Evaluating the Trade-offs Men with Localised Prostate Cancer Make Between the Risks and Benefits of Treatments: The COMPARE Study

PURPOSE: COMPARE (COMparing treatment options for ProstAte cancer) aimed to evaluate and quantify the trade-offs patients make between different aspects of active surveillance and definitive therapy. METHODS: A Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) tool was used to elicit patients' preferences for different treatment characteristics in 34 urology departments. Patients with localised prostate cancer completed the DCE within one week of being diagnosed and before they made treatment decisions. The DCE was pre-tested (N=5) and piloted (n=106) with patients. Patients chose their preferred treatment profile based on six characteristics: treatment type (active surveillance, focal therapy, radical therapy), return to normal activities, erectile function, urinary function, not needing more cancer treatment and 10-15 year cancer-specific survival. Different tools were designed for low-intermediate (n=468) and high-risk (n=166) patients. An error-components conditional logit model was used to estimate preferences and trade-offs between treatment characteristics. RESULTS: Low-intermediate risk patients were willing to trade 6.99% absolute decrease in survival to have active surveillance over definitive therapy. They were willing to trade 0.75%, 0.46% and 0.19% absolute decrease in survival for a one-month reduction in time-to-return to normal activities, and 1% absolute improvements in urinary and sexual function, respectively. High-risk patients were willing to trade 3.10%, 1.04% and 0.41% absolute decrease in survival for a one-month reduction in time-to-return to normal activities and 1% absolute improvements in urinary and sexual function, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with low-intermediate risk prostate cancer preferred active surveillance to definitive therapy. Patients of all risks were willing to trade-off cancer-specific survival for improved quality-of-life.Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Registration Identifier NCT01177865Funding:Medical Research Council (UK) (grant reference: G1002509)

Prostate Radiofrequency Focal Ablation (ProRAFT) Trial: A Prospective Development Study Evaluating a Bipolar Radiofrequency Device to Treat Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE: To determine early efficacy of bipolar radiofrequency ablation with a coil design (bRFA) for focal ablation of clinically significant localised prostate cancer (sPCa)visible at mpMRI. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective IDEAL phase 2 development study (NCT02294903) recruited treatment naive patients with a single focus of localised sPCa (Gleason 7 or 4 mm or more of Gleason 6) concordant with a lesion visible on multi-parametric MRI. Intervention was a focal ablation with a bRFA system (Encage®, Trod Medical) encompassing the lesion and a predefined margin using nonrigid MRI-ultrasound fusion. Primary outcome was the proportion of men with absence of sPCa on biopsy at 6 months. Trial follow up comprised serum PSA, mpMRI at 1 week, 6 and 12 months post ablation. Validated patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for urinary, erectile and bowel functions and adverse events monitoring system were used. Analyses were done on a per-protocol basis. RESULTS: 20 of 21 patients recruited received the intervention. Baseline characteristics were a median age of 66 years (IQR 63-69), pre-operative median PSA of 7.9 ng/ml (5.3-9.6), 18 (90%) had Gleason 7 with median maximum cancer of 7 mm (IQR 5-10) for a median 2.8 cc mpMRI lesions (IQR 1.4-4.8). Targeted biopsy of the treated area (median number of cores=6, IQR 5-8) showed absence of sPCa in 16/20 men (80%), concordant with mpMRI. There was a low profile of side effects at PROMs analysis and no serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Focal therapy of sPCa associated with an MRI lesion using bRFA showed early efficacy to ablate cancer with low rates of genitourinary and rectal side-effects

The ReIMAGINE Multimodal Warehouse: Using Artificial Intelligence for Accurate Risk Stratification of Prostate Cancer

