Clinical Impact of the Predict Prostate Risk Communication Tool in Men Newly Diagnosed with Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: A Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Predict Prostate is a freely available online personalised risk communication tool for men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Its accuracy has been assessed in multiple validation studies, but its clinical impact among patients has not hitherto been assessed. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the tool on patient decision-making and disease perception. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicentre randomised controlled trial was performed across eight UK centres among newly diagnosed men considering either active surveillance or radical treatment. A total of 145 patients were included between 2018 and 2020, with median age 67 yr (interquartile range [IQR] 61-72) and prostate-specific antigen 6.8 ng/ml (IQR 5.1-8.8). INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised to either standard of care (SOC) information or SOC and a structured presentation of the Predict Prostate tool. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Validated questionnaires were completed by assessing the impact of the tool on decisional conflict, uncertainty, anxiety, and perception of survival. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Mean Decisional Conflict Scale scores were 26% lower in the Predict Prostate group (mean = 16.1) than in the SOC group (mean = 21.7; p = 0.027). Scores on the "support", "uncertainty", and "value clarity" subscales all favoured Predict Prostate (all p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in anxiety scores or final treatment selection between the two groups. Patient perception of 15-yr prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and overall survival benefit from radical treatment were considerably lower and more accurate among men in the Predict Prostate group (p < 0.001). In total, 57% of men reported that the Predict Prostate estimates for PCSM were lower than expected, and 36% reported being less likely to select radical treatment. Over 90% of patients in the intervention group found it useful and 94% would recommend it to others. CONCLUSIONS: Predict Prostate reduces decisional conflict and uncertainty, and shifts patient perception around prognosis to be more realistic. This randomised trial demonstrates that Predict Prostate can directly inform the complex decision-making process in prostate cancer and is felt to be useful by patients. Future larger trials are warranted to test its impact upon final treatment decisions. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this national study, we assessed the impact of an individualised risk communication tool, called Predict Prostate, on patient decision-making after a diagnosis of localised prostate cancer. Men were randomly assigned to two groups, which received either standard counselling and information, or this in addition to a structured presentation of the Predict Prostate tool. Men who saw the tool were less conflicted and uncertain in their decision-making, and recommended the tool highly. Those who saw the tool had more realistic perception about their long-term survival and the potential impact of treatment upon this. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: The use of an individualised risk communication tool, such as Predict Prostate, reduces patient decisional conflict and uncertainty when deciding about treatment for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. The tool leads to more realistic perceptions about survival outcomes and prognosis.

Economic Evaluation of Transperineal versus Transrectal Devices for Local Anaesthetic Prostate Biopsies.

BACKGROUND: Biopsy of the prostate for suspected cancer is usually performed transrectally under local anaesthesia in the outpatient clinic setting. As this involves piercing the bowel wall, the procedure is associated with a risk of infection. Recently, devices that facilitate transperineal biopsy approaches have been developed that avoid piercing the bowel and so should reduce the risk of infection. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of transperineal versus transrectal ultrasound-guided local anaesthesia procedures for prostate biopsy from the perspective of the UK NHS and to estimate the value of further research in the area. METHODS: a) Decision tree and Markov model synthesising all relevant evidence estimating the life-time costs and QALYs accrued from each biopsy mode. b) Value of information analysis to predict the return from further research and thus guide future research efforts. RESULTS: Transperineal biopsy yields an ICER below £20,000 per QALY gained at a per-procedure device acquisition cost below £81, or £41 for cost-neutrality. These results are driven by differences in consumables cost, reduced cost of treating infections, and QALY gains associated with reduced infections. There is value in future research on the diagnostic accuracy of transperineal versus transrectal biopsies and the incidence of iatrogenic infection and sepsis; consideration should be given to enriching the patient population with men with intermediate-risk disease. CONCLUSIONS: Transperineal biopsy devices may be cost effective compared with transrectal biopsy at per-procedure acquisition costs below £81 and cost-neutral if under £41. Future research is required to confirm or refute these findings, particularly randomised comparisons of the diagnostic accuracy and infection risks between the methods.

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.

The ProtecT randomised trial cost-effectiveness analysis comparing active monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence relating to the cost-effectiveness of treatments for localised prostate cancer. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of active monitoring, surgery, and radiotherapy was evaluated within the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) randomised controlled trial from a UK NHS perspective at 10 years' median follow-up. Prostate cancer resource-use collected from hospital records and trial participants was valued using UK reference-costs. QALYs (quality-adjusted-life-years) were calculated from patient-reported EQ-5D-3L measurements. Adjusted mean costs, QALYs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated; cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty; subgroup analyses considered age and disease-risk. RESULTS: Adjusted mean QALYs were similar between groups: 6.89 (active monitoring), 7.09 (radiotherapy), and 6.91 (surgery). Active monitoring had lower adjusted mean costs (£5913) than radiotherapy (£7361) and surgery (£7519). Radiotherapy was the most likely (58% probability) cost-effective option at the UK NICE willingness-to-pay threshold (£20,000 per QALY). Subgroup analyses confirmed radiotherapy was cost-effective for older men and intermediate/high-risk disease groups; active monitoring was more likely to be the cost-effective option for younger men and low-risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: Longer follow-up and modelling are required to determine the most cost-effective treatment for localised prostate cancer over a man's lifetime. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297: http://isrctn.org (14/10/2002); ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (23/01/2014).

