH); Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (DDS, AJV); Department of Cellular Pathology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK (MCR); School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK (MD); Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (PTS, HL); Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, UK (DEN); Departments of Laboratory Medicine (Clinical Chemistry Service) and Medicine (Genitourinary Oncology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (HL); Department of Laboratory Medicine and Clinical Sciences in Malmö, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden; and Institute of Biomedical Technology, University of Tampere, Finland (HL)
| | - Andrew J Vickers
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, UK (RJB, RK, LM, HL, FCH); Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (DDS, AJV); Department of Cellular Pathology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK (MCR); School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK (MD); Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (PTS, HL); Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, UK (DEN); Departments of Laboratory Medicine (Clinical Chemistry Service) and Medicine (Genitourinary Oncology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (HL); Department of Laboratory Medicine and Clinical Sciences in Malmö, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden; and Institute of Biomedical Technology, University of Tampere, Finland (HL)
| | - Mary C Robinson
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, UK (RJB, RK, LM, HL, FCH); Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (DDS, AJV); Department of Cellular Pathology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK (MCR); School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK (MD); Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (PTS, HL); Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, UK (DEN); Departments of Laboratory Medicine (Clinical Chemistry Service) and Medicine (Genitourinary Oncology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (HL); Department of Laboratory Medicine and Clinical Sciences in Malmö, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden; and Institute of Biomedical Technology, University of Tampere, Finland (HL)
| | - Rajeev Kumar
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, UK (RJB, RK, LM, HL, FCH); Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (DDS, AJV); Department of Cellular Pathology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK (MCR); School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK (MD); Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (PTS, HL); Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, UK (DEN); Departments of Laboratory Medicine (Clinical Chemistry Service) and Medicine (Genitourinary Oncology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (HL); Department of Laboratory Medicine and Clinical Sciences in Malmö, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden; and Institute of Biomedical Technology, University of Tampere, Finland (HL)
| | - Luke Marsden
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, UK (RJB, RK, LM, HL, FCH); Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (DDS, AJV); Department of Cellular Pathology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK (MCR); School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK (MD); Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (PTS, HL); Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, UK (DEN); Departments of Laboratory Medicine (Clinical Chemistry Service) and Medicine (Genitourinary Oncology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (HL); Department of Laboratory Medicine and Clinical Sciences in Malmö, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden; and Institute of Biomedical Technology, University of Tampere, Finland (HL)
| | - Michael Davis
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, UK (RJB, RK, LM, HL, FCH); Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (DDS, AJV); Department of Cellular Pathology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK (MCR); School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK (MD); Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (PTS, HL); Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, UK (DEN); Departments of Laboratory Medicine (Clinical Chemistry Service) and Medicine (Genitourinary Oncology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (HL); Department of Laboratory Medicine and Clinical Sciences in Malmö, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden; and Institute of Biomedical Technology, University of Tampere, Finland (HL)
| | - Peter T Scardino
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, UK (RJB, RK, LM, HL, FCH); Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (DDS, AJV); Department of Cellular Pathology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK (MCR); School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK (MD); Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (PTS, HL); Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, UK (DEN); Departments of Laboratory Medicine (Clinical Chemistry Service) and Medicine (Genitourinary Oncology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (HL); Department of Laboratory Medicine and Clinical Sciences in Malmö, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden; and Institute of Biomedical Technology, University of Tampere, Finland (HL)
| | - Jenny Donovan
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, UK (RJB, RK, LM, HL, FCH); Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (DDS, AJV); Department of Cellular Pathology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK (MCR); School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK (MD); Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (PTS, HL); Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, UK (DEN); Departments of Laboratory Medicine (Clinical Chemistry Service) and Medicine (Genitourinary Oncology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (HL); Department of Laboratory Medicine and Clinical Sciences in Malmö, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden; and Institute of Biomedical Technology, University of Tampere, Finland (HL)
| | - David E Neal
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, UK (RJB, RK, LM, HL, FCH); Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (DDS, AJV); Department of Cellular Pathology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK (MCR); School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK (MD); Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (PTS, HL); Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, UK (DEN); Departments of Laboratory Medicine (Clinical Chemistry Service) and Medicine (Genitourinary Oncology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (HL); Department of Laboratory Medicine and Clinical Sciences in Malmö, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden; and Institute of Biomedical Technology, University of Tampere, Finland (HL)
| | - Hans Lilja
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, UK (RJB, RK, LM, HL, FCH); Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (DDS, AJV); Department of Cellular Pathology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK (MCR); School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK (MD); Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (PTS, HL); Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, UK (DEN); Departments of Laboratory Medicine (Clinical Chemistry Service) and Medicine (Genitourinary Oncology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (HL); Department of Laboratory Medicine and Clinical Sciences in Malmö, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden; and Institute of Biomedical Technology, University of Tampere, Finland (HL).
