NeuroSAFE PROOF: study protocol for a single-blinded, IDEAL stage 3, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of NeuroSAFE robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus standard robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in men with localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Robotic radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a first-line curative treatment option for localized prostate cancer. Postoperative erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence are common associated adverse side effects that can negatively impact patients' quality of life. Preserving the lateral neurovascular bundles (NS) during RARP improves functional outcomes. However, selecting men for NS may be difficult when there is concern about incurring in positive surgical margin (PSM) which in turn risks adverse oncological outcomes. The NeuroSAFE technique (intra-operative frozen section examination of the neurovascular structure adjacent prostate margin) can provide real-time pathological consult to promote optimal NS whilst avoiding PSM. METHODS: NeuroSAFE PROOF is a single-blinded, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) in which men are randomly allocated 1:1 to either NeuroSAFE RARP or standard RARP. Men electing for RARP as primary treatment, who are continent and have good baseline erectile function (EF), defined by International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) score > 21, are eligible. NS in the intervention arm is guided by the NeuroSAFE technique. NS in the standard arm is based on standard of care, i.e. a pre-operative image-based planning meeting, patient-specific clinical information, and digital rectal examination. The primary outcome is assessment of EF at 12 months. The primary endpoint is the proportion of men who achieve IIEF-5 score ≥ 21. A sample size of 404 was calculated to give a power of 90% to detect a difference of 14% between groups based on a feasibility study. Oncological outcomes are continuously monitored by an independent Data Monitoring Committee. Key secondary outcomes include urinary continence at 3 months assessed by the international consultation on incontinence questionnaire, rate of biochemical recurrence, EF recovery at 24 months, and difference in quality of life. DISCUSSION: NeuroSAFE PROOF is the first RCT of intra-operative frozen section during radical prostatectomy in the world. It is properly powered to evaluate a difference in the recovery of EF for men undergoing RARP assessed by patient-reported outcome measures. It will provide evidence to guide the use of the NeuroSAFE technique around the world. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03317990 (23 October 2017). Regional Ethics Committee; reference 17/LO/1978.

E-Consent-a guide to maintain recruitment in clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has posed daunting challenges when conducting clinical research. Adopting new technologies such as remote electronic consent (e-Consent) can help overcome them. However, guidelines for e-Consent implementation in ongoing clinical trials are currently lacking. The NeuroSAFE PROOF trial is a randomized clinical trial evaluating the role of frozen section analysis during RARP for prostate cancer. In response to the COVID-19 crisis, recruitment was halted, and a remote e-Consent solution was designed. The aim of this paper is to describe the process of implementation, impact on recruitment rate, and patients' experience using e-Consent. METHODS: A substantial amendment of the protocol granted the creation of a remote e-Consent framework based on the REDCap environment, following the structure and content of the already approved paper consent form. Although e-Consent obviated the need for in-person meeting, there was nonetheless counselling sessions performed interactively online. This new pathway offered continuous support to patients through remote consultations. The whole process was judged to be compliant with regulatory requirements before implementation. RESULTS: Before the first recruitment suspension, NeuroSAFE PROOF was recruiting an average of 9 patients per month. After e-Consent implementation, 63 new patients (4/month) have been enrolled despite a second lockdown, none of whom would have been recruited using the old methods given restrictions on face-to-face consultations. Patients have given positive feedback on the use of the platform. Limited troubleshooting has been required after implementation. CONCLUSION: Remote e-Consent-based recruitment was critical for the continuation of the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial during the COVID-19 pandemic. The described pathway complies with ethical and regulatory guidelines for informed consent, while minimizing face-to-face interactions that increase the risk of COVID-19 transmission. This guide will help researchers integrate e-Consent to ongoing or planned clinical trials while uncertainty about the course of the pandemic continues. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NeuroSAFE PROOF trial NCT03317990 . Registered on 23 October 2017. Regional Ethics Committee reference 17/LO/1978.

NeuroSAFE frozen section during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: peri-operative and histopathological outcomes from the NeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To report on the methods, peri-operative outcomes and histopathological concordance between frozen and final section from the NeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility study (NCT03317990). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between May 2018 and March 2019, 49 patients at two UK centres underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Twenty-five patient were randomized to NeuroSAFE RARP (intervention arm) and 24 to standard RARP (control arm). Frozen section was compared to final paraffin section margin assessment in the 25 patients in the NeuroSAFE arm. Operation timings and complications were collected prospectively in both arms. RESULTS: Fifty neurovascular bundles (NVBs) from 25 patients in the NeuroSAFE arm were analysed. When analysed by each pathological section (n = 250, average five per side), we noted a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 99.2%, and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.994 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.985 to 1; P ≤0.001). On an NVB basis (n = 50), sensitivity was 100%, specificity was 92.7%, and the AUC was 0.963 (95% CI 0.914 to 1; P ≤0.001). NeuroSAFE RARP lasted a mean of 3 h 16 min (knife to skin to off table, 95% CI 3 h 2 min-3 h 30 min) compared to 2 h 4 min (95% CI 2 h 2 min-2 h 25 min; P ≤0.001) for standard RARP. There was no morbidity associated with the additional length of operating time on in the NeuroSAFE arm. CONCLUSION: This feasibility study demonstrates the safety, reproducibility and excellent histopathological concordance of the NeuroSAFE technique in the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial. Although the technique increases the duration of RARP, this does not cause short-term harm. Confirmation of feasibility has led to the opening of the fully powered NeuroSAFE PROOF randomized controlled trial, which is currently under way at four sites in the UK.