Correction: Development and validation of a novel risk score for the detection of insignificant prostate cancer in unscreened patient cohorts.

Since the publication of this paper, the authors noticed that Amar Ahmad was not credited as contributing equally to the paper. He should be considered as a joint first author with Lorenzo Dutto. In addition, the author Ashwin Sridhar was incorrectly listed as Ashwin Shridhar, and the author Gregory L. Shaw was incorrectly listed as Gregory Shaw. The correct names are listed above.

Development and validation of a novel risk score for the detection of insignificant prostate cancer in unscreened patient cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance is recommended for insignificant prostate cancer (PCa). Tools exist to identify suitable candidates using clinical variables. We aimed to develop and validate a novel risk score (NRS) predicting which patients are harbouring insignificant PCa. METHODS: We used prospectively collected data from 8040 consecutive unscreened patients who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2006 and 2016. Of these, data from 2799 patients with Gleason 3 + 3 on biopsy were used to develop a multivariate model predicting the presence of insignificant PC at radical prostatectomy (ERSPC updated definition3: Gleason 3 + 3 only, index tumour volume < 1.3 cm3 and total tumour volume < 2.5 cm3). This was used to develop a novel risk score (NRS) which was validated in an equivalent independent cohort (n = 441). We compared the accuracy of existing predictive tools and the NRS in these cohorts. RESULTS: The NRS (incorporating PSA, prostate volume, age, clinical T Stage, percent and number of positive biopsy cores) outperformed pre-existing predictive tools in derivation and validation cohorts (AUC 0.755 and 0.76, respectively). Selection bias due to analysis of a surgical cohort is acknowledged. CONCLUSIONS: The advantage of the NRS is that it can be tailored to patient characteristics and may prove to be valuable tool in clinical decision-making.

Feasibility of aspirin and/or vitamin D3 for men with prostate cancer on active surveillance with Prolaris® testing.

Objectives: To test the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of aspirin and/or vitamin D3 in active surveillance (AS) low/favourable intermediate risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients with Prolaris® testing. Patients and Methods: Newly-diagnosed low/favourable intermediate risk PCa patients (PSA ≤ 15 ng/ml, International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group ≤2, maximum biopsy core length <10 mm, clinical stage ≤cT2c) were recruited into a multi-centre randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (ISRCTN91422391, NCT03103152). Participants were randomised to oral low dose (100 mg), standard dose (300 mg) aspirin or placebo and/or vitamin D3 (4000 IU) versus placebo in a 3 × 2 factorial RCT design with biopsy tissue Prolaris® testing. The primary endpoint was trial acceptance/entry rates. Secondary endpoints included feasibility of Prolaris® testing, 12-month disease re-assessment (imaging/biochemical/histological), and 12-month treatment adherence/safety. Disease progression was defined as any of the following (i) 50% increase in baseline PSA, (ii) new Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4/5 lesion(s) on multi-parametric MRI where no previous lesion, (iii) 33% volume increase in lesion size, or radiological upstaging to ≥T3, (iv) ISUP Grade Group upgrade or (v) 50% increase in maximum cancer core length. Results: Of 130 eligible patients, 104 (80%) accepted recruitment from seven sites over 12 months, of which 94 patients represented the per protocol population receiving treatment. Prolaris® testing was performed on 76/94 (81%) diagnostic biopsies. Twelve-month disease progression rate was 43.3%. Assessable 12-month treatment adherence in non-progressing patients to aspirin and vitamin D across all treatment arms was 91%. Two drug-attributable serious adverse events in 1 patient allocated to aspirin were identified. The study was not designed to determine differences between treatment arms. Conclusion: Recruitment of AS PCa patients into a multi-centre multi-arm placebo-controlled RCT of minimally-toxic adjunctive oral drug treatments with molecular biomarker profiling is acceptable and safe. A larger phase III study is needed to determine optimal agents, intervention efficacy, and outcome-associated biomarkers.

How university students perceive emergency management: A case for marketing emergency management.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine if university students understood the differences between first responders and emergency management as awareness of the differences informs the individual's decision-making processes. DESIGN: Convenience sampling, mixed methods data collection with descriptive analysis and means testing. SETTING: US, Southeastern Conference University, during summer semester. PARTICIPANTS: 500 convenience sampled student volunteers. INTERVENTION: Convenience sampled, mixed-mode survey administered May to July 2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Population sampling of a minimum of n = 372 (actual n = 500 obtained) surveys to achieve a 95 percent confidence level of p ≤ 0.05 ± 4.29 percent. RESULTS: 19.6 percent of the participants were able to associate response and recovery with emergency management. Word association with "Emergency Management" as the trigger word produced a 35.8 percent association with disasters and emergencies. 70.4 percent of the participants attended a university sponsored emergency preparedness course, but only 44.2 percent indicated they had received emergency preparedness training. CONCLUSIONS: There was a derivation of three issues: A lack of understanding in the differences between first responders and emergency management, a non-association of emergencies and disasters with emergency management, and a lack of understanding in what emergency preparedness training is. Results point to a need for further education on the duties and responsibilities of the emergency management profession. A form of information transfer that may be productive would be to administer an awareness campaign via social marketing. Further study is indicated, using a more rigorous sampling and analysis methodology.