| | - Freddie C Hamdy
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, UK (RJB, RK, LM, HL, FCH); Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (DDS, AJV); Department of Cellular Pathology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK (MCR); School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK (MD); Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (PTS, HL); Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, UK (DEN); Departments of Laboratory Medicine (Clinical Chemistry Service) and Medicine (Genitourinary Oncology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (HL); Department of Laboratory Medicine and Clinical Sciences in Malmö, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden; and Institute of Biomedical Technology, University of Tampere, Finland (HL)
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Anastasiadis E, Ahmed HU, Relton C, Emberton M. A novel randomised controlled trial design in prostate cancer. BJU Int 2015; 116:6-8. [PMID: 24628741 DOI: 10.1111/bju.12735] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Eleni Anastasiadis
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit (CEU), Royal College of Surgeons of England and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Hashim Uddin Ahmed
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.,Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Clare Relton
- School of Health and Related Research (Public Health section), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Mark Emberton
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.,Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Jones S, Purnendu M, Christian S. Outcome analysis of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy procedure: a retrospective audit comparing associate consultant and nurse specialist in urology to determine the effectiveness and safety of a nurse-led prostate biopsy clinic. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGICAL NURSING 2015. [DOI: 10.1111/ijun.12033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Sandie Jones
- Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Wrexham Maelor Hospital; Croesnewydd Road Wrexham North Wales LL13 7TD UK
| | | | - Seipp Christian
- Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Wrexham Maelor Hospital; Croesnewydd Road Wrexham North Wales LL13 7TD UK
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Albertsen PC. Words of wisdom. Re: Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2015; 66:1187. [PMID: 25587591 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
|
40
|
Bon H, Wadhwa K, Schreiner A, Osborne M, Carroll T, Ramos-Montoya A, Ross-Adams H, Visser M, Hoffmann R, Ahmed AA, Neal DE, Mills IG. Salt-inducible kinase 2 regulates mitotic progression and transcription in prostate cancer. Mol Cancer Res 2014; 13:620-635. [PMID: 25548099 DOI: 10.1158/1541-7786.mcr-13-0182-t] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2013] [Accepted: 12/02/2014] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
UNLABELLED Salt-inducible kinase 2 (SIK2) is a multifunctional kinase of the AMPK family that plays a role in CREB1-mediated gene transcription and was recently reported to have therapeutic potential in ovarian cancer. The expression of this kinase was investigated in prostate cancer clinical specimens. Interestingly, auto-antibodies against SIK2 were increased in the plasma of patients with aggressive disease. Examination of SIK2 in prostate cancer cells found that it functions both as a positive regulator of cell-cycle progression and a negative regulator of CREB1 activity. Knockdown of SIK2 inhibited cell growth, delayed cell-cycle progression, induced cell death, and enhanced CREB1 activity. Expression of a kinase-dead mutant of SIK2 also inhibited cell growth, induced cell death, and enhanced CREB1 activity. Treatment with a small-molecule SIK2 inhibitor (ARN-3236), currently in preclinical development, also led to enhanced CREB1 activity in a dose- and time-dependent manner. Because CREB1 is a transcription factor and proto-oncogene, it was posited that the effects of SIK2 on cell proliferation and viability might be mediated by changes in gene expression. To test this, gene expression array profiling was performed and while SIK2 knockdown or overexpression of the kinase-dead mutant affected established CREB1 target genes; the overlap with transcripts regulated by forskolin (FSK), the adenylate cyclase/CREB1 pathway activator, was incomplete. IMPLICATIONS This study demonstrates that targeting SIK2 genetically or therapeutically will have pleiotropic effects on cell-cycle progression and transcription factor activation, which should be accounted for when characterizing SIK2 inhibitors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hélène Bon
