Lower urinary tract symptoms in men: the TRIUMPH cluster RCT.

Background: Conservative therapies are recommended as initial treatment for male lower urinary tract symptoms. However, there is a lack of evidence on effectiveness and uncertainty regarding approaches to delivery. Objective: The objective was to determine whether or not a standardised and manualised care intervention delivered in primary care achieves superior symptomatic outcome for lower urinary tract symptoms to usual care. Design: This was a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting: The trial was set in 30 NHS general practice sites in England. Participants: Participants were adult men (aged ≥ 18 years) with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms. Interventions: Sites were randomised 1 : 1 to deliver the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions trial intervention or usual care to all participants. The TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions intervention comprised a standardised advice booklet developed for the trial from the British Association of Urological Surgeons' patient information sheets, with patient and expert input. Patients were directed to relevant sections by general practice or research nurses/healthcare assistants following urinary symptom assessment, providing the manualised element. The healthcare professional provided follow-up contacts over 12 weeks to support adherence to the intervention. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the validated patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score 12 months post consent. Rather than the minimal clinically important difference of 3.0 points for overall International Prostate Symptom Score, the sample size aimed to detect a difference of 2.0 points, owing to the recognised clinical impact of individual symptoms. Results: A total of 1077 men consented to the study: 524 in sites randomised to the intervention arm (n = 17) and 553 in sites randomised to the control arm (n = 13). A difference in mean International Prostate Symptom Score at 12 months was found (adjusted mean difference of -1.81 points, 95% confidence interval -2.66 to -0.95 points), with a lower score in the intervention arm, indicating less severe symptoms. Secondary outcomes of patient-reported urinary symptoms, quality of life specific to lower urinary tract symptoms and perception of lower urinary tract symptoms all showed evidence of a difference between the arms favouring the intervention. No difference was seen between the arms in the proportion of urology referrals or adverse events. In qualitative interviews, participants welcomed the intervention, describing positive effects on their symptoms, as well as on their understanding of conservative care and their attitude towards the experience of lower urinary tract symptoms. The interviews highlighted that structured, in-depth self-management is insufficiently embedded within general practitioner consultations. From an NHS perspective, mean costs and quality-adjusted life-years were similar between trial arms. The intervention arm had slightly lower mean costs (adjusted mean difference of -£29.99, 95% confidence interval -£109.84 to £22.63) than the usual-care arm, and a small gain in quality-adjusted life-years (adjusted mean difference of 0.001, 95% confidence interval -0.011 to 0.014). Conclusions: The intervention showed a small, sustained benefit for men's lower urinary tract symptoms and quality of life across a range of outcome measures in a UK primary care setting. Qualitative data showed that men highly valued the intervention. Intervention costs were marginally lower than usual-care costs. Limitations of the study included that trial participants were unmasked, with limited diversity in ethnicity and deprivation level. Additional research is needed to assess the applicability of the intervention for a more ethnically diverse population.. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN11669964. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/90/03) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 13. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Urinary problems among men become more common with age. Nearly one-third of all men aged > 65 years experience some urinary symptoms, which can have a substantial effect on their daily lives. Symptoms include needing to pass urine more often, urgently or during the night, and difficulties in passing urine. Men are usually diagnosed and treated by their general practitioner, and should be offered advice on controlling their symptoms themselves (e.g. lifestyle changes and exercises) before trying tablets or surgery. However, it is not known how helpful such advice is, and how general practices can effectively provide it. Thirty general practices in the West of England and Wessex took part in the study. Practices were split into two groups, with each practice providing either the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions care package or the practice's usual care to all of its patients in the trial. The TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Healthcare using nonpharmacological and non-surgical interventions care package included a booklet of advice to help control urinary symptoms, with a nurse or healthcare assistant directing men to relevant sections according to their symptoms, and providing follow-up contacts. We mainly assessed the benefits of the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Healthcare using nonpharmacological and non-surgical interventions care package, compared with usual care, by using a questionnaire on urinary symptoms completed by participants. A total of 1077 men with urinary symptoms that bothered them joined the study. The main result was that men reported greater improvement in urinary symptoms with the TRIUMPH care package than with usual care, 12 months after joining the study. We also found that men receiving the TRIUMPH care package had a slight improvement in quality of life and outlook on their urinary symptoms. There was no difference between the two groups in the number of patients referred to hospital for treatment, the type, number and severity of side effects or cost to the NHS. Overall, the TRIUMPH care package was more effective in treating men with urinary symptoms than usual care by their general practice.

