Search

PURPOSE As prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) becomes increasingly available in the United States, the greater sensitivity of the technology in comparison to conventional imaging poses challenges for clinical trials. The NCI Clinical Imaging Steering Committee (CISC) PSMA PET Working Group was convened to coordinate the identification of these challenges in various clinical scenarios and to develop consensus recommendations on how best to integrate PSMA PET into ongoing and upcoming National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) trials. METHODS NCI CISC and NCI Genitourinary Steering Committee members and leadership nominated clinicians, biostatisticians, patient advocates, and other imaging experts for inclusion in the PSMA PET Working Group. From April to July 2021, the working group met independently and in conjunction with the CISC to frame challenges, including stage migration, response assessment, trial logistics, and statistical challenges, and to discuss proposed solutions. An anonymous, open-ended survey was distributed to members to collect feedback on challenges faced. Representatives from each NCTN group were invited to present an overview of affected trials. From these discussions, the consensus document was developed and circulated for the inclusion of multiple rounds of feedback from both the Working Group and CISC. RESULTS The current consensus document outlines the key challenges for clinical prostate cancer trials resulting from the increasing availability of PSMA PET. We discuss implications for patient selection and definition of end points and provide guidance and potential solutions for different clinical scenarios, particularly with regard to best practices in defining eligibility criteria and outcome measures. RECOMMENDATIONS This article provides guidance regarding clinical trial design and conduct, and the interpretation of trial results.

PurposeAs prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) becomes increasingly available in the United States, the greater sensitivity of the technology in comparison to conventional imaging poses challenges for clinical trials. The NCI Clinical Imaging Steering Committee (CISC) PSMA PET Working Group was convened to coordinate the identification of these challenges in various clinical scenarios and to develop consensus recommendations on how best to integrate PSMA PET into ongoing and upcoming National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) trials.MethodsNCI CISC and NCI Genitourinary Steering Committee members and leadership nominated clinicians, biostatisticians, patient advocates, and other imaging experts for inclusion in the PSMA PET Working Group. From April to July 2021, the working group met independently and in conjunction with the CISC to frame challenges, including stage migration, response assessment, trial logistics, and statistical challenges, and to discuss proposed solutions. An anonymous, open-ended survey was distributed to members to collect feedback on challenges faced. Representatives from each NCTN group were invited to present an overview of affected trials. From these discussions, the consensus document was developed and circulated for the inclusion of multiple rounds of feedback from both the Working Group and CISC.ResultsThe current consensus document outlines the key challenges for clinical prostate cancer trials resulting from the increasing availability of PSMA PET. We discuss implications for patient selection and definition of end points and provide guidance and potential solutions for different clinical scenarios, particularly with regard to best practices in defining eligibility criteria and outcome measures.RecommendationsThis article provides guidance regarding clinical trial design and conduct, and the interpretation of trial results.

Patient-reported health data provide information for pragmatic clinical trials that may not be readily available from electronic health records or administrative claims data. In this report, we present key considerations for collecting patient-reported health information in pragmatic clinical trials, which are informed by best practices from patient-reported outcome research. We focus on question design and administration via electronic data collection platforms with respect to 3 types of patient-reported health data: medication use, utilization of health care services, and comorbid conditions. We summarize key scientific literature on the accuracy of these patient-reported data compared with electronic health record data. We discuss question design in detail, specifically defining the concept to be measured, patient understanding of the concept, recall periods of the question, and patient willingness to report. In addition, we discuss approaches for question administration and data collection platforms, which are key aspects of successful patient-reported data collection.

