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

Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings

We conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings, with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance, to examine variation in effect magnitudes across samples and settings. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples that comprised 15,305 participants from 36 countries and territories. Using the conventional criterion of statistical significance (p < .05), we found that 15 (54%) of the replications provided evidence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion (p < .0001), 14 (50%) of the replications still provided such evidence, a reflection of the extremely highpowered design. Seven (25%) of the replications yielded effect sizes larger than the original ones, and 21 (75%) yielded effect sizes smaller than the original ones. The median comparable Cohen’s ds were 0.60 for the original findings and 0.15 for the replications. The effect sizes were small (< 0.20) in 16 of the replications (57%), and 9 effects (32%) were in the direction opposite the direction of the original effect. Across settings, the Q statistic indicated significant heterogeneity in 11 (39%) of the replication effects, and most of those were among the findings with the largest overall effect sizes; only 1 effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity according to this measure. Only 1 effect had a tau value greater than .20, an indication of moderate heterogeneity. Eight others had tau values near or slightly above .10, an indication of slight heterogeneity. Moderation tests indicated that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the tasks were administered in lab versus online. Exploratory comparisons revealed little heterogeneity between Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures and less WEIRD cultures (i.e., cultures with relatively high and low WEIRDness scores, respectively). Cumulatively, variability in the observed effect sizes was attributable more to the effect being studied than to the sample or setting in which it was studied.UCR::Vicerrectoría de Investigación::Unidades de Investigación::Ciencias Sociales::Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas (IIP

A multi-country test of brief reappraisal interventions on emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased negative emotions and decreased positive emotions globally. Left unchecked, these emotional changes might have a wide array of adverse impacts. To reduce negative emotions and increase positive emotions, we tested the effectiveness of reappraisal, an emotion-regulation strategy that modifies how one thinks about a situation. Participants from 87 countries and regions (n = 21,644) were randomly assigned to one of two brief reappraisal interventions (reconstrual or repurposing) or one of two control conditions (active or passive). Results revealed that both reappraisal interventions (vesus both control conditions) consistently reduced negative emotions and increased positive emotions across different measures. Reconstrual and repurposing interventions had similar effects. Importantly, planned exploratory analyses indicated that reappraisal interventions did not reduce intentions to practice preventive health behaviours. The findings demonstrate the viability of creating scalable, low-cost interventions for use around the world

Combined immunosuppression and radiotherapy in thyroid eye disease (CIRTED):a multicentre, 2 × 2 factorial, double-blind, randomised controlled trial

Summary Background Standard treatment for thyroid eye disease is with systemic corticosteroids. We aimed to establish whether orbital radiotherapy or antiproliferative immunosuppression would confer any additional benefit. Methods CIRTED was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design done at six centres in the UK. Adults with active moderate-to-severe thyroid eye disease associated with proptosis or ocular motility restriction were recruited to the trial. Patients all received a 24 week course of oral prednisolone (80 mg per day, reduced to 20 mg per day by 6 weeks, 10 mg per day by 15 weeks, and 5 mg per day by 21 weeks) and were randomly assigned via remote computerised randomisation to receive either radiotherapy or sham radiotherapy and azathioprine or placebo in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Randomisation included minimisation to reduce baseline disparities in potential confounding variables between trial interventions. Patients and data analysts were masked to assignment, whereas trial coordinators (who monitored blood results), pharmacists, and radiographers were not. The radiotherapy dose was 20 Gy administered to the retrobulbar orbit in ten to 12 fractions over 2 to 3 weeks. Azathioprine treatment was provided for 48 weeks at 100–200 mg per day (dispensed as 50 mg tablets), depending on bodyweight (100 mg for <50 kg, 150 mg 50–79 kg, 200 mg for ≥80 kg). The primary outcomes were a binary composite clinical outcome score and an ophthalmopathy index at 48 weeks, and a clinical activity score at 12 weeks. The primary analysis was based on the intention-to-treat allocation and safety was assessed in all participants. This study is registered with ISRCTN, number 22471573. Findings Between Feb 15, 2006, and Oct 3, 2013, 126 patients were recruited and randomly assigned to groups: 31 patients to radiotherapy plus azathioprine, 31 to sham radiotherapy and azathioprine, 32 to radiotherapy and placebo, and 32 to sham radiotherapy and placebo. Outcome data were available for 103 patients (54 for sham radiotherapy vs 49 for radiotherapy and 53 for placebo vs 50 for azathioprine), of whom 84 completed their allocated treatment of radiotherapy or sham radiotherapy and 57 continued to take azathioprine or placebo up to 48 weeks. There was no interaction betweeen azathioprine and radiotherapy (pinteraction=0·86). The adjusted odds ratio (ORadj) for improvement in the binary clinical composite outcome measure was 2·56 (95% CI 0·98–6·66, p=0·054) for azathioprine and 0·89 (0·36–2·23, p=0·80) for radiotherapy. In a post-hoc analysis of patients who completed their allocated therapy the ORadj for improvement was 6·83 (1·66–28·1, p=0·008) for azathioprine and 1·32 (0·30–4·84, p=0·67) for radiotherapy. The ophthalmopathy index, clinical activity score, and numbers of adverse events (161 with azathioprine and 156 with radiotherapy) did not differ between treatment groups. In both groups, the most common adverse events were mild infections. No patients died during the study. Interpretation In patients receiving oral prednisolone for 24 weeks, radiotherapy did not have added benefit. We also did not find added benefit for addition of azathioprine in the primary analysis; however, our conclusions are limited by the high number of patients who withdrew from treatment. Results of post-hoc analysis of those who completed the assigned treatment suggest improved clinical outcome at 48 weeks with azathioprine treatment