Cost-effectiveness of a primary healthcare intervention to treat male lower urinary tract symptoms: the TRIUMPH cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of a primary care intervention for male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) compared with usual care. DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective with a 12-month time horizon. SETTING: Thirty NHS general practice sites in England. PARTICIPANTS: 1077 men aged 18 or older identified in primary care with bothersome LUTS. INTERVENTIONS: A standardised and manualised intervention for the treatment of bothersome LUTS was compared with usual care. The intervention group (n=524) received a standardised information booklet with guidance on conservative treatment for LUTS, urinary symptom assessment and follow-up contacts for 12 weeks. The usual care group (n=553) followed local guidelines between general practice sites. MEASURES: Resource use was obtained from electronic health records, trial staff and participants, and valued using UK reference costs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated from the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Adjusted mean differences in costs and QALYs and incremental net monetary benefit were estimated. RESULTS: 866 of 1077 (80.4%) participants had complete data and were included in the base-case analysis. Over the 12-month follow-up period, intervention and usual care arms had similar mean adjusted costs and QALYs. Mean differences were lower in the intervention arm for adjusted costs -£29.99 (95% CI -£109.84 to £22.63) while higher in the intervention arm for adjusted QALYs 0.001 (95% CI -0.011 to 0.014). The incremental net monetary benefit statistic was £48.01 (95% CI -£225.83 to £321.85) at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence UK threshold of £20 000 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed a 63% probability of the intervention arm being cost-effective at this threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Costs and QALYs were similar between the two arms at 12 months follow-up. This indicates that the intervention can be implemented in general practice at neutral cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11669964.

Treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men in primary care using a conservative intervention: cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a standardised and manualised care intervention in men in primary care could achieve superior improvement of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) compared with usual care. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 30 National Health Service general practice sites in England. PARTICIPANTS: Sites were randomised 1:1 to the intervention and control arms. 1077 men (≥18 years) with bothersome LUTS recruited between June 2018 and August 2019: 524 were assigned to the intervention arm (n=17 sites) and 553 were assigned to the usual care arm (n=13 sites). INTERVENTION: Standardised information booklet developed with patient and expert input, providing guidance on conservative and lifestyle interventions for LUTS in men. After assessment of urinary symptoms (manualised element), general practice nurses and healthcare assistants or research nurses directed participants to relevant sections of the manual and provided contact over 12 weeks to assist with adherence. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) measured 12 months after participants had consented to take part in the study. The target reduction of 2.0 points on which the study was powered reflects the minimal clinically important difference where baseline IPSS is <20. Secondary outcomes were patient reported quality of life, urinary symptoms and perception of LUTS, hospital referrals, and adverse events. The primary intention-to-treat analysis included 887 participants (82% of those recruited) and used a mixed effects multilevel linear regression model adjusted for site level variables used in the randomisation and baseline scores. RESULTS: Participants in the intervention arm had a lower mean IPSS at 12 months (adjusted mean difference -1.81 points, 95% confidence interval -2.66 to -0.95) indicating less severe urinary symptoms than those in the usual care arm. LUTS specific quality of life, incontinence, and perception of LUTS also improved more in the intervention arm than usual care arm at 12 months. The proportion of urology referrals (intervention 7.3%, usual care 7.9%) and adverse events (intervention seven events, usual care eight events) were comparable between the arms. CONCLUSIONS: A standardised and manualised intervention in primary care showed a sustained reduction in LUTS in men at 12 months. The mean difference of -1.81 points (95% confidence interval -0.95 to -2.66) on the IPSS was less than the predefined target reduction of 2.0 points. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN11669964.