Introduction. Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most frequent cancer diagnosis in men worldwide. Our ability to identify those men whose cancer will decrease their lifespan and/or quality of life remains poor. The ReIMAGINE Consortium has been established to improve PCa diagnosis. / Materials and methods. MRI will likely become the future cornerstone of the risk-stratification process for men at risk of early prostate cancer. We will, for the first time, be able to combine the underlying molecular changes in PCa with the state-of-the-art imaging. ReIMAGINE Screening invites men for MRI and PSA evaluation. ReIMAGINE Risk includes men at risk of prostate cancer based on MRI, and includes biomarker testing. / Results. Baseline clinical information, genomics, blood, urine, fresh prostate tissue samples, digital pathology and radiomics data will be analysed. Data will be de-identified, stored with correlated mpMRI disease endotypes and linked with long term follow-up outcomes in an instance of the Philips Clinical Data Lake, consisting of cloud-based software. The ReIMAGINE platform includes application programming interfaces and a user interface that allows users to browse data, select cohorts, manage users and access rights, query data, and more. Connection to analytics tools such as Python allows statistical and stratification method pipelines to run profiling regression analyses. / Discussion. The ReIMAGINE Multimodal Warehouse comprises a unique data source for PCa research, to improve risk stratification for PCa and inform clinical practice. The de-identified dataset characterized by clinical, imaging, genomics and digital pathology PCa patient phenotypes will be a valuable resource for the scientific and medical community

Protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial of targeted oxygen therapy in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients

IntroductionOxygen is the most commonly administered drug to mechanically ventilated critically ill adults, yet little is known about the optimum oxygen saturation (SpO2) target for these patients; the current standard of care is an SpO2of 96% or above. Small pilot studies have demonstrated that permissive hypoxaemia (aiming for a lower SpO2than normal by using a lower fractional inspired oxygen concentration (FIO2)) can be achieved in the critically ill and appears to be safe. This approach has not been evaluated in a National Health Service setting. It is possible that permissive hypoxaemia may be beneficial to critically ill patients thus it requires robust evaluation.Methods and analysisTargeted OXygen therapY in Critical illness (TOXYC) is a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate whether recruiting patients to a study of permissive hypoxaemia is possible in the UK. It will also investigate biological mechanisms that may underlie the links between oxygenation and patient outcomes. Mechanically ventilated patients with respiratory failure will be recruited from critical care units at two sites and randomised (1:1 ratio) to an SpO2target of either 88%–92% or ≥96% while intubated with an endotracheal tube. Clinical teams can adjust FIO2and ventilator settings as they wish to achieve these targets. Clinical information will be collected before, during and after the intervention and blood samples taken to measure markers of systemic oxidative stress. The primary outcome of this study is feasibility, which will be assessed by recruitment rate, protocol adherence and withdrawal rates. Secondary outcomes will include a comparison of standard critical care outcome measures between the two intervention groups, and the measurement of biomarkers of systemic oxidative stress. The results will be used to calculate a sample size, likely number of sites and overall length of time required for a subsequent large multicentre RCT.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by the London - Harrow Research Ethics Committee on 2 November 2017 (REC Reference 17/LO/1334) and received HRA approval on 13 November 2017. Results from this study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, at medical and scientific meetings, in the NIHR Journals Library and patient information websites.Trial registration numberNCT03287466; Pre-results.</jats:sec

MRI findings in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: does dutasteride make MRI visible lesions less conspicuous? Results from a placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial

Objectives To investigate changes in the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) using diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer taking dutasteride 0.5 mg or placebo. Methods We analysed 37 men, randomised to 6 months of daily dutasteride (n = 18) or placebo (n = 19), undergoing 3T multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) scans at baseline and 6 months. Images were reviewed blind to treatment allocation and clinical information. Mean ADC of peripheral (PZ) and transition (TZ) zones, and MR-suspicious lesions were compared between groups over 6 months. Conspicuity was defined as the PZ divided by tumour ADC, and its change over 6 months was assessed. Results A decrease in mean conspicuity in the dutasteride group (but not the controls) was seen over 6 months (1.54 vs 1.38; p = 0.025). Absolute changes in ADC and conspicuity were significantly different between placebo and dutasteride groups at 6 months: (-0.03 vs 0.08, p = 0.033) and (0.11 vs –0.16, p = 0.012), as were percentage changes in the same parameters: (-2.27% vs 8.56% p = 0.048) and (9.25% vs -9.89% p = 0.013). Conclusions Dutasteride was associated with increased tumour ADC and reduced conspicuity. A lower threshold for triggering biopsy might be considered in men on dutasteride undergoing mpMRI for prostate cancer