- Uro-oncology Research Group, Cambridge Research Institute, Cambridge, CB2 0RE, UK
| | - Karan Wadhwa
- Uro-oncology Research Group, Cambridge Research Institute, Cambridge, CB2 0RE, UK
| | - Alexander Schreiner
- Microscopy and Imaging Core, Cambridge Research Institute, Cambridge, CB2 0RE, UK
| | - Michelle Osborne
- Genomics Core, Cambridge Research Institute, Cambridge, CB2 ORE, UK
| | - Thomas Carroll
- Bioinformatics Core, Cambridge Research Institute, Cambridge, CB2 0RE, UK
| | | | - Helen Ross-Adams
- Uro-oncology Research Group, Cambridge Research Institute, Cambridge, CB2 0RE, UK
| | - Matthieu Visser
- Health Care Innovation, Philips Research, Eidhoven, Netherlands
| | - Ralf Hoffmann
- Molecular Diagnostics, Philips Research, Eindhoven, Netherlands
| | - Ahmed Ashour Ahmed
- Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Oxford, OX3 9DS and Nuffield Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK
| | - David E Neal
- Uro-oncology Research Group, Cambridge Research Institute, Cambridge, CB2 0RE, UK.,Department of Urology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, CB2 2QQ, UK.,Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 2QQ, UK
| | - Ian G Mills
- Uro-oncology Research Group, Cambridge Research Institute, Cambridge, CB2 0RE, UK.,Department of Urology, Oslo University Hospital, 0424 Oslo, Norway.,Department of Cancer Prevention, Oslo University Hospital, 0424 Oslo, Norway.,Prostate Cancer Research Group, Centre for Molecular Medicine Norway, University of Oslo and Oslo University Hospital, N-0349, Oslo, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Parekh DJ, Punnen S, Sjoberg DD, Asroff SW, Bailen JL, Cochran JS, Concepcion R, David RD, Deck KB, Dumbadze I, Gambla M, Grable MS, Henderson RJ, Karsh L, Krisch EB, Langford TD, Lin DW, McGee SM, Munoz JJ, Pieczonka CM, Rieger-Christ K, Saltzstein DR, Scott JW, Shore ND, Sieber PR, Waldmann TM, Wolk FN, Zappala SM. A multi-institutional prospective trial in the USA confirms that the 4Kscore accurately identifies men with high-grade prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2014; 68:464-70. [PMID: 25454615 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 276] [Impact Index Per Article: 27.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/30/2014] [Accepted: 10/13/2014] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The 4Kscore combines measurement of four kallikreins in blood with clinical information as a measure of the probability of significant (Gleason ≥7) prostate cancer (PCa) before prostate biopsy. OBJECTIVE To perform the first prospective evaluation of the 4Kscore in predicting Gleason ≥7 PCa in the USA. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Prospective enrollment of 1012 men scheduled for prostate biopsy, regardless of prostate-specific antigen level or clinical findings, was conducted at 26 US urology centers between October 2013 and April 2014. INTERVENTION The 4Kscore. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The primary outcome was Gleason ≥7 PCa on prostate biopsy. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, risk calibration, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were determined, along with comparisons of probability cutoffs for reducing the number of biopsies and their impact on delaying diagnosis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Gleason ≥7 PCa was found in 231 (23%) of the 1012 patients. The 4Kscore showed excellent calibration and demonstrated higher discrimination (AUC 0.82) and net benefit compared to a modified Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator 2.0 model and standard of care (biopsy for all men) according to DCA. A possible reduction of 30-58% in the number biopsies was identified with delayed diagnosis in only 1.3-4.7% of Gleason ≥7 PCa cases, depending on the threshold used for biopsy. Pathological assessment was performed according to the standard of care at each site without centralized review. CONCLUSION The 4Kscore showed excellent diagnostic performance in detecting significant PCa. It is a useful tool in selecting men who have significant disease and are most likely to benefit from a prostate biopsy from men with no cancer or indolent cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY The 4Kscore provides each patient with an accurate and personalized measure of the risk of Gleason ≥7 cancer to aid in decision-making regarding the need for prostate biopsy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dipen J Parekh
- Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and Sylvestor Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, FL, USA.