Prostate cancer-Exercise and Metformin Trial (Pre-EMpT): study protocol for a feasibility factorial randomized controlled trial in men with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from observational studies have shown that moderate intensity physical activity can reduce risk of progression and cancer-specific mortality in participants with prostate cancer. Epidemiological studies have also shown participants taking metformin to have a reduced risk of prostate cancer. However, data from randomised controlled trials supporting the use of these interventions are limited. The Prostate cancer-Exercise and Metformin Trial examines that feasibility of randomising participants diagnosed with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer to interventions that modify physical activity and blood glucose levels. The primary outcomes are randomisation rates and adherence to the interventions over 6 months. The secondary outcomes include intervention tolerability and retention rates, measures of insulin-like growth factor I, prostate-specific antigen, physical activity, symptom-reporting, and quality of life. METHODS: Participants are randomised in a 2 × 2 factorial design to both a physical activity (brisk walking or control) and a pharmacological (metformin or control) intervention. Participants perform the interventions for 6 months with final measures collected at 12 months follow-up. DISCUSSION: Our trial will determine whether participants diagnosed with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer, who are scheduled for radical treatments or being monitored for signs of cancer progression, can be randomised to a 6 months physical activity and metformin intervention. The findings from our trial will inform a larger trial powered to examine the clinical benefits of these interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prostate Cancer Exercise and Metformin Trial (Pre-EMpT) is registered on the ISRCTN registry, reference number ISRCTN13543667 . Date of registration 2nd August 2018-retrospectively registered. First participant was recruited on 11th September 2018.

Does testosterone mediate the relationship between vitamin D and prostate cancer progression? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown an association between vitamin D levels and prostate cancer progression. However, evidence of direct causality is sparse and studies have not examined biological mechanisms, which can provide information on plausibility and strengthen the evidence for causality. METHODS: We used the World Cancer Research Fund International/University of Bristol two-stage framework for mechanistic systematic reviews. In stage one, both text mining of published literature and expert opinion identified testosterone as a plausible biological mechanism. In stage two, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the evidence from both human and animal studies examining the effect of vitamin D on testosterone, and testosterone on advanced prostate cancer (diagnostic Gleason score of ≥ 8, development of metastasis) or prostate cancer-specific mortality. RESULTS: A meta-analysis of ten human RCTs showed evidence of an effect of vitamin D on total testosterone (standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.133, 95% CI = - 0.003-0.269, I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.056). Five human RCTs showed evidence of an effect of vitamin D on free testosterone (SMD = 0.173, 95% CI = - 0.104-0.450, I2 = 52.4%, p = 0.220). Three human cohort studies of testosterone on advanced prostate cancer or prostate cancer-specific mortality provided inconsistent results. In one study, higher levels of calculated free testosterone were positively associated with advanced prostate cancer or prostate cancer-specific mortality. In contrast, higher levels of dihydrotestosterone were associated with lowering prostate cancer-specific mortality in another study. No animal studies met the study eligibility criteria. CONCLUSION: There is some evidence that vitamin D increases levels of total and free testosterone, although the effect of testosterone levels within the normal range on prostate cancer progression is unclear. The role of testosterone as a mechanism between vitamin D and prostate cancer progression remains inconclusive.