The ReIMAGINE prostate cancer risk study protocol: A prospective cohort study in men with a suspicion of prostate cancer who are referred onto an MRI-based diagnostic pathway with donation of tissue, blood and urine for biomarker analyses

INTRODUCTION: The ReIMAGINE Consortium was conceived to develop risk-stratification models that might incorporate the full range of novel prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostics (both commercial and academic). METHODS: ReIMAGINE Risk is an ethics approved (19/LO/1128) multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study which will recruit 1000 treatment-naive men undergoing a multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) due to an elevated PSA (≤20ng/ml) or abnormal prostate examination who subsequently had a suspicious mpMRI (score≥3, stage ≤T3bN0M0). Primary outcomes include the detection of ≥Gleason 7 PCa at baseline and time to clinical progression, metastasis and death. Baseline blood, urine, and biopsy cores for fresh prostate tissue samples (2 targeted and 1 non-targeted) will be biobanked for future analysis. High-resolution scanning of pathology whole-slide imaging and MRI-DICOM images will be collected. Consortium partners will be granted access to data and biobanks to develop and validate biomarkers using correlation to mpMRI, biopsy-based disease status and long-term clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Recruitment began in September 2019(n = 533). A first site opened in September 2019 (n = 296), a second in November 2019 (n = 210) and a third in December 2020 (n = 27). Acceptance to the study has been 65% and a mean of 36.5ml(SD+/-10.0), 12.9ml(SD+/-3.7) and 2.8ml(SD+/-0.7) urine, plasma and serum donated for research, respectively. There are currently 4 academic and 15 commercial partners spanning imaging (~9 radiomics, artificial intelligence/machine learning), fluidic (~3 blood-based and ~2urine-based) and tissue-based (~1) biomarkers. CONCLUSION: The consortium will develop, or adjust, risk models for PCa, and provide a platform for evaluating the role of novel diagnostics in the era of pre-biopsy MRI and targeted biopsy

Accuracy of Transperineal Targeted Prostate Biopsies, Visual Estimation and Image Fusion in Men Needing Repeat Biopsy in the PICTURE Trial

PURPOSE: To evaluate detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) using MRI-targeted biopsies, and compare visual-estimation to image-fusion targeting, in patients requiring repeat prostate biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective, ethics-committee approved, registered PICTURE trial enrolling 249 consecutive patients (11th/January/2012-29th/January/2014). Men underwent an mpMRI and were blinded to its results. All underwent transperineal template prostate mapping (TTPM) biopsies. In 200 with a lesion, this was preceded by visual-estimation and image-fusion targeted biopsies. For the primary endpoint, csPCa was defined as Gleason >/=4+3 and/or any grade of cancer length >/=6mm. Other definitions of csPCa were also evaluated. RESULTS: Mean (SD) age was 62.6 (7) years, median (IQR) PSA 7.17ng/ml (5.25, 10.09), mean primary lesion size 0.37cc (SD1.52), with mean 4.3 (SD2.3) targeted cores per lesion (visual-estimation and image-fusion combined) and mean 48.7 (SD12.3) TTPM-biopsy cores. TTPM-biopsies detected 97 (48.5%) cases of csPCa and 85 (42.5%) insignificant cancers. Overall, mpMRI-targeted biopsies detected 81 (40.5%) csPCa and 63 (31.5%) insignificant cancers. Eighteen (9%) with csPCa on MRI-targeted biopsies were benign or clinically insignificant on TTPM-biopsy. Thirty-four (17%) had csPCa detected on TTPM-biopsy but not on MRI-targeted biopsies; approximately half of these were present in non-targeted areas. csPCa was found with visual-estimation and image-fusion in 53/169 (31.3%) and 48/169 (28.4%) (McNemar's test, p=0.5322). Visual-estimation missed 23 (13.6%) csPCa detected by image-fusion; image-fusion missed 18 (10.8%) csPCa that visual-estimation detected. CONCLUSIONS: MRI-targeted biopsies are accurate at detection of csPCa and reducing over-diagnosis of insignificant cancers. To maximise detection both visual-estimation and image-fusion targeted biopsies are required

