General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-terms T h e ne w e ngl a nd jou r na l o f m e dicine n engl j med nejm.org This article was published on September 14, 2016, at NEJM.org. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606220Copyright © 2016 Massachusetts Medical Society. BACKGROUNDThe comparative effectiveness of treatments for prostate cancer that is detected by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing remains uncertain. METHODSWe 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. RESULTSThere 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 activemonitoring 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). CONCLUSIONSAt 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.

General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-terms cancer was higher in the intervention (4.3%) group than control (3.6%) group, but there was no significant difference in prostate cancer mortality (intervention, 0.29% vs. control, 0.29%) after a median follow-up of 10-years. Meaning:The CAP single PSA-screen intervention detected more prostate cancer cases, but after a median of 10-years' follow-up has, thus far, had no significant effect on prostate cancer mortality. Conclusion and relevance:Among practices randomized to a low-intensity PSA screening intervention compared with standard practice, there was no significant difference in prostate cancer mortality after a 4 median 10-years follow up, but the detection of low-risk prostate cancers increased. Although longer-term follow-up is in progress, the current findings do not support single PSA-testing for population-based screening.

Objectives To measure the effect of the adverse events within 35 days of transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy from the perspective of asymptomatic men having prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing; to assess early attitude to re-biopsy; to estimate healthcare resource use associated with adverse events due to biopsy; and to develop a classification scheme for reporting adverse events after prostate biopsy.Design Prospective cohort study (Prostate Biopsy Effects: ProBE) nested within Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study.Participants Between 1999 and 2008, 227 000 community dwelling men aged 5069 years were identified at 352 practices and invited to counselling about PSA testing. 111 148 attended a nurse led clinic in the community, and 10 297 with PSA concentrations of 3-20 ng/mL were offered biopsy within ProtecT. Between February 2006 and May 2008, 1147/1753 eligible men (mean age 62.1 years, mean PSA 5.4 ng/mL) having 10 core transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy under antibiotic cover in the context of ProtecT were recruited to the ProBE study.Outcome measures Purpose designed questionnaire administered at biopsy and 7 and 35 days after the procedure to measure frequency and effect of symptoms related to pain, infection, and bleeding; patients' attitude to repeat biopsy assessed immediately after biopsy and 7 days later; participants' healthcare resource use within 35 days of biopsy evaluated by questionnaire, telephone follow-up, and medical note review; each man's adverse event profile graded according to symptoms and healthcare use.Results Pain was reported by 429/984 (43.6%), fever by 172/985 (17.5%), haematuria by 642/976 (65.8%), haematochezia by 356/967 (36.8%), and haemoejaculate by 605/653 (92.6%) men during the 35 days after biopsy. Fewer men rated these symptoms as a major/moderate problem-71/977 (7.3%) for pain, 54/981 (5.5%) for fever, 59/958 (6.2%) for haematuria, 24/951 (2.5%) for haematochezia, and 172/646 (26.6%) for haemoejaculate. Immediately after biopsy, 124/1142 (10.9%, 95% confidence interval 9.2 to 12.8) men reported that they would consider further biopsy a major or moderate problem: seven days after biopsy, this proportion had increased to 213/1085 (19.6%, 17.4% to 22.1%). A negative attitude to repeat biopsy was associated with unfavourable experience after the first biopsy, particularly pain at biopsy (odds ratio 8.2, P<0.001) and symptoms related to infection (7.9, P<0.001) and bleeding (4.2, P<0.001); differences were evident between centres (P<0.001). 119/1147 (10.4%, 8.7% to 12.3%) men reported consultation with a healthcare professional (usually their general practitioner), most commonly for infective symptoms. Complete data for all index symptoms at all time points were available in 851 participants. Symptoms and healthcare use could be used to grade these men as follows: grade 0 (no symptoms/contact) 18 (2.1%, 1.3% to 3.3%); grade 1 (minor problem/no contact) 550 (64.6%, 61.4% to 67.8%); grade 2 Conclusion This study with a high response rate of...

No abstract

The striking decline in prostate-cancer mortality in the USA compared with the UK in 1994-2004 coincided with much higher uptake of PSA screening in the USA. Explanations for the different trends in mortality include the possibility of an early effect of initial screening rounds on men with more aggressive asymptomatic disease in the USA, different approaches to treatment in the two countries, and bias related to the misattribution of cause of death. Speculation over the role of screening will continue until evidence from randomised controlled trials is published.

No abstract

ObjectiveTo explore how patients' treatment preferences were expressed and justified during recruitment to a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and how they influenced participation and treatment decisions.Study Design and SettingQualitative analysis of audio recordings of recruitment appointments with 93 participants aged 51–70 years in a UK multicenter RCT of localized prostate cancer treatments.ResultsTreatment preferences at recruitment were more complex and dynamic than previously assumed. Most participants expressed views about treatments early in appointments, ranging on a continuum from hesitant to well-formed opinions. As recruiters elicited men’s views and provided detailed evidence-based treatment and study information, some opted for their preference, but many became uncertain and open to RCT recruitment, often accepting a different treatment from their original “preference.” Discussion of treatment preferences did not act as the expected barrier to recruitment but actively enabled many to express their concerns and reach an informed decision that often included RCT participation.ConclusionExploring treatment preferences and providing evidence-based information can improve levels of informed decision making and facilitate RCT participation. Treatment preferences should be reconceptualized from a barrier to recruitment to an integral part of the information exchange necessary for informed decision making about treatments and RCT participation.

No abstract