Attitudes and adherence to changes in nutrition and physical activity following surgery for prostate cancer: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Interventions designed to improve men's diet and physical activity (PA) have been recommended as methods of cancer prevention. However, little is known about specific factors that support men's adherence to these health behaviour changes, which could inform theory-led diet and PA interventions. We aimed to explore these factors in men following prostatectomy for prostate cancer (PCa). DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A qualitative study using semistructured interviews with men, who made changes to their diet and/or PA as part of a factorial randomised controlled trial conducted at a single hospital in South West England. Participants were 17 men aged 66 years, diagnosed with localised PCa and underwent prostatectomy. Interview transcripts underwent thematic analysis. RESULTS: Men were ambivalent about the relationship of nutrition and PA with PCa risk. They believed their diet and level of PA were reasonable before being randomised to their interventions. Men identified several barriers and facilitators to performing these new behaviours. Barriers included tolerance to dietary changes, PA limitations and external obstacles. Facilitators included partner involvement in diet, habit formation and brisk walking as an individual activity. Men discussed positive effects associated with brisk walking, such as feeling healthier, but not with nutrition interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The facilitators to behaviour change suggest that adherence to trial interventions can be supported using well-established behaviour change models. Future studies may benefit from theory-based interventions to support adherence to diet and PA behaviour changes in men diagnosed with PCa.

Qualitative Assessment of the Conservative Management of Nocturia with Standardised Written Materials for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Men Treated in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Many men prefer conservative treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) but education and self-help guidance are limited in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To report qualitative interview findings for men reporting nocturia in a primary care setting for LUTS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: TRIUMPH (Treating Urinary Symptoms in Men in Primary Healthcare) is a multicentre cluster randomised trial of standardised manualised care (a booklet delivered by a health care professional) versus usual care for LUTS. The participants (524 in the intervention arm and 553 in the usual care arm) were men presenting for primary care for LUTS at 30 general practice (GP) sites in the UK. INTERVENTION: Delivery of a LUTS self-management booklet by health care staff in comparison to usual care for men with LUTS. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The qualitative component included 58 early-stage (0-3 mo after study enrolment) and 33 late-stage (3-9 mo later) interviews with participants to assess their experience of LUTS and conservative treatment in primary care. Purposive sampling was used to select participants for interview. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Nocturia is a common driver for seeking health care and is perceived by men as relatively acceptable to discuss. Information and self-help guidance were largely absent from descriptions of GP consultations, other than reducing evening caffeine and fluid intake. The TRIUMPH LUTS intervention booklet offers explanations and self-management guidance. Men with long-term disruptive symptoms, a perception that the booklet content was novel or worthwhile, and a belief that self-management might help, were more receptive to the intervention. In follow-up, improvements in nocturia were related to successful implementation of several aspects of the guidance. Most men were willing to complete a bladder diary, but some found it inconvenient, especially men in employment. The characteristics of the trial population mean that the findings may not apply to all men. CONCLUSIONS: Reassuring men that nocturia is part of ageing without offering them information and support risks reinforcing the tendency to discount problematic LUTS. The trial booklet and the training of health care professionals support guidance on nocturia self-management, which is most effective for men receptive to this approach. However, the nature of the trial population means that the findings may not apply to all men. PATIENT SUMMARY: Men are more comfortable in discussing waking at night to urinate than talking about other urinary symptoms with their GP. This problem should lead to a detailed discussion of all urinary symptoms rather than being thought of as a sign of ageing. An information booklet and nurse consultation helped many men to improve this symptom.

