Search

Abstract 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).

Abstract Background Informed consent (IC) is an ethical and legal prerequisite for trial participation, yet current approaches evaluating participant understanding for IC during recruitment lack consistency. No validated measure has been identified that evaluates participant understanding for IC based on their contributions during consent interactions. This paper outlines the development and formative evaluation of the Participatory and Informed Consent (PIC) measure for application to recorded recruitment appointments. The PIC allows the evaluation of recruiter information provision and evidence of participant understanding. Methods Published guidelines for IC were reviewed to identify potential items for inclusion. Seventeen purposively sampled trial recruitment appointments from three diverse trials were reviewed to identify the presence of items relevant to IC. A developmental version of the measure (DevPICv1) was drafted and applied to six further recruitment appointments from three further diverse trials to evaluate feasibility, validity, stability and inter-rater reliability. Findings guided revision of the measure (DevPICv2) which was applied to six further recruitment appointments as above. Results DevPICv1 assessed recruiter information provision (detail and clarity assessed separately) and participant talk (detail and understanding assessed separately) over 20 parameters (or 23 parameters for three-arm trials). Initial application of the measure to six diverse recruitment appointments demonstrated promising stability and inter-rater reliability but a need to simplify the measure to shorten time for completion. The revised measure (DevPICv2) combined assessment of detail and clarity of recruiter information and detail and evidence of participant understanding into two single scales for application to 22 parameters or 25 parameters for three-arm trials. Application of DevPICv2 to six further diverse recruitment appointments showed considerable improvements in feasibility (e.g. time to complete) with good levels of stability (i.e. test-retest reliability) and inter-rater reliability maintained. Conclusions The DevPICv2 provides a measure for application to trial recruitment appointments to evaluate quality of recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding and participation during IC discussions. Initial evaluation shows promising feasibility, validity, reliability and ability to discriminate across a range of recruiter practice and evidence of participant understanding. More validation work is needed in new clinical trials to evaluate and refine the measure further.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Informed consent (IC) is an ethical and legal prerequisite for trial participation, yet current approaches evaluating participant understanding for IC during recruitment lack consistency. No validated measure has been identified that evaluates participant understanding for IC based on their contributions during consent interactions. This paper outlines the development and formative evaluation of the Participatory and Informed Consent (PIC) measure for application to recorded recruitment appointments. The PIC allows the evaluation of recruiter information provision and evidence of participant understanding.Methods: Published guidelines for IC were reviewed to identify potential items for inclusion. Seventeen purposively sampled trial recruitment appointments from three diverse trials were reviewed to identify the presence of items relevant to IC. A developmental version of the measure (DevPICv1) was drafted and applied to six further recruitment appointments from three further diverse trials to evaluate feasibility, validity, stability and inter-rater reliability. Findings guided revision of the measure (DevPICv2) which was applied to six further recruitment appointments as above.Results: DevPICv1 assessed recruiter information provision (detail and clarity assessed separately) and participant talk (detail and understanding assessed separately) over 20 parameters (or 23 parameters for three-arm trials). Initial application of the measure to six diverse recruitment appointments demonstrated promising stability and inter-rater reliability but a need to simplify the measure to shorten time for completion. The revised measure (DevPICv2) combined assessment of detail and clarity of recruiter information and detail and evidence of participant understanding into two single scales for application to 22 parameters or 25 parameters for three-arm trials. Application of DevPICv2 to six further diverse recruitment appointments showed considerable improvements in feasibility (e.g. time to complete) with good levels of stability (i.e. test-retest reliability) and inter-rater reliability maintained.Conclusions: The DevPICv2 provides a measure for application to trial recruitment appointments to evaluate quality of recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding and participation during IC discussions. Initial evaluation shows promising feasibility, validity, reliability and ability to discriminate across a range of recruiter practice and evidence of participant understanding. More validation work is needed in new clinical trials to evaluate and refine the measure further. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: When testing for prostate cancer, as many as 75% of men with a raised prostate-specific antigen (PSA) have a benign biopsy result. Little is known about the psychological effect of this result for these men.Methods: In all, 330 men participating in the prostate testing for cancer and treatment (ProtecT) study were studied; aged 50-69 years with a PSA level of > or = 3 ng ml(-1) and a negative biopsy result. Distress and negative mood were measured at four time-points: two during diagnostic testing and two after a negative biopsy result.Results: The majority of men were not greatly affected by testing or a negative biopsy result. The impact on psychological health was highest at the time of the biopsy, with around 20% reporting high distress (33 out of 171) and tense/anxious moods (35 out of 180). Longitudinal analysis on 195 men showed a significant increase in distress at the time of the biopsy compared with levels at the PSA test (difference in Impact of Events Scale (IES) score: 9.47; 95% confidence interval (CI) (6.97, 12.12); P<0.001). These levels remained elevated immediately after the negative biopsy result (difference in score: 7.32; 95% CI (5.51, 9.52); P<0.001) and 12 weeks later (difference in score: 2.42; 95% CI (0.50, 1.15); P=0.009). Psychological mood at the time of PSA testing predicted high levels of distress and anxiety at subsequent time-points.Conclusions: Most men coped well with the testing process, although a minority experienced elevated distress at the time of biopsy and after a negative result. Men should be informed of the risk of distress relating to diagnostic uncertainty before they consent to PSA testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance recommends conservative management of men with 'low-risk' localised prostate cancer, monitoring the disease using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics and re-biopsy. However, there is little evidence of the changes in PSA level that should alert to the need for clinical re-assessment.Methods: This study compares the alerts resulting from PSA kinetics and a novel longitudinal reference range approach, which incorporates age-related changes, during the monitoring of 408 men with localised prostate cancer. Men were monitored by regular PSA tests over a mean of 2.9 years, recording when a man's PSA doubling time fell below 2 years, PSA velocity exceeded 2 ng ml(-1) per year, or when his upper 10% reference range was exceeded.Results: Prostate-specific antigen doubling time and PSA velocity alerted a high proportion of men initially but became unresponsive to changes with successive tests. Calculating doubling time using recent PSA measurements reduced the decline in response. The reference range method maintained responsiveness to changes in PSA level throughout the monitoring.Conclusion: The increasing unresponsiveness of PSA kinetics is a consequence of the underlying regression model. Novel methods are needed for evaluation in cohorts currently being managed by monitoring. Meanwhile, the NICE guidance should be cautious. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The seroprotection rate (SPR) of hepatitis B vaccination in adults is suboptimal. The aim of this study was to compare the SPR of a tri-antigenic hepatitis B vaccine (TAV), with a mono-antigenic vaccine (MAV) in adults of all ages.Methods: This was a multicentre, double-blind, phase 3, randomised controlled trial (PROTECT) comparing the immunogenicity and safety of TAV with MAV in 28 community and hospital sites in the USA, Finland, Canada, and Belgium. Adults (aged ≥18 years) seronegative for hepatitis B virus (HBV), including those with well-controlled common chronic conditions, were randomly assigned (1:1) and stratified by study centre and age according to a web-based permuted blocked randomisation. Participants received either TAV or MAV which were administered as an intramuscular dose (1 mL) of TAV (10 μg; Sci-B-Vac, VBI Vaccines [SciVac, Rehovot, Israel]) or MAV (20 μg; Engerix-B [GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Rixensart, Belgium]) on days 0, 28, and 168 with six study visits and 24 weeks of follow-up after the third vaccination. Participants, investigators, and those assessing outcomes were masked to group assignment. The co-primary outcomes were to show non-inferiority of the SPRs 4 weeks after the third vaccination with TAV versus MAV in adults aged 18 years and older, as well as superiority in adults aged 45 years and older. SPR was defined as the percentage of participants attaining anti-HBs