Clinical utility and cost modelling of the phi test to triage referrals into image-based diagnostic services for suspected prostate cancer: the PRIM (Phi to RefIne Mri) study.

BACKGROUND: The clinical pathway to detect and diagnose prostate cancer has been revolutionised by the use of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI pre-biopsy). mpMRI however remains a resource-intensive test and is highly operator dependent with variable effectiveness with regard to its negative predictive value. Here we tested the use of the phi assay in standard clinical practice to pre-select men at the highest risk of harbouring significant cancer and hence refine the use of mpMRI and biopsies. METHODS: A prospective five-centre study recruited men being investigated through an mpMRI-based prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Test statistics for PSA, PSA density (PSAd) and phi were assessed for detecting significant cancers using 2 definitions: ≥ Grade Group (GG2) and ≥ Cambridge Prognostic Groups (CPG) 3. Cost modelling and decision curve analysis (DCA) was simultaneously performed. RESULTS: A total of 545 men were recruited and studied with a median age, PSA and phi of 66 years, 8.0 ng/ml and 44 respectively. Overall, ≥ GG2 and ≥ CPG3 cancer detection rates were 64% (349/545), 47% (256/545) and 32% (174/545) respectively. There was no difference across centres for patient demographics or cancer detection rates. The overall area under the curve (AUC) for predicting ≥ GG2 cancers was 0.70 for PSA and 0.82 for phi. AUCs for ≥ CPG3 cancers were 0.81 and 0.87 for PSA and phi respectively. AUC values for phi did not differ between centres suggesting reliability of the test in different diagnostic settings. Pre-referral phi cut-offs between 20 and 30 had NPVs of 0.85-0.90 for ≥ GG2 cancers and 0.94-1.0 for ≥ CPG3 cancers. A strategy of mpMRI in all and biopsy only positive lesions reduced unnecessary biopsies by 35% but missed 9% of ≥ GG2 and 5% of ≥ CPG3 cancers. Using PH ≥ 30 to rule out referrals missed 8% and 5% of ≥ GG2 and ≥ CPG3 cancers (and reduced unnecessary biopsies by 40%). This was achieved however with 25% fewer mpMRI. Pathways incorporating PSAd missed fewer cancers but necessitated more unnecessary biopsies. The phi strategy had the lowest mean costs with DCA demonstrating net clinical benefit over a range of thresholds. CONCLUSION: phi as a triaging test may be an effective way to reduce mpMRI and biopsies without compromising detection of significant prostate cancers.

Diagnostic accuracy of biparametric versus multiparametric prostate MRI: assessment of contrast benefit in clinical practice.

PURPOSE: To assess the added value of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) in prostate MR in clinical practice. METHODS: Two hundred sixty-four patients underwent prostate MRI, with T2 and DWI sequences initially interpreted, prior to full multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) interpretation using a Likert 1-5 scale. A prospective opinion was given on likely benefit of contrast prior to review of the DCE sequence, and retrospectively following full mpMRI review. The final histology result following targeted and/or systematic biopsy of the prostate was used for outcome purposes. RESULTS: Biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) and mpMRI were assigned the same score in 86% of cases; when dichotomising to a negative or positive MRI (Likert score ≥ 3), concordance increased to 92.8%. At Likert score ≥ 3 bpMRI detected 89.9% of all cancers and 93.5% clinically significant prostate cancers (csPCa) and mpMRI 90.7% and 94.6%, respectively. mpMRI had fewer false positives than bpMRI (11.4% vs 18.9%) and a lower Likert 3 rate (8.3% vs 17%), conferring higher specificity (74% vs 67%), but similar sensitivity (95% versus 94%) and ROC-AUC (90% vs 89%). At a positive MRI threshold of Likert ≥ 4, mpMRI had a higher sensitivity than bpMRI (89% versus 80%) and detected more csPCa (89.2% versus 79.6%). DCE was prospectively considered of potential benefit in 27.3%, but readers would only recall 11% of patients for DCE sequences, mainly to assess score 3 peripheral zone lesions. Following full mpMRI review, DCE was considered helpful in 28.4% of cases; in 23/75 (30.6%) of these cases this only became apparent after reviewing the sequence, reasons included increased confidence, presence of "safety-net" lesions or inflammatory lesions. CONCLUSION: BpMRI has equivalent cancer detection rates to mpMRI; however, mpMRI had fewer Likert 3 call rates and increased specificity and was subjectively considered of benefit by readers in 28.4% of cases. KEY POINTS: • bpMRI has similar cancer detection rates to the full mpMRI protocol at a positive MRI threshold of Likert 3. • mpMRI had fewer intermediate category 3 calls (8.3%) than bpMRI (17%) and fewer false positives than bpMRI (11.4% vs 18.9%), conferring higher specificity (74% vs 67%). • Readers considered DCE beneficial in 28.4% of cases, but in a relatively high number (30.6%) this only became apparent after reviewing the sequence.