Prostate cancer survivors' preferences on the delivery of diet and lifestyle advice: a pilot best-worst discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: Lifestyle factors, including diet and physical activity, are associated with prostate cancer progression and mortality. However, it is unclear how men would like lifestyle information to be delivered following primary treatment. This study aimed to identify men's preferences for receiving lifestyle information. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional pilot best-worst discrete choice experiment which was nested within a feasibility randomised controlled trial. Our aim was to explore men's preferences of receiving diet and physical activity advice following surgery for localised prostate cancer. Thirty-eight men with a mean age of 65 years completed best-worst scenarios based on four attributes: (1) how information is provided; (2) where information is provided; (3) who provides information; and (4) the indirect cost of receiving information. Data was analysed using conditional logistic regression. Men's willingness to pay (WTP) for aspects of the service was calculated using an out-of-pocket cost attribute. RESULTS: The combined best-worst analysis suggested that men preferred information through one-to-one discussion ß = 1.07, CI = 0.88 to 1.26) and not by email (ß = - 1.02, CI = - 1.23 to - 0.80). They preferred information provided by specialist nurses followed by dietitians (ß = 0.76, CI = 0.63 to 0.90 and - 0.16, CI = - 0.27 to - 0.05 respectively) then general nurses (ß = - 0.60, CI = - 0.73 to - 0.48). Three groups were identified based on their preferences. The largest group preferred information through individual face-to-face or group discussions (ß = 1.35, CI = 1.05 to 1.63 and 0.70, CI = 0.38 to 1.03 respectively). The second group wanted information via one-to-one discussions or telephone calls (ß = 1.89, CI = 1.41 to 2.37 and 1.03, CI = 0.58 to 1.48 respectively), and did not want information at community centres (ß = - 0.50, CI = - 0.88 to - 0.13). The final group preferred individual face-to-face discussions (ß = 0.45, CI = 0.03 to 0.88) but had a lower WTP value (£17). CONCLUSIONS: Men mostly valued personalised methods of receiving diet and physical activity information over impersonal methods. The out-of-pocket value of receiving lifestyle information was important to some men. These findings could help inform future interventions using tailored dietary and physical activity advice given to men by clinicians following treatment for prostate cancer, such as mode of delivery, context, and person delivering the intervention. Future studies should consider using discrete choice experiments to examine information delivery to cancer survivor populations.

Phase II randomised control feasibility trial of a nutrition and physical activity intervention after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Dietary factors and physical activity may alter prostate cancer progression. We explored the feasibility of lifestyle interventions following radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer. DESIGN: Patients were recruited into a presurgical observational cohort; following radical prostatectomy, they were offered randomisation into a 2×3 factorial randomised controlled trial (RCT). SETTING: A single National Health Service trust in the South West of England, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Those with localised prostate cancer and listed for radical prostatectomy were invited to participate. RANDOMISATION: Random allocation was performed by the Bristol Randomised Trial Collaboration via an online system. INTERVENTIONS: Men were randomised into both a modified nutrition group (either increased vegetable and fruit, and reduced dairy milk; or lycopene supplementation; or control) and a physical activity group (brisk walking or control) for 6 months. BLINDING: Only the trial statistician was blind to allocations. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were measures of feasibility: randomisation rates and intervention adherence at 6 months. Collected at trial baseline, three and six months, with daily adherence reported throughout. Our intended adherence rate was 75% or above, the threshold for acceptable adherence was 90%. RESULTS: 108 men entered the presurgical cohort, and 81 were randomised into the postsurgical RCT (randomisation rate: 93.1%) and 75 completed the trial. Of 25 men in the nutrition intervention, 10 (40.0%; 95% CI 23.4% to 59.3%) adhered to the fruit and vegetable recommendations and 18 (72.0%; 95% CI 52.4% to 85.7%) to reduced dairy intake. Adherence to lycopene (n=28), was 78.6% (95% CI 60.5% to 89.8%), while 21/39 adhered to the walking intervention (53.8%; 95% CI 38.6% to 68.4%). Most men were followed up at 6 months (75/81; 92.6%). Three 'possibly related' adverse events were indigestion, abdominal bloating and knee pain. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions were deemed feasible, with high randomisation rates and generally good adherence. A definitive RCT is proposed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 99048944.

TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Healthcare using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions (TRIUMPH) compared with usual care: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) can relate to urinary storage or voiding. In men, the prevalence and severity of LUTS increases with age, with a significant impact on quality of life. The majority of men presenting with LUTS are managed by their general practitioner (GP) in the first instance, with conservative therapies recommended as the initial treatment. However, the provision of conservative therapies in primary care is variable and can be time and resource limited. GPs require practical resources to enhance patient engagement with such interventions. TRIUMPH aims to determine whether a standardised and manualised care intervention delivered in primary care achieves superior symptomatic outcome for LUTS versus usual care. METHODS/DESIGN: TRIUMPH is a two-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) being conducted in 30 National Health Service (NHS) general practices in England. The TRIUMPH intervention comprises a standardised LUTS advice booklet developed for the trial with patient and healthcare professional (HCP) consultation. The booklet is delivered to patients by nurses/healthcare assistants following assessment of their urinary symptoms. Patients are directed to relevant sections of the booklet, providing the manualised element of the intervention. To encourage adherence, HCPs provide follow-up contacts over 12 weeks. Practices are randomised 1:1 to either deliver the TRIUMPH intervention or a usual care pathway. The patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 12 months post consent is the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes include cost-effectiveness, patient-reported outcomes on LUTS, quality of life, and patient and HCP acceptability and experience of the intervention. Primary analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. DISCUSSION: It is unclear whether conservative therapies for male LUTS are effectively delivered in primary care using current approaches. This can lead to men being inappropriately referred to secondary care or experiencing persistent symptoms. Primary care, therefore, holds the key to effective treatment for these men. The TRIUMPH intervention, through its standardised and manualised approach, has been developed to support GP practices in delivering effective conservative care. This pragmatic, cluster RCT should provide robust evidence in a primary-care setting to inform future guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISCRTN registry, ID: ISRCTN11669964 . Registered on 12 April 2018.

Psychological interventions as vaccine adjuvants: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness of vaccines is known to be altered by a range of psychological factors. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effects of psychological interventions on the ability of vaccines to protect against disease, as measured by antibody responses. METHODS: Electronic databases (EMBASE, Medline, PsychINFO, CINAHL) were searched from their inception to 6th February 2018. RESULTS: The search yielded 9 eligible trials conducted with 1603 participants and four broad categories of intervention: meditation/mindfulness (n = 3), massage (n = 3), expressive writing (n = 2) and cognitive behavioural stress management (n = 1). Some evidence of benefit on the antibody response to vaccination was observed in 6/9 of all trials and in 4/7 of randomised controlled trials. However, effects on antibody levels were often mixed, with only 3 of 6 trials showing benefit demonstrating an improvement in all antibody outcomes and at all time points assessed. Trials demonstrating benefit also provided direct or indirect evidence of adequate adherence with the intervention; and in 50% of these trials, there was also evidence that the intervention was effective in changing the mediating psychological constructs targeted by the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This literature is characterised by considerable heterogeneity in terms of intervention type, vaccine type, age of participants and the temporal relationship between vaccination and intervention. We conclude that there is early evidence to suggest that psychological interventions may enhance the antibody response to vaccination. However, the effects are inconsistent, with the greatest likelihood of benefit seen in trials evidencing adequate adherence with the intervention. Future work would benefit from rigorous intervention development that focuses on achieving adequate adherence and large well-controlled randomised trials with a focus on an agreed set of outcomes.

Does testosterone mediate the relationship between vitamin D and prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from studies on prostate cancer progression have identified vitamin D to be a potentially important nutrient. However, the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research have reported the quality of this evidence to be limited and warrant further investigation. We plan to use the recently developed WCRF International/University of Bristol mechanistic systematic review framework to determine whether the observed association between vitamin D and prostate cancer exists through a plausible biological pathway. METHODS: This protocol sets out how we will perform a systematic review of the literature in human and animal studies. We will search the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and BIOSIS Citation Index without restrictions on year of publication or language. We will extract data from observational and experimental studies examining two inter-linked pathways in the relationship between vitamin D and prostate cancer progression: (1) vitamin D and testosterone, and (2) testosterone and prostate cancer progression. We focus on testosterone as its actions form a potentially novel intermediate mechanism that was identified via our online literature mining tools. The outcomes of interest include incidence or prevalence of prostate cancer, measures of prostate cancer progression (including biochemical recurrence, local, or distal metastases), and prostate cancer-specific mortality. We will assess study quality and the level of certainty of the evidence. We will analyse data where possible, using meta-analysis with forest plots or albatross plots; otherwise, a narrative synthesis will be performed. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this will be the first systematic synthesis of the evidence underpinning the vitamin D-testosterone-prostate cancer mechanistic pathway. The results of the review may inform future research, intervention trials, and public health messages.

