Addressing patient treatment preferences at trial recruitment.

RIGHTS : This article is licensed under the BioMed Central licence at http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/license which is similar to the 'Creative Commons Attribution Licence'. In brief you may : copy, distribute, and display the work; make derivative works; or make commercial use of the work - under the following conditions: the original author must be given credit; for any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the license terms of this work are

Germline DNA Repair Gene Mutations in Young-onset Prostate Cancer Cases in the UK: Evidence for a More Extensive Genetic Panel

Background Rare germline mutations in DNA repair genes are associated with prostate cancer (PCa) predisposition and prognosis. Objective To quantify the frequency of germline DNA repair gene mutations in UK PCa cases and controls, in order to more comprehensively evaluate the contribution of individual genes to overall PCa risk and likelihood of aggressive disease. Design, setting, and participants We sequenced 167 DNA repair and eight PCa candidate genes in a UK-based cohort of 1281 young-onset PCa cases (diagnosed at ≤60 yr) and 1160 selected controls. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Gene-level SKAT-O and gene-set adaptive combination of p values (ADA) analyses were performed separately for cases versus controls, and aggressive (Gleason score ≥8, n = 201) versus nonaggressive (Gleason score ≤7, n = 1048) cases. Results and limitations We identified 233 unique protein truncating variants (PTVs) with minor allele frequency <0.5% in controls in 97 genes. The total proportion of PTV carriers was higher in cases than in controls (15% vs 12%, odds ratio [OR] = 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–1.64, p = 0.036). Gene-level analyses selected NBN (pSKAT-O = 2.4 × 10−4) for overall risk and XPC (pSKAT-O = 1.6 × 10−4) for aggressive disease, both at candidate-level significance (p < 3.1 × 10−4 and p < 3.4 × 10−4, respectively). Gene-set analysis identified a subset of 20 genes associated with increased PCa risk (OR = 3.2, 95% CI 2.1–4.8, pADA = 4.1 × 10−3) and four genes that increased risk of aggressive disease (OR = 11.2, 95% CI 4.6–27.7, pADA = 5.6 × 10−3), three of which overlap the predisposition gene set. Conclusions The union of the gene-level and gene-set-level analyses identified 23 unique DNA repair genes associated with PCa predisposition or risk of aggressive disease. These findings will help facilitate the development of a PCa-specific sequencing panel with both predictive and prognostic potential. Patient summary This large sequencing study assessed the rate of inherited DNA repair gene mutations between prostate cancer patients and disease-free men. A panel of 23 genes was identified, which may improve risk prediction or treatment pathways in future clinical practice

Modelling the lifetime cost-effectiveness of radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy and active monitoring for men with clinically localised prostate cancer from median 10-year outcomes in the ProtecT randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management strategies for clinically localised prostate cancer are debated. Using median 10-year data from the largest randomised controlled trial to date (ProtecT), the lifetime cost-effectiveness of three major treatments (radical radiotherapy, radical prostatectomy and active monitoring) was explored according to age and risk subgroups. METHODS: A decision-analytic (Markov) model was developed and informed by clinical input. The economic evaluation adopted a UK NHS perspective and the outcome was cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained (reported in UK£), estimated using EQ-5D-3L. RESULTS: Costs and QALYs extrapolated over the lifetime were mostly similar between the three randomised strategies and their subgroups, but with some important differences. Across all analyses, active monitoring was associated with higher costs, probably associated with higher rates of metastatic disease and changes to radical treatments. When comparing the value of the strategies (QALY gains and costs) in monetary terms, for both low-risk prostate cancer subgroups, radiotherapy generated the greatest net monetary benefit (£293,446 [95% CI £282,811 to £299,451] by D'Amico and £292,736 [95% CI £284,074 to £297,719] by Grade group 1). However, the sensitivity analysis highlighted uncertainty in the finding when stratified by Grade group, as radiotherapy had 53% probability of cost-effectiveness and prostatectomy had 43%. In intermediate/high risk groups, using D'Amico and Grade group > = 2, prostatectomy generated the greatest net monetary benefit (£275,977 [95% CI £258,630 to £285,474] by D'Amico and £271,933 [95% CI £237,864 to £287,784] by Grade group). This finding was supported by the sensitivity analysis. Prostatectomy had the greatest net benefit (£290,487 [95% CI £280,781 to £296,281]) for men younger than 65 and radical radiotherapy (£201,311 [95% CI £195,161 to £205,049]) for men older than 65, but sensitivity analysis showed considerable uncertainty in both findings. CONCLUSION: Over the lifetime, extrapolating from the ProtecT trial, radical radiotherapy and prostatectomy appeared to be cost-effective for low risk prostate cancer, and radical prostatectomy for intermediate/high risk prostate cancer, but there was uncertainty in some estimates. Longer ProtecT trial follow-up is required to reduce uncertainty in the model. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297: http://isrctn.org (14/10/2002); ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (23/01/2014)