| | - Sanoj Punnen
- Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and Sylvestor Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, FL, USA
| | - Daniel D Sjoberg
- Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
42
|
Tomlin Z, deSalis I, Toerien M, Donovan JL. Patient advocacy and patient centredness in participant recruitment to randomized-controlled trials: implications for informed consent. Health Expect 2014; 17:670-82. [PMID: 22712887 PMCID: PMC5060918 DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00792.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
CONTEXT With the routinization of evidence-based medicine and of the randomized-controlled trial (RCT), more patients are becoming 'sites of evidence production' yet, little is known about how they are recruited as participants; there is some evidence that 'substantively valid consent' is difficult to achieve. OBJECTIVE To explore the views and experiences of nurses recruiting patients to randomized-controlled trials and to examine the extent to which their recruitment practices were patient-centred and patient empowering. DESIGN Semi-structured in-depth interviews; audio recording of recruitment appointments; thematic interactional analysis (drawing on discourse and conversation analysis). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS Nurses recruiting patients to five publicly funded RCTs and patients consenting to the recording of their recruitment sessions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The views of recruiting nurses about their recruitment role; the extent to which nurse-patient interactions were patient-centred; the nature of the nurses' interactional strategies and the nature and extent of patient participation in the discussion. RESULTS The nurses had a keen sense of themselves as clinicians and patient advocates and their perceptions of the trial and its interventions were inextricably linked to those of the patients. However, many of their recruitment practices made it difficult for patients to play an active and informed part in the discussion about trial participation, raising questions over the quality of consent decisions. CONCLUSION Nurses working in patient recruitment to RCTs need to reconcile two different worlds with different demands and ethics. Evidence production, a central task in evidence-based medicine, poses a challenge to patient-centred practice and more research and relevant training are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zelda Tomlin
- Research Fellow, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Cardiff University, Cardiff
| | - Isabel deSalis
- Research Fellow, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol
| | - Merran Toerien
- Research Fellow RCUK, Department of Sociology, University of York, York
| | - Jenny L. Donovan
- Research Fellow RCUK, Department of Sociology, University of York, York
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Lane JA, Donovan JL, Davis M, Walsh E, Dedman D, Down L, Turner EL, Mason MD, Metcalfe C, Peters TJ, Martin RM, Neal DE, Hamdy FC. Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy, or radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: study design and diagnostic and baseline results of the ProtecT randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15:1109-18. [PMID: 25163905 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70361-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 163] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prostate cancer is a major public health problem with considerable uncertainties about the effectiveness of population screening and treatment options. We report the study design, participant sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, and the initial results of the testing and diagnostic phase of the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial, which aims to investigate the effectiveness of treatments for localised prostate