Systematic review evaluating randomized controlled trials of smoking and alcohol cessation interventions in people with head and neck cancer and oral dysplasia.

BACKGROUND: Smoking and alcohol increase the risk of head and neck cancer and affect treatment outcomes. Interventions modifying these behaviors may improve posttreatment outcomes and survival. We systematically reviewed evidence of the effectiveness of smoking/alcohol interventions in head and neck cancer and oral dysplasia. METHODS: The AMED, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of smoking/alcohol interventions in people with head and neck cancer. A qualitative synthesis of the studies was conducted. RESULTS: Three RCTs were identified: 2 smoking interventions and 1 smoking and alcohol intervention. One intervention, which was comprised of a smoking intervention based on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and pharmacologic management compared to usual care, reduced smoking prevalence. CONCLUSION: Further research is required into the underlying mechanisms that lead to cessation and interventions that include both pharmacological and behavioral therapy. Future RCTs should include suitable control conditions and sufficient power to assess clinical outcomes.

Tobacco and alcohol cessation or reduction interventions in people with oral dysplasia and head and neck cancer: systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Head and neck cancers include malignancies of the mouth, larynx and oropharynx. Tobacco use and alcohol consumption are associated with increased risks of developing and dying from head and neck cancer. The aim of this review is to examine the effectiveness of smoking and alcohol cessation interventions on disease-related outcomes, quality of life and behavioural change in adults with head and neck cancer and oral dysplasia. METHODS: The Cochrane library, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science databases will be searched for randomised controlled trials investigating the effects of smoking or alcohol interventions on patients with either head and neck cancer or oral dysplasia. The primary outcomes are disease-free survival and, for participants with oral dysplasia, malignant transformation to cancer. Secondary outcomes are disease recurrence and progression, quality of life and behavioural change. The quality of included studies will be assessed using the 'Cochrane Collaborations tool for assessing risk of bias'. A qualitative synthesis of the results will be reported, and a meta-analysis of the outcome data conducted, where appropriate. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will identify the extent of the current research on smoking and alcohol cessation interventions in patients with head and neck cancer and oral epithelial dysplasia. The findings have the potential to inform which interventions have been successful and how future behavioural change interventions should be conducted within these populations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016038237.

The feasibility of the Prostate cancer: Evidence of Exercise and Nutrition Trial (PrEvENT) dietary and physical activity modifications: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that low levels of physical activity and diets low in fruit and vegetables and high in meat and dairy products are risk factors for prostate cancer disease progression. The Prostate cancer: Evidence of Exercise and Nutrition Trial (PrEvENT) aimed to assess a diet and physical activity intervention in men undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. The trial included a qualitative component to explore the experiences of men participating in the trial in order to understand the acceptability of the intervention and data collection methods. We report the qualitative findings of the trial and consider how these can be used to inform future research. METHODS: PrEvENT involved randomizing men to either a dietary and/or physical activity intervention. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 17 men on completion of the 6 month trial. Interviews took place in clinic or as telephone interviews, if requested by the participant, and were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the thematic-based framework approach. Analysis was conducted throughout the data collection process to allow emergent themes to be further explored in subsequent interviews. RESULTS: Three overarching themes were identified: acceptability of the intervention, acceptability of the data collection methods and trial logistics. Participants were predominantly positive about both the dietary and physical activity interventions and most men found the methods of data collection appropriate. Recommendations for future trials include consideration of alternative physical activity options, such as cycling or gym sessions, increased information on portion sizes, the potential importance of including wives or partners in the dietary change process and the possibility of using the pedometer or other wearable technology as part of the physical activity intervention. CONCLUSIONS: We provide insight into the opinions and experiences of the acceptability of the PrEvENT diet and physical activity intervention from the participants themselves. The interventions delivered were acceptable to this sample of participants, as were the data collection methods utilized. We also highlight some considerations for further behavioural change interventions in prostate cancer and other similar populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN99048944 . Registered on 17 November 2014.