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 415 357 eligible men (mean [SD] age, 59.0 [5.6] years), 98% were included in these analyses. Overall, 12 013 and 12 958 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 45 084 all-cause deaths in the intervention group (23.2% [95% CI, 23.0%-23.4%]) and 50 336 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.

10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The comparative effectiveness of treatments for prostate cancer that is detected by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing remains uncertain. METHODS: We compared active monitoring, radical prostatectomy, and external-beam radiotherapy for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Between 1999 and 2009, a total of 82,429 men 50 to 69 years of age received a PSA test; 2664 received a diagnosis of localized prostate cancer, and 1643 agreed to undergo randomization to active monitoring (545 men), surgery (553), or radiotherapy (545). The primary outcome was prostate-cancer mortality at a median of 10 years of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the rates of disease progression, metastases, and all-cause deaths. RESULTS: There were 17 prostate-cancer-specific deaths overall: 8 in the active-monitoring group (1.5 deaths per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7 to 3.0), 5 in the surgery group (0.9 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.4 to 2.2), and 4 in the radiotherapy group (0.7 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.3 to 2.0); the difference among the groups was not significant (P=0.48 for the overall comparison). In addition, no significant difference was seen among the groups in the number of deaths from any cause (169 deaths overall; P=0.87 for the comparison among the three groups). Metastases developed in more men in the active-monitoring group (33 men; 6.3 events per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 4.5 to 8.8) than in the surgery group (13 men; 2.4 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.4 to 4.2) or the radiotherapy group (16 men; 3.0 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.9 to 4.9) (P=0.004 for the overall comparison). Higher rates of disease progression were seen in the active-monitoring group (112 men; 22.9 events per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 19.0 to 27.5) than in the surgery group (46 men; 8.9 events per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 6.7 to 11.9) or the radiotherapy group (46 men; 9.0 events per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 6.7 to 12.0) (P<0.001 for the overall comparison). CONCLUSIONS: At a median of 10 years, prostate-cancer-specific mortality was low irrespective of the treatment assigned, with no significant difference among treatments. Surgery and radiotherapy were associated with lower incidences of disease progression and metastases than was active monitoring. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; ProtecT Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172 .).

Effect of a Low-Intensity PSA-Based Screening Intervention on Prostate Cancer Mortality: The CAP Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Prostate cancer screening remains controversial because potential mortality or quality-of-life benefits may be outweighed by harms from overdetection and overtreatment. Objective: To evaluate the effect of a single prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening intervention and standardized diagnostic pathway on prostate cancer-specific mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Cluster Randomized Trial of PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer (CAP) included 419 582 men aged 50 to 69 years and was conducted at 573 primary care practices across the United Kingdom. Randomization and recruitment of the practices occurred between 2001 and 2009; patient follow-up ended on March 31, 2016. Intervention: An invitation to attend a PSA testing clinic and receive a single PSA test vs standard (unscreened) practice. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome: prostate cancer-specific mortality at a median follow-up of 10 years. Prespecified secondary outcomes: diagnostic cancer stage and Gleason grade (range, 2-10; higher scores indicate a poorer prognosis) of prostate cancers identified, all-cause mortality, and an instrumental variable analysis estimating the causal effect of attending the PSA screening clinic. Results: Among 415 357 randomized men (mean [SD] age, 59.0 [5.6] years), 189 386 in the intervention group and 219 439 in the control group were included in the analysis (n = 408 825; 98%). In the intervention group, 75 707 (40%) attended the PSA testing clinic and 67 313 (36%) underwent PSA testing. Of 64 436 with a valid PSA test result, 6857 (11%) had a PSA level between 3 ng/mL and 19.9 ng/mL, of whom 5850 (85%) had a prostate biopsy. After a median follow-up of 10 years, 549 (0.30 per 1000 person-years) died of prostate cancer in the intervention group vs 647 (0.31 per 1000 person-years) in the control group (rate difference, -0.013 per 1000 person-years [95% CI, -0.047 to 0.022]; rate ratio [RR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.85 to 1.08]; P = .50). The number diagnosed with prostate cancer was higher in the intervention group (n = 8054; 4.3%) than in the control group (n = 7853; 3.6%) (RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.14 to 1.25]; P < .001). More prostate cancer tumors with a Gleason grade of 6 or lower were identified in the intervention group (n = 3263/189 386 [1.7%]) than in the control group (n = 2440/219 439 [1.1%]) (difference per 1000 men, 6.11 [95% CI, 5.38 to 6.84]; P < .001). In the analysis of all-cause mortality, there were 25 459 deaths in the intervention group vs 28 306 deaths in the control group (RR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.94 to 1.03]; P = .49). In the instrumental variable analysis for prostate cancer mortality, the adherence-adjusted causal RR was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.29; P = .66). Conclusions and Relevance: Among practices randomized to a single PSA screening intervention vs standard practice without screening, there was no significant difference in prostate cancer mortality after a median follow-up of 10 years but the detection of low-risk prostate cancer cases increased. Although longer-term follow-up is under way, the findings do not support single PSA testing for population-based screening. Trial Registration: ISRCTN Identifier: ISRCTN92187251.