cancer. METHODS In this randomised phase 3 trial, men aged 50-69 years registered at 337 primary care centres in nine UK cities were invited to attend a specialist nurse appointment for a serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. Prostate biopsies were offered to men with a PSA concentration of 3·0 μg/L or higher. Consenting participants with clinically localised prostate cancer were randomly assigned to active monitoring (surveillance strategy), radical prostatectomy, or three-dimensional conformal external-beam radiotherapy by a computer-generated allocation system. Randomisation was stratified by site (minimised for differences in participant age, PSA results, and Gleason score). The primary endpoint is prostate cancer mortality at a median 10-year follow-up, ascertained by an independent committee, which will be analysed by intention to treat in 2016. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02044172, and as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN20141297. FINDINGS Between Oct 1, 2001, and Jan 20, 2009, 228,966 men were invited to attend an appointment with a specialist nurse. Of the invited men, 100,444 (44%) attended their initial appointment and 82,429 (82%) of attenders had a PSA test. PSA concentration was below the biopsy threshold in 73,538 (89%) men. Of the 8566 men with a PSA concentration of 3·0-19·9 μg/L, 7414 (87%) underwent biopsies. 2896 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer (4% of tested men and 39% of those who had a biopsy), of whom 2417 (83%) had clinically localised disease (mostly T1c, Gleason score 6). With the addition of 247 pilot study participants recruited between 1999 and 2001, 2664 men were eligible for the treatment trial and 1643 (62%) agreed to be randomly assigned (545 to active monitoring, 545 to radiotherapy, and 553 to radical prostatectomy). Clinical and sociodemographic characteristics of randomly assigned participants were balanced across treatment groups. INTERPRETATION The ProtecT trial randomly assigned 1643 men with localised prostate cancer to active monitoring, radiotherapy, or surgery. Participant clinicopathological features are more consistent with contemporary patient characteristics than in previous prostate cancer treatment trials. FUNDING UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Liz Down
- University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | | | | | | | | | | | - David E Neal
- Cambridge University and Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Freddie C Hamdy
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
D'Elia C, Cerruto MA, Cioffi A, Novella G, Cavalleri S, Artibani W. Upgrading and upstaging in prostate cancer: From prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy. Mol Clin Oncol 2014; 2:1145-1149. [PMID: 25279213 DOI: 10.3892/mco.2014.370] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2014] [Accepted: 06/17/2014] [Indexed: 01/26/2023] Open
Abstract
Prostate cancer (CaP) is the most common malignancy in men and the second cause of cancer-related mortality after lung cancer. Several studies have evaluated the correlation between bioptic and pathological Gleason score (GS), documenting a correlation ranging between 30 and 60%. The aim of this study was the evaluation of the association between bioptic and pathological GS in a series of patients undergoing prostate needle biopsy and subsequent radical prostatectomy. We also aimed to evaluate the possible prognostic factors of upgrading and upstaging. We prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed data from 300 consecutive patients who underwent radical retropubic or robot-assisted prostatectomy at our Institution. Patients who underwent prostate needle biopsy, transrectal or transperineal, with a minimum of 5 samples, were included in this study. Upgrading and downgrading were defined as increase or decrease, respectively, from one prognostic grade group to another, similar to up- or