Reasons for Discontinuing Active Surveillance: Assessment of 21 Centres in 12 Countries in the Movember GAP3 Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Careful assessment of the reasons for discontinuation of active surveillance (AS) is required for men with prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVE: Using Movember's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance initiative (GAP3) database, we report on reasons for AS discontinuation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We compared data from 10296 men on AS from 21 centres across 12 countries. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Cumulative incidence methods were used to estimate the cumulative incidence rates of AS discontinuation. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: During 5-yr follow-up, 27.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26.4-28.6%) men showed signs of disease progression, 12.8% (95% CI: 12.0-13.6%) converted to active treatment without evidence of progression, 1.7% (95% CI: 1.5-2.0%) continued to watchful waiting, and 1.7% (95% CI: 1.4-2.1%) died from other causes. Of the 7049 men who remained on AS, 2339 had follow-up for >5yr, 4561 had follow-up for <5yr, and 149 were lost to follow-up. Cumulative incidence of progression was 27.5% (95% CI: 26.4-28.6%) at 5yr and 38.2% (95% CI: 36.7-39.9%) at 10yr. A limitation is that not all centres were included due to limited information on the reason for discontinuation and limited follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Our descriptive analyses of current AS practices worldwide showed that 43.6% of men drop out of AS during 5-yr follow-up, mainly due to signs of disease progression. Improvements in selection tools for AS are thus needed to correctly allocate men with PCa to AS, which will also reduce discontinuation due to conversion to active treatment without evidence of disease progression. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our assessment of a worldwide database of men with prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS) shows that 43.6% drop out of AS within 5yr, mainly due to signs of disease progression. Better tools are needed to select and monitor men with PCa as part of AS.

Comprehensive assessment of estrogen receptor beta antibodies in cancer cell line models and tissue reveals critical limitations in reagent specificity.

Estrogen Receptor-ß (ERß) has been implicated in many cancers. In prostate and breast cancer its function is controversial, but genetic studies implicate a role in cancer progression. Much of the confusion around ERß stems from antibodies that are inadequately validated, yet have become standard tools for deciphering its role. Using an ERß-inducible cell system we assessed commonly utilized ERß antibodies and show that one of the most commonly used antibodies, NCL-ER-BETA, is non-specific for ERß. Other antibodies have limited ERß specificity or are only specific in one experimental modality. ERß is commonly studied in MCF-7 (breast) and LNCaP (prostate) cancer cell lines, but we found no ERß expression in either, using validated antibodies and independent mass spectrometry-based approaches. Our findings question conclusions made about ERß using the NCL-ER-BETA antibody, or LNCaP and MCF-7 cell lines. We describe robust reagents, which detect ERß across multiple experimental approaches and in clinical samples.

Preoperative 3-T diffusion-weighted MRI for the qualitative and quantitative assessment of extracapsular extension in patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the value of diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) for the assessment of extracapsular extension (ECE) in patients with prostate cancer. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Between November 2010 and April 2012, 40 patients with intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer were prospectively recruited. MR images were obtained at 3 T with a phased-array coil. Two independent readers scored the T2-weighted images alone and then in combination with DW images. ROIs were drawn on the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps, and histogram-derived values were calculated. Whole-mount histopathologic examination was the standard of reference. Reader performance was analyzed, and differences in patient characteristics and histogram-based ADC values, according to ECE status, were evaluated. RESULTS: ECE was present in 23 of 40 (58%) patients and 23 of 43 (53%) tumors. The sensitivity for side-specific ECE detection significantly increased, from 0.22 to 0.44 for reader 1 and 0.33 to 0.82 for reader 2 (both p < 0.05) without a significant change in specificity for either reader with the addition of DWI and ADC mapping. The positive and negative predictive values for both readers also increased. The ADC parameters of median and 10th and 25th centiles showed a statistically significant difference between tumors with and those without ECE (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The addition of DWI and ADC mapping to T2-weighted MRI improved the accuracy of preoperative detection of ECE. Median and 10th and 25th centile ADC values were significantly associated with the presence of ECE and may be useful in the pretreatment assessment of patients with prostate cancer.