Men's experiences of radiotherapy treatment for localized prostate cancer and its long-term treatment side effects: a longitudinal qualitative study.

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

Characteristics of men responding to an invitation to undergo testing for prostate cancer as part of a randomised trial

Background: Sociodemographic characteristics are associated with participating in cancer screening and trials. We compared the characteristics of those responding with those not responding to a single invitation for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for prostate cancer as part of the Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer (CAP). / Methods: Age, rurality and deprivation among 197,763 men from 271 cluster-randomised primary care centres in the UK were compared between those responding (n = 90,300) and those not responding (n = 100,953) to a prostate cancer testing invitation. / Results: There was little difference in age between responders and nonresponders. Responders were slightly more likely to come from urban rather than rural areas and were slightly less deprived than those who did not respond. / Conclusion: These data indicate similarities in age and only minor differences in deprivation and urban location between responders and nonresponders. These differences were smaller, but in the same direction as those observed in other screening trials. / Trial registration: ISRCTN92187251. Registered on 29 November 2004

Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Era: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT: Prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is increasingly used in prostate cancer diagnosis. The reported negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI is used by some clinicians to aid in decision making about whether or not to proceed to biopsy. OBJECTIVE: We aim to perform a contemporary systematic review that reflects the latest literature on optimal mpMRI techniques and scoring systems to update the NPV of mpMRI for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We conducted a systematic literature search and included studies from 2016 to September 4, 2019, which assessed the NPV of mpMRI for csPCa, using biopsy or clinical follow-up as the reference standard. To ensure that studies included in this analysis reflect contemporary practice, we only included studies in which mpMRI findings were interpreted according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) or similar Likert grading system. We define negative mpMRI as either (1) PIRADS/Likert 1-2 or (2) PIRADS/Likert 1-3; csPCa was defined as either (1) Gleason grade group ≥2 or (2) Gleason grade group ≥3. We calculated NPV separately for each combination of negative mpMRI and csPCa. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 42 studies with 7321 patients met our inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. Using definition (1) for negative mpMRI and csPCa, the pooled NPV for biopsy-naïve men was 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 88.1-93.1%). When defining csPCa using definition (2), the NPV for csPCa was 97.1% (95% CI 94.9-98.7%). Calculation of the pooled NPV using definition (2) for negative mpMRI and definition (1) for csPCa yielded the following: 86.8% (95% CI 80.1-92.4%). Using definition (2) for both negative mpMRI and csPCa, the pooled NPV from two studies was 96.1% (95% CI 93.4-98.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Multiparametric MRI of the prostate is generally an accurate test for ruling out csPCa. However, we observed heterogeneity in the NPV estimates, and local institutional data should form the basis of decision making if available. PATIENT SUMMARY: The negative predictive values should assist in decision making for clinicians considering not proceeding to biopsy in men with elevated age-specific prostate-specific antigen and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging reported as negative (or equivocal) on Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System/Likert scoring. Some 7-10% of men, depending on the setting, will miss a diagnosis of clinically significant cancer if they do not proceed to biopsy. Given the institutional variation in results, it is of upmost importance to base decision making on local data if available

Exercise training as a novel primary treatment for localised prostate cancer: a multi-site randomised controlled phase II study