downstaging. The mean age of the patients was 62.97 years and the mean prostate-spesific antigen (PSA) level was 7.83 ng/ml. A total of 51.3% of the population underwent a transperineal prostate biopsy. The most frequently represented bioptic GS was 3+3 (64.0%) followed by 3+4=7 (15.6%); the most frequent pathological Gleason score was 3+4 (44.3%), followed by 3+3 (31.0%). With reagard to the bioptic GS 4-5-6 group, approximately half of the specimens (46.7%) were subsequently upgraded to GS 3+4, and 5.3% to 4+3. With regards to the bioptic GS 3+4 group, 57.4% was confirmed in the surgical specimen. In the 4+3 group, 23.5% of the cases was downgraded to 3+4 and 35.3% was confirmed. With regards to stage, ~39.7% of the patients received an upstaging on the pathological specimen. We evaluated the correlations between preoperative serum PSA level, prostate volume, digital rectal examination and biopsy type and none of the variables considered exhibited a correlation with any upgrading (P>0.05). Moreover, we evaluated the correlations between the aforementioned variables and upstaging and, at the multivariate analysis, only a serum PSA <4 ng/ml was found to be an independent variable predictive of upstaging (P=0.017). Therefore, new tools are required to predict upgrading and upstaging of our patients, in order to ensure better counseling for optimal treatment planning.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carolina D'Elia
- Department of Surgery, Urology Clinic, A.O.U.I. Verona, I-37134 Verona, Italy
| | | | - Antonio Cioffi
- Department of Surgery, Urology Clinic, A.O.U.I. Verona, I-37134 Verona, Italy
| | - Giovanni Novella
- Department of Surgery, Urology Clinic, A.O.U.I. Verona, I-37134 Verona, Italy
| | - Stefano Cavalleri
- Department of Surgery, Urology Clinic, A.O.U.I. Verona, I-37134 Verona, Italy
| | - Walter Artibani
- Department of Surgery, Urology Clinic, A.O.U.I. Verona, I-37134 Verona, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Barocas DA, Chen V, Cooperberg M, Goodman M, Graff JJ, Greenfield S, Hamilton A, Hoffman K, Kaplan S, Koyama T, Morgans A, Paddock LE, Phillips S, Resnick MJ, Stroup A, Wu XC, Penson DF. Using a population-based observational cohort study to address difficult comparative effectiveness research questions: the CEASAR study. J Comp Eff Res 2014; 2:445-60. [PMID: 24236685 DOI: 10.2217/cer.13.34] [Citation(s) in RCA: 54] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/15/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND While randomized controlled trials represent the highest level of evidence we can generate in comparative effectiveness research, there are clinical scenarios where this type of study design is not feasible. The Comparative Effectiveness Analyses of Surgery and Radiation in localized prostate cancer (CEASAR) study is an observational study designed to compare the effectiveness and harms of different treatments for localized prostate cancer, a clinical scenario in which randomized controlled trials have been difficult to execute and, when completed, have been difficult to generalize to the population at large. METHODS CEASAR employs a population-based, prospective cohort study design, using tumor registries as cohort inception tools. The primary outcome is quality of life after treatment, measured by validated instruments. Risk adjustment is facilitated by capture of traditional and nontraditional confounders before treatment and by propensity score analysis. RESULTS We have accrued a diverse, representative cohort of 3691 men in the USA with clinically localized prostate cancer. Half of the men invited to participate enrolled, and 86% of patients who enrolled have completed the 6-month survey. CONCLUSION Challenging comparative effectiveness research questions can be addressed using well-designed observational studies. The CEASAR study provides an opportunity to determine what treatments work best, for which patients, and in whose hands.
