The example of CaPSURE: lessons learned from a national disease registry

IntroductionAlthough randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remain the gold standard for determining evidence-based clinical practices, large disease registries that enroll large numbers of patients have become paramount as a relatively cost-effective additional tool.MethodsWe highlight the advantages of disease registries focusing on the example of prostate cancer and the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE™) registry.ResultsCaPSURE collects approximately 1,000 clinical and patient-reported variables, in over 13,000 men that are enrolled. Thus far, CaPSURE has yielded over 130 peer-reviewed publications, with several others in press, in key areas of risk migration, practice patterns, outcome prediction, and quality of life outcomes.ConclusionsDisease registries, like CaPSURE complement RCTs and CaPSURE, have provided a means to better understand many aspects of prostate cancer epidemiology, practice patterns, oncologic and HRQOL outcomes, and costs of care across populations. Specialized observational disease registries such as CaPSURE provide insight and have broad implications for disease management and policy

Development and pilot evaluation of a personalized decision support intervention for low risk prostate cancer patients.

ObjectivesDevelopment and pilot evaluation of a personalized decision support intervention to help men with early-stage prostate cancer choose among active surveillance, surgery, and radiation.MethodsWe developed a decision aid featuring long-term survival and side effects data, based on focus group input and stakeholder endorsement. We trained premedical students to administer the intervention to newly diagnosed men with low-risk prostate cancer seen at the University of California, San Francisco. Before the intervention, and after the consultation with a urologist, we administered the Decision Quality Instrument for Prostate Cancer (DQI-PC). We hypothesized increases in two knowledge items from the DQI-PC: How many men diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer will eventually die of prostate cancer? How much would waiting 3 months to make a treatment decision affect chances of survival? Correct answers were: "Most will die of something else" and "A little or not at all."ResultsThe development phase involved 6 patients, 1 family member, 2 physicians, and 5 other health care providers. In our pilot test, 57 men consented, and 44 received the decision support intervention and completed knowledge surveys at both timepoints. Regarding the two knowledge items of interest, before the intervention, 35/56 (63%) answered both correctly, compared to 36/44 (82%) after the medical consultation (P = .04 by chi-square test).ConclusionsThe intervention was associated with increased patient knowledge. Data from this pilot have guided the development of a larger scale randomized clinical trial to improve decision quality in men with prostate cancer being treated in community settings

Seminal plasma as a source of prostate cancer peptide biomarker candidates for detection of indolent and advanced disease

Background:Extensive prostate specific antigen screening for prostate cancer generates a high number of unnecessary biopsies and over-treatment due to insufficient differentiation between indolent and aggressive tumours. We hypothesized that seminal plasma is a robust source of novel prostate cancer (PCa) biomarkers with the potential to improve primary diagnosis of and to distinguish advanced from indolent disease. <br>Methodology/Principal Findings: In an open-label case/control study 125 patients (70 PCa, 21 benign prostate hyperplasia, 25 chronic prostatitis, 9 healthy controls) were enrolled in 3 centres. Biomarker panels a) for PCa diagnosis (comparison of PCa patients versus benign controls) and b) for advanced disease (comparison of patients with post surgery Gleason score <7 versus Gleason score >>7) were sought. Independent cohorts were used for proteomic biomarker discovery and testing the performance of the identified biomarker profiles. Seminal plasma was profiled using capillary electrophoresis mass spectrometry. Pre-analytical stability and analytical precision of the proteome analysis were determined. Support vector machine learning was used for classification. Stepwise application of two biomarker signatures with 21 and 5 biomarkers provided 83% sensitivity and 67% specificity for PCa detection in a test set of samples. A panel of 11 biomarkers for advanced disease discriminated between patients with Gleason score 7 and organ-confined (<pT3a) or advanced (≥pT3a) disease with 80% sensitivity and 82% specificity in a preliminary validation setting. Seminal profiles showed excellent pre-analytical stability. Eight biomarkers were identified as fragments of N-acetyllactosaminide beta-1,3-N-acetylglucosaminyltransferase​,prostatic acid phosphatase, stabilin-2, GTPase IMAP family member 6, semenogelin-1 and -2. Restricted sample size was the major limitation of the study.</br> <br>Conclusions/Significance: Seminal plasma represents a robust source of potential peptide makers for primary PCa diagnosis. Our findings warrant further prospective validation to confirm the diagnostic potential of identified seminal biomarker candidates.</br&gt

Terbutaline and the Prevention of Nocturnal Hypoglycemia in Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE—Bedtime administration of 5.0 mg of the β2-adrenergic agonist terbutaline prevents nocturnal hypoglycemia but causes morning hyperglycemia in type 1 diabetes. We tested the hypothesis that 2.5 mg terbutaline prevents nocturnal hypoglycemia without causing morning hyperglycemia

Deconstructing, Addressing, and Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Inequities in Prostate Cancer Care

