Reirradiation Options for Previously Irradiated Prostate cancer (RO-PIP): Feasibility study investigating toxicity outcomes following reirradiation with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) versus high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT).

IntroductionRadiotherapy is the most common curative treatment for non-metastatic prostate cancer; however, up to 13% of patients will develop local recurrence within 10 years. Patients can undergo further and potentially curative treatment including salvage surgery, brachytherapy (BT), external beam radiotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound and cryotherapy. Systematic review shows that high-dose-rate (HDR) BT and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) have the best outcomes in terms of biochemical control and lowest side effects. The reirradiation options for previously irradiated prostate cancer (RO-PIP) trial aims to determine the feasibility of recruitment to a trial randomising patients to salvage HDR-BT or SBRT and provide prospective data on patient recorded toxicity outcomes that will inform a future phase III trial.Methods and analysisThe primary endpoint of the RO-PIP feasibility study is to evaluate the patient recruitment potential over 2 years to a trial randomising to either SBRT or HDR-BT for patients who develop local recurrence of prostate cancer following previous radiation therapy. The aim is to recruit 60 patients across 3 sites over 2 years and randomise 1:1 to SBRT or HDR-BT. Secondary objectives include recording clinician and patient-reported outcome measures to evaluate treatment-related toxicity. In addition, the study aims to identify potential imaging, genomic and proteomic biomarkers that are predictive of toxicity and outcome based on hypoxia status, a prognostic marker of prostate cancer.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Yorkshire and The Humber-Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 21/YH/0305, IRAS: 297060, January 2022). The results will be presented in national and international conferences, published in peer-reviewed journals and will be communicated to relevant stakeholders. A plain English report will be shared with the study participants, patients' organisations and media.Trial registration numberISRCTN 12238218 (Amy Ackroyd NIHR CPMS Team)

Ten-year mortality, disease progression, and treatment-related side effects in men with localised prostate cancer from the ProtecT randomised controlled trial according to treatment received

Background The ProtecT trial reported intention-to-treat analysis of men with localised prostate cancer randomly allocated to active monitoring (AM), radical prostatectomy, and external beam radiotherapy. Objective To report outcomes according to treatment received in men in randomised and treatment choice cohorts. Design, setting, and participants This study focuses on secondary care. Men with clinically localised prostate cancer at one of nine UK centres were invited to participate in the treatment trial comparing AM, radical prostatectomy, and radiotherapy. Intervention Two cohorts included 1643 men who agreed to be randomised and 997 who declined randomisation and chose treatment. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Analysis was carried out to assess mortality, metastasis and progression and health-related quality of life impacts on urinary, bowel, and sexual function using patient-reported outcome measures. Analysis was based on comparisons between groups defined by treatment received for both randomised and treatment choice cohorts in turn, with pooled estimates of intervention effect obtained using meta-analysis. Differences were estimated with adjustment for known prognostic factors using propensity scores. Results and limitations According to treatment received, more men receiving AM died of PCa (AM 1.85%, surgery 0.67%, radiotherapy 0.73%), whilst this difference remained consistent with chance in the randomised cohort (p = 0.08); stronger evidence was found in the exploratory analyses (randomised plus choice cohort) when AM was compared with the combined radical treatment group (p = 0.003). There was also strong evidence that metastasis (AM 5.6%, surgery 2.4%, radiotherapy 2.7%) and disease progression (AM 20.35%, surgery 5.87%, radiotherapy 6.62%) were more common in the AM group. Compared with AM, there were higher risks of sexual dysfunction (95% at 6 mo) and urinary incontinence (55% at 6 mo) after surgery, and of sexual dysfunction (88% at 6 mo) and bowel dysfunction (5% at 6 mo) after radiotherapy. The key limitations are the potential for bias when comparing groups defined by treatment received and changes in the protocol for AM during the lengthy follow-up required in trials of screen-detected PCa. Conclusions Analyses according to treatment received showed increased rates of disease-related events and lower rates of patient-reported harms in men managed by AM compared with men managed by radical treatment, and stronger evidence of greater PCa mortality in the AM group. Patient summary More than 95 out of every 100 men with low or intermediate risk localised prostate cancer do not die of prostate cancer within 10 yr, irrespective of whether treatment is by means of monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy. Side effects on sexual and bladder function are better after active monitoring, but the risks of spreading of prostate cancer are more common

Functional and quality of life outcomes of localised prostate cancer treatments (prostate testing for cancer and treatment [ProtecT] study)

Objective To investigate the functional and quality of life (QoL) outcomes of treatments for localised prostate cancer and inform treatment decision-making. Patients and Methods Men aged 50–69 years diagnosed with localised prostate cancer by prostate-specific antigen testing and biopsies at nine UK centres in the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial were randomised to, or chose one of, three treatments. Of 2565 participants, 1135 men received active monitoring (AM), 750 a radical prostatectomy (RP), 603 external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with concurrent androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and 77 low-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT, not a randomised treatment). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) completed annually for 6 years were analysed by initial treatment and censored for subsequent treatments. Mixed effects models were adjusted for baseline characteristics using propensity scores. Results Treatment-received analyses revealed different impacts of treatments over 6 years. Men remaining on AM experienced gradual declines in sexual and urinary function with age (e.g., increases in erectile dysfunction from 35% of men at baseline to 53% at 6 years and nocturia similarly from 20% to 38%). Radical treatment impacts were immediate and continued over 6 years. After RP, 95% of men reported erectile dysfunction persisting for 85% at 6 years, and after EBRT this was reported by 69% and 74%, respectively (P < 0.001 compared with AM). After RP, 36% of men reported urinary leakage requiring at least 1 pad/day, persisting for 20% at 6 years, compared with no change in men receiving EBRT or AM (P < 0.001). Worse bowel function and bother (e.g., bloody stools 6% at 6 years and faecal incontinence 10%) was experienced by men after EBRT than after RP or AM (P < 0.001) with lesser effects after BT. No treatment affected mental or physical QoL. Conclusion Treatment decision-making for localised prostate cancer can be informed by these 6-year functional and QoL outcomes

Patient Public and Practitioner Partnerships within Imaging and Radiotherapy: Guiding Principles

Summary This document is divided into four sections, each related to key areas of radiography practice: Service Delivery; Service Development; Education; and Research. Within each section are a set of core values which are expanded upon using authentic patient stories to illustrate the impact such values have on patients, carers and the public. These stories have been garnered from a number of sources including: statements from patient members of the PPPP task and finish group, quotes from research participants, and stories from CareOpinion.org.uk. It also includes examples of good practice and guidance which can be used by a range of stakeholders wanting to develop PPPP within their own areas of work