Can "presumed consent" justify the duty to treat infectious diseases? An analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>AIDS, SARS, and the recent epidemics of the avian-flu have all served to remind us the debate over the limits of the moral duty to care. It is important to first consider the question of whether or not the "duty to treat" might be subject to contextual constraints. The purpose of this study was to investigate the opinions and beliefs held by both physicians and dentists regarding the occupational risks of infectious diseases, and to analyze the argument that the notion of "presumed consent" on the part of professionals may be grounds for supporting the duty to treat.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>For this cross-sectional survey, the study population was selected from among physicians and dentists in Ankara. All of the 373 participants were given a self-administered questionnaire.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In total, 79.6% of the participants said that they either had some degree of knowledge about the risks when they chose their profession or that they learned of the risks later during their education and training. Of the participants, 5.2% said that they would not have chosen this profession if they had been informed of the risks. It was found that 57% of the participants believed that there is a standard level of risk, and 52% of the participants stated that certain diseases would exceed the level of acceptable risk unless specific protective measures were implemented.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>If we use the presumed consent argument to establish the duty of the HCW to provide care, we are confronted with problems ranging over the difficulty of choosing a profession autonomously, the constant level of uncertainty present in the medical profession, the near-impossibility of being able to evaluate retrospectively whether every individual was informed, and the seemingly inescapable problem that this practice would legitimize, and perhaps even foster, discrimination against patients with certain diseases. Our findings suggest that another problem can be added to the list: one-fifth of the participants in this study either lacked adequate knowledge of the occupational risks when they chose the medical profession or were not sufficiently informed of these risks during their faculty education and training. Furthermore, in terms of the moral duty to provide care, it seems that most HCWs are more concerned about the availability of protective measures than about whether they had been informed of a particular risk beforehand. For all these reasons, the presumed consent argument is not persuasive enough, and cannot be used to justify the duty to provide care. It is therefore more useful to emphasize justifications other than presumed consent when defining the duty of HCWs to provide care, such as the social contract between society and the medical profession and the fact that HCWs have a greater ability to provide medical aid.</p

The effect of dutasteride on MRI-defined prostate cancer lesions: MAPPED (Magnetic resonance imaging in Primary Prostate Cancer after Exposure to Dutasteride) - a randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial

PURPOSE: Dutasteride is licensed for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia, and has been associated with a lower progression rate in low-risk prostate cancer. We have evaluated the effect of dutasteride on prostate cancer volume as assessed by T2-weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, men with biopsy-proven low-intermediate risk prostate cancer (up to Gleason 3+4 and PSA up to 15 ng/ml) who had an MR visible lesion of >/= 0.2ml on T2-weighted sequences were randomized to daily dutasteride 0.5mg or placebo for 6 months. Lesion volume was assessed at baseline, 3 and 6 months, with an image-guided biopsy to the lesion at study exit. The primary endpoint was percentage reduction in lesion volume over 6 months. This trial was registered with the European Clinical Trials register (EudraCT 2009-102405-18). RESULTS: Forty-two men were recruited between June 2010 and January 2012. In the dutasteride group, the average volumes at baseline and 6 months were 0.55ml and 0.38ml respectively, and the average percentage reduction was 36%. In the placebo group, the average volumes at baseline and 6 months were 0.65ml and 0.76ml respectively, and the average percentage reduction was -12%. The difference in percentage reductions between groups was 48% (95% CI 27.4-68.3%. p< 0.0001). The most common adverse event was deterioration in erectile function (25% in men randomized to dutasteride, 16% in men randomized to placebo). CONCLUSIONS: Dutasteride was associated with a significant reduction in prostate cancer volume on T2 weighted MRI images compared to placebo