Context Men of African ancestry have demonstrated markedly higher rates of prostate cancer mortality than men of other races and ethnicities around the world. In fact, the highest rates of prostate cancer mortality worldwide are found in the Caribbean and Sub-Saharan West Africa, and among men of African descent in the USA. Addressing this inequity in prostate cancer care and outcomes requires a focused research approach that creates durable solutions to address the structural, social, environmental, and health factors that create racial disparities in care and outcomes. Objective To introduce a conceptual model for evaluating racial inequities in prostate cancer care to facilitate the development of translational research studies and interventions. Evidence acquisition A collaborative review of literature relevant to racial inequities in prostate cancer care and outcomes was performed. Existing literature was used to highlight various components of the conceptual model to inform future research and interventions toward equitable care and outcomes. Evidence synthesis Racial inequities in prostate cancer outcomes are driven by a series of structural and social determinants of health that impact exposures, mediators, and outcomes. Social determinants of equity, such as laws/policies, economic systems, and structural racism, affect the inequitable access to environmental and neighborhood exposures, in addition to health care access. Although the incidence disparity remains problematic, various studies have demonstrated parity in outcomes when social and health factors, such as access to equitable care, are normalized. Few studies have tested interventions to reduce inequities in prostate cancer among Black men. Conclusions Worldwide, men of African ancestry demonstrate worse outcomes in prostate cancer, a phenomenon driven largely by social factors that inform biologic, environmental, and health care risks. A conceptual model was presented that organizes the many factors that influence prostate cancer incidence and mortality. Within that framework, we must understand the current state of inequities in clinical prostate cancer practice, the optimal state of what equitable practice would be, and how achieving equity in prostate cancer care balances costs, benefits, and harms. More robust characterization of the sources of prostate cancer inequities should inform testing of ambitious and innovative interventions as we work toward equity in care and outcomes. Patient summary Men of African ancestry demonstrate the highest rates of prostate cancer mortality, which may be reduced through social interventions. We present a framework for formalizing the identification of the drivers of prostate cancer inequities to facilitate the development of interventions and trials to eradicate them

A 17-gene Assay to Predict Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness in the Context of Gleason Grade Heterogeneity, Tumor Multifocality, and Biopsy Undersampling

avai lable at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: www.europeanurology.com Genomic Prostate Score Outcome measures and statistical analysis: The main outcome measures defining aggressive PCa were clinical recurrence, PCa death, and adverse pathology at prostatec-predictive of aggressClinical validation Clinical utility tomy. Cox proportional hazards regressionmodels were used to evaluate the association between gene expression and time to event end points. Results from the prostatectomy and biopsy studies were used to develop and lock a multigene-expression-based signature, called the Genomic Prostate Score (GPS); in the validation study, logistic regression was used to test the association between the GPS and pathologic stage and grade at prostatectomy. Decision-curve analysis and risk profileswere used together with clinical and pathologic characteristics to evaluate clinical utility. Results and limitations: Of the 732 candidate genes analyzed, 288 (39%) were found to predict clinical recurrence despite heterogeneity and multifocality, and 198 (27%) were ive disease after adjustment for prostate-specific antigen, GleasonArticle inf

Suitability of PSA-detected localised prostate cancers for focal therapy: Experience from the ProtecT study

This article is available through a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. Copyright @ 2011 Cancer Research UK.Background: Contemporary screening for prostate cancer frequently identifies small volume, low-grade lesions. Some clinicians have advocated focal prostatic ablation as an alternative to more aggressive interventions to manage these lesions. To identify which patients might benefit from focal ablative techniques, we analysed the surgical specimens of a large sample of population-detected men undergoing radical prostatectomy as part of a randomised clinical trial. Methods: Surgical specimens from 525 men who underwent prostatectomy within the ProtecT study were analysed to determine tumour volume, location and grade. These findings were compared with information available in the biopsy specimen to examine whether focal therapy could be provided appropriately. Results: Solitary cancers were found in prostatectomy specimens from 19% (100 out of 525) of men. In addition, 73 out of 425 (17%) men had multiple cancers with a solitary significant tumour focus. Thus, 173 out of 525 (33%) men had tumours potentially suitable for focal therapy. The majority of these were small, well-differentiated lesions that appeared to be pathologically insignificant (38–66%). Criteria used to select patients for focal prostatic ablation underestimated the cancer's significance in 26% (34 out of 130) of men and resulted in overtreatment in more than half. Only 18% (24 out of 130) of men presumed eligible for focal therapy, actually had significant solitary lesions. Conclusion: Focal therapy appears inappropriate for the majority of men presenting with prostate-specific antigen-detected localised prostate cancer. Unifocal prostate cancers suitable for focal ablation are difficult to identify pre-operatively using biopsy alone. Most lesions meeting criteria for focal ablation were either more aggressive than expected or posed little threat of progression.National Institute for Health Researc

Accommodating heterogeneous missing data patterns for prostate cancer risk prediction

Objective: We compared six commonly used logistic regression methods for accommodating missing risk factor data from multiple heterogeneous cohorts, in which some cohorts do not collect some risk factors at all, and developed an online risk prediction tool that accommodates missing risk factors from the end-user. Study Design and Setting: Ten North American and European cohorts from the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG) were used for fitting a risk prediction tool for clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as Gleason grade group greater or equal 2 on standard TRUS prostate biopsy. One large European PBCG cohort was withheld for external validation, where calibration-in-the-large (CIL), calibration curves, and area-underneath-the-receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) were evaluated. Ten-fold leave-one-cohort-internal validation further validated the optimal missing data approach. Results: Among 12,703 biopsies from 10 training cohorts, 3,597 (28%) had clinically significant prostate cancer, compared to 1,757 of 5,540 (32%) in the external validation cohort. In external validation, the available cases method that pooled individual patient data containing all risk factors input by an end-user had best CIL, under-predicting risks as percentages by 2.9% on average, and obtained an AUC of 75.7%. Imputation had the worst CIL (-13.3%). The available cases method was further validated as optimal in internal cross-validation and thus used for development of an online risk tool. For end-users of the risk tool, two risk factors were mandatory: serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and age, and ten were optional: digital rectal exam, prostate volume, prior negative biopsy, 5-alpha-reductase-inhibitor use, prior PSA screen, African ancestry, Hispanic ethnicity, first-degree prostate-, breast-, and second-degree prostate-cancer family history