Alternative management strategies for localised prostate cancer are required to reduce morbidity and overtreatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety and acceptability of exercise training (ET) with behavioural support as a primary therapy for low/intermediate risk localised prostate cancer. Men with low/intermediate-risk prostate cancer were randomised to 12 months of ET or usual care with physical activity advice (UCwA) in a multi-site open label RCT. Feasibility included acceptability, recruitment, retention, adherence, adverse events and disease progression. Secondary outcomes included quality of life and cardiovascular health indices. Of the 50 men randomised to ET (n=25) or UCwA (n=25), 92% (n=46) completed 12 month assessments. Three men progressed to invasive therapy (two in UCwA). In the ET group, men completed mean: 140 mins per week for 12 months (95% CI 129,152mins) (94% of target dose) at 75% Hrmax. Men in the ET group demonstrated improved body mass (mean reduction: 2.0 kg; 95% CI -2.9,-1.1), reduced systolic (mean: 13 mmHg; 95% CI 7,19) and diastolic blood pressure (mean:8 mmHg; 95% CI 5,12) and improved quality of life (EQ5D mean:13 points; 95% CI 7,18). There were no serious adverse events. ET in men with low/intermediate risk prostate cancer is feasible and acceptable with a low progression rate to radical treatment. Early signals on clinically relevant markers were found which warrant further investigation

Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening and 15-Year Prostate Cancer Mortality: A Secondary Analysis of the CAP Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: The Cluster Randomized Trial of PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer (CAP) reported no effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening on prostate cancer mortality at a median 10-year follow-up (primary outcome), but the long-term effects of PSA screening on prostate cancer mortality remain unclear. Objective: To evaluate the effect of a single invitation for PSA screening on prostate cancer-specific mortality at a median 15-year follow-up compared with no invitation for screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of the CAP randomized clinical trial included men aged 50 to 69 years identified at 573 primary care practices in England and Wales. Primary care practices were randomized between September 25, 2001, and August 24, 2007, and men were enrolled between January 8, 2002, and January 20, 2009. Follow-up was completed on March 31, 2021. Intervention: Men received a single invitation for a PSA screening test with subsequent diagnostic tests if the PSA level was 3.0 ng/mL or higher. The control group received standard practice (no invitation). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was reported previously. Of 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, results of 4 were reported previously. The 4 remaining prespecified secondary outcomes at 15-year follow-up were prostate cancer-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and prostate cancer stage and Gleason grade at diagnosis. Results: Of 415357 eligible men (mean [SD] age, 59.0 [5.6] years), 98% were included in these analyses. Overall, 12013 and 12958 men with a prostate cancer diagnosis were in the intervention and control groups, respectively (15-year cumulative risk, 7.08% [95% CI, 6.95%-7.21%] and 6.94% [95% CI, 6.82%-7.06%], respectively). At a median 15-year follow-up, 1199 men in the intervention group (0.69% [95% CI, 0.65%-0.73%]) and 1451 men in the control group (0.78% [95% CI, 0.73%-0.82%]) died of prostate cancer (rate ratio [RR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.85-0.99]; P =.03). Compared with the control, the PSA screening intervention increased detection of low-grade (Gleason score [GS] ≤6: 2.2% vs 1.6%; P <.001) and localized (T1/T2: 3.6% vs 3.1%; P <.001) disease but not intermediate (GS of 7), high-grade (GS ≥8), locally advanced (T3), or distally advanced (T4/N1/M1) tumors. There were 45084 all-cause deaths in the intervention group (23.2% [95% CI, 23.0%-23.4%]) and 50336 deaths in the control group (23.3% [95% CI, 23.1%-23.5%]) (RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.94-1.01]; P =.11). Eight of the prostate cancer deaths in the intervention group (0.7%) and 7 deaths in the control group (0.5%) were related to a diagnostic biopsy or prostate cancer treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, a single invitation for PSA screening compared with standard practice without routine screening reduced prostate cancer deaths at a median follow-up of 15 years. However, the absolute reduction in deaths was small. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN92187251

Establishing nurse-led active surveillance for men with localised prostate cancer: development and formative evaluation of a model of care in the ProtecT trial.

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