Strategies adopted by men to deal with uncertainty and anxiety when following an active surveillance/monitoring protocol for localised prostate cancer and implications for care: a longitudinal qualitative study embedded within the ProtecT trial.

OBJECTIVES: Active surveillance (AS) enables men with low risk, localised prostate cancer (PCa) to avoid radical treatment unless progression occurs; lack of reliable AS protocols to determine progression leaves uncertainties for men and clinicians. This study investigated men's strategies for coping with the uncertainties of active monitoring (AM, a surveillance strategy within the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment, ProtecT trial) over the longer term and implications for optimising supportive care. DESIGN: Longitudinal serial in-depth qualitative interviews every 2-3 years for a median 7 (range 6-14) years following diagnosis. SETTING: Four centres within the UK Protect trial. PARTICIPANTS: Purposive sample of 20 men with localised PCa: median age at diagnosis 64 years (range 52-68); 15 (75%) had low-risk PCa; 12 randomly allocated to, 8 choosing AM. Eleven men continued with AM throughout the study period (median 7 years). Nine received radical treatment after a median 4 years (range 0.8-13.8 years). INTERVENTION: AM: 3-monthly serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-level assessment (year 1), 6-12 monthly thereafter; increase in PSA ≥50% during previous 12 months or patient/clinician concern triggered review. MAIN OUTCOMES: Thematic analysis of 73 interviews identified strategies to accommodate uncertainty and anxiety of living with untreated cancer; implications for patient care. RESULTS: Men sought clarity, control or reassurance, with contextual factors mediating individual responses. Trust in the clinical team was critical for men in balancing anxiety and facilitating successful management change/continued monitoring. Only men from ProtecT were included; men outside ProtecT may have different experiences. CONCLUSION: Men looked to clinicians for clarity, control and reassurance. Where provided, men felt comfortable continuing AM or having radical treatments when indicated. Clinicians build patient trust by clearly describing uncertainties, allowing patients control wherever possible and being aware of how context influences individual responses. Insights indicate need for supportive services to build trust and patient engagement over the long term. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN20141297; Pre-results.

Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy in PSA-detected clinically localised prostate cancer: the ProtecT three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the UK. Prostate-specific antigen testing followed by biopsy leads to overdetection, overtreatment as well as undertreatment of the disease. Evidence of treatment effectiveness has lacked because of the paucity of randomised controlled trials comparing conventional treatments. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of conventional treatments for localised prostate cancer (active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy) in men aged 50-69 years. DESIGN: A prospective, multicentre prostate-specific antigen testing programme followed by a randomised trial of treatment, with a comprehensive cohort follow-up. SETTING: Prostate-specific antigen testing in primary care and treatment in nine urology departments in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Between 2001 and 2009, 228,966 men aged 50-69 years received an invitation to attend an appointment for information about the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study and a prostate-specific antigen test; 82,429 men were tested, 2664 were diagnosed with localised prostate cancer, 1643 agreed to randomisation to active monitoring (n = 545), radical prostatectomy (n = 553) or radical radiotherapy (n = 545) and 997 chose a treatment. INTERVENTIONS: The interventions were active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy. TRIAL PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Definite or probable disease-specific mortality at the 10-year median follow-up in randomised participants. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall mortality, metastases, disease progression, treatment complications, resource utilisation and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for 17 prostate cancer-specific (p = 0.48) and 169 all-cause (p = 0.87) deaths. Eight men died of prostate cancer in the active monitoring group (1.5 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.0); five died of prostate cancer in the radical prostatectomy group (0.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 2.2 per 1000 person years) and four died of prostate cancer in the radical radiotherapy group (0.7 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.0 per 1000 person years). More men developed metastases in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring, n = 33 (6.3 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 4.5 to 8.8); radical prostatectomy, n = 13 (2.4 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.4 to 4.2 per 1000 person years); and radical radiotherapy, n = 16 (3.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.9 to 4.9 per 1000 person-years; p = 0.004). There were higher rates of disease progression in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring (n = 112; 22.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 19.0 to 27.5 per 1000 person years); radical prostatectomy (n = 46; 8.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 11.9 per 1000 person-years); and radical radiotherapy (n = 46; 9.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 12.0 per 1000 person years; p < 0.001). Radical prostatectomy had the greatest impact on sexual function/urinary continence and remained worse than radical radiotherapy and active monitoring. Radical radiotherapy's impact on sexual function was greatest at 6 months, but recovered somewhat in the majority of participants. Sexual and urinary function gradually declined in the active monitoring group. Bowel function was worse with radical radiotherapy at 6 months, but it recovered with the exception of bloody stools. Urinary voiding and nocturia worsened in the radical radiotherapy group at 6 months but recovered. Condition-specific quality-of-life effects mirrored functional changes. No differences in anxiety/depression or generic or cancer-related quality of life were found. At the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the probabilities that each arm was the most cost-effective option were 58% (radical radiotherapy), 32% (active monitoring) and 10% (radical prostatectomy). LIMITATIONS: A single prostate-specific antigen test and transrectal ultrasound biopsies were used. There were very few non-white men in the trial. The majority of men had low- and intermediate-risk disease. Longer follow-up is needed. CONCLUSIONS: At a median follow-up point of 10 years, prostate cancer-specific mortality was low, irrespective of the assigned treatment. Radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy reduced disease progression and metastases, but with side effects. Further work is needed to follow up participants at a median of 15 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20141297. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 37. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men and is often found through a blood test called a prostate-specific antigen test and through biopsies of the prostate. Over the years, these tests led to the detection of many small cancers that do not cause harm. Some prostate cancers are harmful, but it is difficult to recognise them early. When cancer is still inside the prostate, the conventional treatments are surgery or radiotherapy, which carry side effects including leaking urine and difficulty getting an erection, so another option is repeat investigations at regular intervals (active monitoring), with treatments given if the cancer progresses. These options needed to be compared in a study called a 'randomised trial' in which men agree to be allocated to one of the three treatments. In the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study, 200,000 men aged 50­69 years were invited to have a prostate-specific antigen test. Of the 82,849 men who agreed to be tested, 1643 of whom had prostate cancer that was still contained in the prostate agreed to be allocated to one of the three treatments. After an average of 10 years of follow-up, 99% of men were alive in each of the treatment groups. However, when compared with active monitoring, surgery and radiotherapy reduced the risk of disease spreading outside the prostate by half. Patients reported that urinary leakage and sexual function were worst with surgery, and sexual and bowel functions were affected by radiotherapy. Men on active monitoring had a gradual decline in their urinary and sexual function, particularly as around half of them later had surgery or radiotherapy. Radiotherapy was the treatment that seemed to be the best value for money. The findings from the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study can help men make decisions about being tested and which treatment to have if they are found to have cancer within the prostate. We now need to find out the longer-term effects of these treatments on how long men live and their quality of life.

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 (PCa) randomly allocated to active monitoring (AM), radical prostatectomy, and external beam radiotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To determine 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; 997 declined randomisation and chose treatment. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Health-related quality of life impacts on urinary, bowel, and sexual function were assessed using patient-reported outcome measures. Analysis was carried out based on treatment received for each cohort and on pooled estimates 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 6mo) and urinary incontinence (55% at 6mo) after surgery, and of sexual dysfunction (88% at 6mo) and bowel dysfunction (5% at 6mo) after radiotherapy. The key limitations are the potential for bias when comparing groups defined by treatment received and outdating of the interventions being evaluated 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 90 out of every 100 men with localised prostate cancer do not die of prostate cancer within 10yr, irrespective of whether treatment is by means of monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy. Side effects on sexual and bladder function are much better after active monitoring, but the risks of spreading of prostate cancer are more common.