Collapse
|
46
|
Qayyum T, Willder JM, Horgan PG, Edwards J, Underwood MA. Pathological Correlation between Number of Biopsies and Radical Surgery: Does It Make a Difference to Final Pathology? Curr Urol 2014; 7:24-7. [PMID: 24917752 DOI: 10.1159/000343548] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2012] [Accepted: 11/19/2012] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
AIMS To evaluate whether the number of biopsies performed via transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) accurately predicts pathological parameters such as Gleason sum, prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and perineural invasion of the final prostatectomy specimen. MATERIALS AND METHODS The cohort consisted of 99 patients whom had undergone radical prostatectomy. Comparisons were made between the number of biopsies utilised and the presence of the pathological parameters from tissue at time of diagnosis and tissue from the final prostatectomy. RESULTS A significant difference was noted between Gleason sum, prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and perineural invasion from tissue at time of diagnosis irrespective of the number of biopsies utilised and tissue from the radical specimen (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001 respectively). No difference was noted in the mean Gleason sum when 11-14 biopsies were utilised at TRUS and the Gleason sum from the radical specimen. CONCLUSION We have demonstrated that the number of biopsies utilised at time of TRUS for diagnosis predicts the accuracy of pathological parameters in the final radical prostatectomy specimen. We believe that 11-14 biopsies should be utilised at time of TRUS as this allows a higher accuracy in the Gleason sum and therefore allows optimum treatment plans to be devised.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tahir Qayyum
- Unit of Experimental Therapeutics, Institute of Cancer, College of MVLS, University of Glasgow, Western Infirmary, Glasgow, UK
| | - Jennifer M Willder
- Unit of Experimental Therapeutics, Institute of Cancer, College of MVLS, University of Glasgow, Western Infirmary, Glasgow, UK
| | - Paul G Horgan
- School of Medicine, College of MVLS, University of Glasgow, Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK
| | - Joanne Edwards
- Unit of Experimental Therapeutics, Institute of Cancer, College of MVLS, University of Glasgow, Western Infirmary, Glasgow, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
47
|
Turner EL, Metcalfe C, Donovan JL, Noble S, Sterne JAC, Lane JA, Avery KN, Down L, Walsh E, Davis M, Ben-Shlomo Y, Oliver SE, Evans S, Brindle P, Williams NJ, Hughes LJ, Hill EM, Davies C, Ng SY, Neal DE, Hamdy FC, Martin RM. Design and preliminary recruitment results of the Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer (CAP). Br J Cancer 2014; 110:2829-36. [PMID: 24867688 PMCID: PMC4056057 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2014.242] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2013] [Revised: 04/08/2014] [Accepted: 04/10/2014] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Screening for prostate cancer continues to generate controversy because of concerns about over-diagnosis and unnecessary treatment. We describe the rationale, design and recruitment of the Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer (CAP) trial, a UK-wide cluster randomised controlled trial investigating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. METHODS Seven hundred and eighty-five general practitioner (GP) practices in England and Wales were randomised to a population-based PSA testing or standard care and then approached for consent to participate. In the intervention arm, men aged 50-69 years were invited to undergo PSA testing, and those diagnosed with localised prostate cancer were invited into a treatment trial. Control arm practices undertook standard UK management. All men were flagged with the Health and Social Care Information Centre for deaths and cancer registrations. The primary outcome is prostate cancer mortality at a median 10-year-follow-up. RESULTS Among randomised practices, 271 (68%) in the intervention arm (198,114 men) and 302 (78%) in the control arm (221,929 men) consented to participate, meeting pre-specified power requirements. There was little evidence of differences between trial arms in measured baseline characteristics of the consenting GP practices (or men within those practices). CONCLUSIONS The CAP trial successfully met its recruitment targets and will make an important contribution to international understanding of PSA-based prostate cancer screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E L Turner
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK
| | - C Metcalfe
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK
| | - J L Donovan
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK
| | - S Noble
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK
| | - J A C Sterne
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK
| | - J A Lane
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK
| | - K N Avery
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK
| | - L Down
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK
| | - E Walsh
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK
| | - M Davis
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK
| | - Y Ben-Shlomo
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK
| | - S E Oliver
- Department of Health Sciences, University of York and the Hull York Medical School, York YO10 5DD, UK
| | - S Evans
- Royal United Hospital Bath, Combe Park, Bath BA1 3NG, UK
| | - P Brindle
- Avon Primary Care Research Collaborative, Marlborough Street, South Plaza, Bristol BS1 3NX, UK
| | - N J Williams
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield S10 2JF, UK
| | - L J Hughes
- Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Box 279 (S4), Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