There are uncertainties about prostate cancer���related anxiety's (PCRA) associations with health���related quality of life (HRQOL) and major depression, and these could affect the quality of mental healthcare provided to prostate cancer patients. Addressing these uncertainties will provide more insight into PCRA and inform further research on the value of PCRA prevention. The goals of this study were to measure associations between PCRA and HRQOL at domain and subdomain levels, and to evaluate the association between PCRA and probable (ie, predicted major) depression.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Symptom Management and Health-Related Quality of Life Steering Committee convened four working groups to recommend core sets of patient-reported outcomes to be routinely incorporated in clinical trials. The Prostate Cancer Working Group included physicians, researchers, and a patient advocate. The group’s process included 1) a systematic literature review to determine the prevalence and severity of symptoms, 2) a multistakeholder meeting sponsored by the NCI to review the evidence and build consensus, and 3) a postmeeting expert panel synthesis of findings to finalize recommendations. Five domains were recommended for localized prostate cancer: urinary incontinence, urinary obstruction and irritation, bowel-related symptoms, sexual dysfunction, and hormonal symptoms. Four domains were recommended for advanced prostate cancer: pain, fatigue, mental well-being, and physical well-being. Additional domains for consideration include decisional regret, satisfaction with care, and anxiety related to prostate cancer. These recommendations have been endorsed by the NCI for implementation.

African Americans have a higher incidence of prostate cancer and experience poorer outcomes compared with Caucasian Americans. Racial differences in care are well documented; however, few studies have characterized patients based on their prostate cancer risk category, which is required to differentiate appropriate from inappropriate guideline application.The medical records of a population-based sample of 777 North Carolina men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were studied to assess the association among patient race, clinical factors, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline-concordant prostate cancer care.African Americans presented with significantly higher Gleason scores (P = .025) and prostate-specific antigen levels (P = .008) than did Caucasian Americans. However, when clinical T stage was considered as well, difference in overall risk category only approached statistical significance (P = .055). Across risk categories, African Americans were less likely to have surgery (58.1% versus 68.0%, P = .004) and more likely to have radiation (39.0% versus 27.4%, P = .001) compared with Caucasian Americans. However, 83.5% of men received guideline-concordant care within 1 year of diagnosis, which did not differ by race in multivariable analysis (odds ratio = 0.83; 95% confidence interval = 0.54-1.25). Greater patient-perceived access to care was associated with greater odds of receiving guideline-concordant care (odds ratio = 1.06; 95% confidence interval = 1.01-1.12).After controlling for NCCN risk category, there were no racial differences in receipt of guideline-concordant care. Efforts to improve prostate cancer treatment outcomes should focus on improving access to the health care system.

Background: Value-based health care has been proposed as a unifying force to drive improved outcomes and cost containment. Objective: To develop a standard set of multidimensional patient-centered health outcomes for tracking, comparing, and improving localized prostate cancer (PCa) treatment value. Design, setting, and participants: We convened an international working group of patients, registry experts, urologists, and radiation oncologists to review existing data and practices. Outcome measurements and statistical analysisThe group defined a recommended standard set representing who should be tracked, what should be measured and at what time points, and what data are necessary to make meaningful comparisons. Using a modified Delphi method over a series of teleconferences, the group reached consensus for the Standard Set. Results and limitations: We recommend that the Standard Set apply to men with newly diagnosed localized PCa treated with active surveillance, surgery, radiation, or other methods. The Standard Set includes acute toxicities occurring within 6 mo of treatment as well as patient-reported outcomes tracked regularly out to 10 yr. Patient-reported domains of urinary incontinence and irritation, bowel symptoms, sexual symptoms, and hormonal symptoms are included, and the recommended measurement tool is the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form. Disease control outcomes include overall, cause-specific, metastasis-free, and biochemical relapse-free survival. Baseline clinical, pathologic, and comorbidity information is included to improve the interpretability of comparisons. Conclusions: We have defined a simple, easily implemented set of outcomes that we believe should be measured in all men with localized PCa as a crucial first step in improving the value of care. Patient summary: Measuring, reporting, and comparing identical outcomes across treatments and treatment centers will provide patients and providers with information to make informed treatment decisions. We defined a set of outcomes that we recommend being tracked for every man being treated for localized prostate cancer.