Training health professionals to recruit into challenging randomized controlled trials improved confidence: the development of the QuinteT randomized controlled trial recruitment training intervention.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to describe and evaluate a training intervention for recruiting patients to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), particularly for those anticipated to be difficult for recruitment. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: One of three training workshops was offered to surgeons and one to research nurses. Self-confidence in recruitment was measured through questionnaires before and up to 3 months after training; perceived impact of training on practice was assessed after. Data were analyzed using two-sample t-tests and supplemented with findings from the content analysis of free-text comments. RESULTS: Sixty-seven surgeons and 32 nurses attended. Self-confidence scores for all 10 questions increased after training [range of mean scores before 5.1-6.9 and after 6.9-8.2 (scale 0-10, all 95% confidence intervals are above 0 and all P-values <0.05)]. Awareness of hidden challenges of recruitment following training was high-surgeons' mean score 8.8 [standard deviation (SD), 1.2] and nurses' 8.4 (SD, 1.3) (scale 0-10); 50% (19/38) of surgeons and 40% (10/25) of nurses reported on a 4-point Likert scale that training had made "a lot" of difference to their RCT discussions. Analysis of free text revealed this was mostly in relation to how to convey equipoise, explain randomization, and manage treatment preferences. CONCLUSION: Surgeons and research nurses reported increased self-confidence in discussing RCTs with patients, a raised awareness of hidden challenges and a positive impact on recruitment practice following QuinteT RCT Recruitment Training. Training will be made more available and evaluated in relation to recruitment rates and informed consent.

Mortality Among Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer Excluded from the ProtecT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Early detection and treatment of asymptomatic men with advanced and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) may improve survival rates. OBJECTIVE: To determine outcomes for men diagnosed with advanced PCa following prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing who were excluded from the ProtecT randomised trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Mortality was compared for 492 men followed up for a median of 7.4 yr to a contemporaneous cohort of men from the UK Anglia Cancer Network (ACN) and with a matched subset from the ACN. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: PCa-specific and all-cause mortality were compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox's proportional hazards regression. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of the 492 men excluded from the ProtecT cohort, 37 (8%) had metastases (N1, M0=5, M1=32) and 305 had locally advanced disease (62%). The median PSA was 17µg/l. Treatments included radical prostatectomy (RP; n=54; 11%), radiotherapy (RT; n=245; 50%), androgen deprivation therapy (ADT; n=122; 25%), other treatments (n=11; 2%), and unknown (n=60; 12%). There were 49 PCa-specific deaths (10%), of whom 14 men had received radical treatment (5%); and 129 all-cause deaths (26%). In matched ProtecT and ACN cohorts, 37 (9%) and 64 (16%), respectively, died of PCa, while 89 (22%) and 103 (26%) died of all causes. ProtecT men had a 45% lower risk of death from PCa compared to matched cases (hazard ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.38-0.83; p=0.0037), but mortality was similar in those treated radically. The nonrandomised design is a limitation. CONCLUSIONS: Men with PSA-detected advanced PCa excluded from ProtecT and treated radically had low rates of PCa death at 7.4-yr follow-up. Among men who underwent nonradical treatment, the ProtecT group had a lower rate of PCa death. Early detection through PSA testing, leadtime bias, and group heterogeneity are possible factors in this finding. PATIENT SUMMARY: Prostate cancer that has spread outside the prostate gland without causing symptoms can be detected via prostate-specific antigen testing and treated, leading to low rates of death from this disease.

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. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT02044172; ISRCTN20141297.

A Peer Review Intervention for Monitoring and Evaluating sites (PRIME) that improved randomized controlled trial conduct and performance.

OBJECTIVE: Good clinical practice (GCP) guidelines emphasize trial site monitoring, although the implementation is unspecified and evidence for benefit is sparse. We aimed to develop a site monitoring process using peer reviewers to improve staff training, site performance, data collection, and GCP compliance. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The Peer Review Intervention for Monitoring and Evaluating sites (PRIME) team observed and gave feedback on trial recruitment and follow-up appointments, held staff meetings, and examined documentation during annual 2-day site visits. The intervention was evaluated in the ProtecT trial, a UK randomized controlled trial of localized prostate cancer treatments (ISRCTN20141297). The ProtecT coordinator and senior nurses conducted three monitoring rounds at eight sites (2004-2007). The process evaluation used PRIME report findings, trial databases, resource use, and a site nurse survey. RESULTS: Adverse findings decreased across all sites from 44 in round 1 to 19 in round 3. Most findings related to protocol adherence or site organizational issues, including improvements in eligibility criteria application and data collection. Staff found site monitoring acceptable and made changes after reviews. CONCLUSION: The PRIME process used observation by peer reviewers to improve protocol adherence and train site staff, which increased trial performance and consistency.