| | - E M Hill
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK
| | - C Davies
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK
| | - S Y Ng
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Freeman Hospital, High Heaton, Newcastle upon Tyne NE7 7DN, UK
| | - D E Neal
- Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Box 279 (S4), Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
| | - F C Hamdy
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK
| | - R M Martin
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK
- MRC/University of Bristol Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Bristol BS8 2BN, UK
| | - the CAP trial group
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK
- Department of Health Sciences, University of York and the Hull York Medical School, York YO10 5DD, UK
- Royal United Hospital Bath, Combe Park, Bath BA1 3NG, UK
- Avon Primary Care Research Collaborative, Marlborough Street, South Plaza, Bristol BS1 3NX, UK
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield S10 2JF, UK
- Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Box 279 (S4), Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Freeman Hospital, High Heaton, Newcastle upon Tyne NE7 7DN, UK
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK
- MRC/University of Bristol Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Bristol BS8 2BN, UK
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Albertsen P. Radical prostatectomy reduces prostate cancer-specific mortality among men with intermediate-grade disease, but provides minimal benefit for men with low-grade and high-grade disease. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2014; 19:176. [PMID: 24919977 DOI: 10.1136/eb-2014-110013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Peter Albertsen
- Department of Surgery (Urology), University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut, USA
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Hoffman RM, Penson DF, Zietman AL, Barry MJ. Comparative effectiveness research in localized prostate cancer treatment. J Comp Eff Res 2014; 2:583-93. [PMID: 24236797 DOI: 10.2217/cer.13.66] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Prostate-specific antigen testing has dramatically increased the incidence of localized prostate cancer. Most men with localized cancer attempt curative therapy, usually with surgery or radiation. However, there is uncertainty about whether and how to best treat these cancers. No published controlled trials have directly compared surgery against radiation or either treatment against active surveillance. Given the indolent nature of prostate cancer and the substantial risks of treatment-related harms, the effects of cancer and treatment on quality of life are important patient-centered outcomes. Comparative effectiveness research, using observational cohorts, claims data and simulation models, enables comparisons of treatments that have not been studied in controlled trials and captures real-world outcomes data to better support informed decision-making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard M Hoffman
- Department of Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
50
|
Donovan JL, de Salis I, Toerien M, Paramasivan S, Hamdy FC, Blazeby JM. The intellectual challenges and emotional consequences of equipoise contributed to the fragility of recruitment in six randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 67:912-20. [PMID: 24811157 PMCID: PMC4067744 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 100] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2013] [Revised: 01/29/2014] [Accepted: 03/17/2014] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
Abstract
Objective The aim of the study was to investigate how doctors considered and experienced the concept of equipoise while recruiting patients to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Study Design and Setting In-depth interviews with 32 doctors in six publicly funded pragmatic RCTs explored their perceptions of equipoise as they undertook RCT recruitment. The RCTs varied in size, duration, type of complex intervention, and clinical specialties. Interview data were analyzed using qualitative content and thematic analytical methods derived from grounded theory and synthesized across six RCTs. Results All six RCTs suffered from poor recruitment. Doctors wanted to gather robust evidence but experienced considerable discomfort and emotion in relation to their clinical instincts and concerns about patient eligibility and safety. Although they relied on a sense of community equipoise to justify participation, most acknowledged having “hunches” about particular treatments and patients, some of which undermined recruitment. Surgeons experienced these issues most intensely. Training and support promoted greater confidence in equipoise and improved engagement and recruitment. Conclusion Recruitment to RCTs is a fragile process and difficult for doctors intellectually and emotionally. Training and support can enable most doctors to become comfortable with key RCT concepts including equipoise, uncertainty, patient eligibility, and randomization, promoting a more resilient recruitment process in partnership with patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jenny L Donovan
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK.
| | - Isabel de Salis
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK
| | - Merran Toerien
- Department of Sociology, Wentworth College, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK
| | - Sangeetha Paramasivan
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK
| | - Freddie C Hamdy
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus Research Building, Oxford OX3 7DQ, UK
| | - Jane M Blazeby
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK
| |
Collapse
|