titres of 10 mIU/mL or higher. Non-inferiority of TAV to MAV was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the between-group difference was greater than -5%. Non-inferiority was assessed in the per-protocol set of participants (aged ≥18 years) and superiority was assessed in all participants (aged ≥45 years) who received at least one vaccination and had at least one evaluable immunogenicity sample after baseline (full analysis set). Safety analyses were a secondary outcome and included all participants who received at least one injection. This trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03393754) and EudraCT (2017-001819-36) and is closed to new participants.Findings: Between Dec 13, 2017, and April 8, 2019, 1607 participants (796 allocated to TAV and 811 allocated to MAV) were randomly assigned and distributed across age cohorts of 18-44 years (299 of 1607; 18·6%), 45-64 years (716 of 1607; 44·6%), and 65 years and older (592 of 1607; 36·8%). In participants aged 18 years and older, SPR was 91·4% (656 of 718) in the TAV group versus 76·5% (553 of 723) in the MAV group (difference 14·9%, 95% CI 11·2-18·6), showing non-inferiority in the per-protocol set. In participants aged 45 years and older, SPR was 89·4% (559 of 625) in the TAV group versus 73·1% (458 of 627) in the MAV group (difference 16·4%, 95% CI 12·2-20·7), showing superiority in the full analysis set. TAV was associated with higher rates of mild or moderate injection site pain (63·2% [503 of 796] in TAV vs 36·3% [294 of 811] in MAV), tenderness (60·8% [484 of 796] in TAV vs 34·8% [282 of 811] in MAV), and myalgia (34·7% [276 of 796] vs 24·3% [197 of 811] in MAV). Otherwise, the safety profile of TAV was similar to that of MAV.Interpretation: The safety and efficacy of TAV shows its usefulness for the prevention of HBV infection in adults, including those with stable and controlled chronic conditions.Funding: VBI Vaccines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Multicenter randomized trials are required for pragmatic evaluations of health care interventions, but recruitment is difficult. Systematic reviews failed to identify robust strategies to improve recruitment. We developed and evaluated a complex intervention to increase levels of randomization and informed consent.Study Design and Setting: The ProtecT (Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment) trial compares radical surgery, radical conformal radiotherapy, and active monitoring for men aged 50-69 years with localized prostate cancer. The intervention was developed using qualitative research methods (content, thematic and conversation analysis). Rates of randomization and immediate acceptance of allocation were measured every 6 months to evaluate the impact of the intervention.Results: The complex intervention comprised reviews of centers falling below study targets, training programmes, documents and individually tailored feedback. Over 65% of eligible participants consented to randomization. Trial participants became increasingly well informed as immediate acceptance of allocation rose from 65% to 81% between 2001 and 2005.Conclusion: This complex intervention resulted in high levels of randomization and informed consent in a difficult trial. The generic aspects of the intervention could be applied to other trials to maximize randomization and informed consent, and allow the mounting of trials previously considered too difficult. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: Recruitment to randomized trials is often difficult, but few studies have investigated interventions to improve recruitment. In a randomized trial nested within a trial of treatments for localized prostate cancer, we investigated the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of nurses and surgeons in recruiting patients.Methods: Men with localized prostate cancer were randomized to see a nurse or urologic surgeon for an “information appointment” in which they were asked to consent to the ProtecT treatment trial comparing surgery, radiotherapy, and active monitoring. Analysis was conducted by intention to treat using chi-square with 95% confidence intervals for proportions and differences between groups. An economic evaluation was performed using the duration of appointments and grade of recruitment staff.Results: Case-finding identified 167 men with localized prostate cancer. One hundred fifty (90%) took part in the recruitment trial. There was a 4.0% difference between nurses and surgeons in recruitment rates (67% nurses, 71% urologists, 95% CI −10.8% to +18.8%, P = .60). Cost-minimization analysis showed that nurses spent longer times with patients but surgeon costs were higher and nurses often supported surgeon-led clinics.Conclusion: Nurses were as effective and more cost-effective recruiters than urologic surgeons. This suggests an increased role for nurses in recruiting patients to randomized trials. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]