Dataset Information

Design and preliminary recruitment results of the Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer (CAP).

ABSTRACT: Screening for prostate cancer continues to generate controversy because of concerns about over-diagnosis and unnecessary treatment. We describe the rationale, design and recruitment of the Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer (CAP) trial, a UK-wide cluster randomised controlled trial investigating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing.Seven hundred and eighty-five general practitioner (GP) practices in England and Wales were randomised to a population-based PSA testing or standard care and then approached for consent to participate. In the intervention arm, men aged 50-69 years were invited to undergo PSA testing, and those diagnosed with localised prostate cancer were invited into a treatment trial. Control arm practices undertook standard UK management. All men were flagged with the Health and Social Care Information Centre for deaths and cancer registrations. The primary outcome is prostate cancer mortality at a median 10-year-follow-up.Among randomised practices, 271 (68%) in the intervention arm (198,114 men) and 302 (78%) in the control arm (221,929 men) consented to participate, meeting pre-specified power requirements. There was little evidence of differences between trial arms in measured baseline characteristics of the consenting GP practices (or men within those practices).The CAP trial successfully met its recruitment targets and will make an important contribution to international understanding of PSA-based prostate cancer screening.

SUBMITTER: Turner EL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4056057 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Design and preliminary recruitment results of the Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer (CAP).

Turner E L EL Metcalfe C C Donovan J L JL Noble S S Sterne J A C JA Lane J A JA Avery K N KN Down L L Walsh E E Davis M M Ben-Shlomo Y Y Oliver S E SE Evans S S Brindle P P Williams N J NJ Hughes L J LJ Hill E M EM Davies C C Ng S Y SY Neal D E DE Hamdy F C FC Martin R M RM

British journal of cancer 20140527 12

<h4>Background</h4>Screening for prostate cancer continues to generate controversy because of concerns about over-diagnosis and unnecessary treatment. We describe the rationale, design and recruitment of the Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer (CAP) trial, a UK-wide cluster randomised controlled trial investigating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing.<h4>Methods</h4>Seven hundred and eighty-five general practitioner (GP) pra ...[more]

PMID: 24867688

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn cancer screening trials where the primary outcome is target cancer-specific mortality, the unbiased determination of underlying cause of death (UCD) is crucial. To minimise bias, the UCD should be independently verified by expert reviewers, blinded to death certificate data and trial arm. We investigated whether standardising the information submitted for UCD assignment in a population-based randomised controlled trial of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for prostate cancer reduced the reviewers' ability to correctly guess the trial arm.MethodsOver 550 General Practitioner (GP) practices (>415,000 men aged 50-69 years) were cluster-randomised to PSA testing (intervention arm) or the National Health Service (NHS) prostate cancer risk management programme (control arm) between 2001 and 2007. Assignment of UCD was by independent reviews of researcher-written clinical vignettes that masked trial arm and death certificate information. A period of time after the process began (the initial phase), we analysed whether the reviewers could correctly identify trial arm from the vignettes, and the reasons for their choice. This feedback led to further standardisation of information (second phase), after which we re-assessed the extent of correct identification of trial arm.Results1099 assessments of 509 vignettes were completed by January 2014. In the initial phase (n = 510 assessments), reviewers were unsure of trial arm in 33% of intervention and 30% of control arm assessments and were influenced by symptoms at diagnosis, PSA test result and study-specific criteria. In the second phase (n = 589), the respective proportions of uncertainty were 45% and 48%. The percentage of cases whereby reviewers were unable to determine the trial arm was greater following the standardisation of information provided in the vignettes. The chances of a correct guess and an incorrect guess were equalised in each arm, following further standardisation.ConclusionsIt is possible to mask trial arm from cause of death reviewers, by using their feedback to standardise the information submitted to them.Trial registrationISRCTN92187251.

Project description:ImportanceProstate cancer screening remains controversial because potential mortality or quality-of-life benefits may be outweighed by harms from overdetection and overtreatment.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of a single prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening intervention and standardized diagnostic pathway on prostate cancer-specific mortality.Design, setting, and participantsThe Cluster Randomized Trial of PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer (CAP) included 419 582 men aged 50 to 69 years and was conducted at 573 primary care practices across the United Kingdom. Randomization and recruitment of the practices occurred between 2001 and 2009; patient follow-up ended on March 31, 2016.InterventionAn invitation to attend a PSA testing clinic and receive a single PSA test vs standard (unscreened) practice.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome: prostate cancer-specific mortality at a median follow-up of 10 years. Prespecified secondary outcomes: diagnostic cancer stage and Gleason grade (range, 2-10; higher scores indicate a poorer prognosis) of prostate cancers identified, all-cause mortality, and an instrumental variable analysis estimating the causal effect of attending the PSA screening clinic.ResultsAmong 415 357 randomized men (mean [SD] age, 59.0 [5.6] years), 189 386 in the intervention group and 219 439 in the control group were included in the analysis (n = 408 825; 98%). In the intervention group, 75 707 (40%) attended the PSA testing clinic and 67 313 (36%) underwent PSA testing. Of 64 436 with a valid PSA test result, 6857 (11%) had a PSA level between 3 ng/mL and 19.9 ng/mL, of whom 5850 (85%) had a prostate biopsy. After a median follow-up of 10 years, 549 (0.30 per 1000 person-years) died of prostate cancer in the intervention group vs 647 (0.31 per 1000 person-years) in the control group (rate difference, -0.013 per 1000 person-years [95% CI, -0.047 to 0.022]; rate ratio [RR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.85 to 1.08]; P = .50). The number diagnosed with prostate cancer was higher in the intervention group (n = 8054; 4.3%) than in the control group (n = 7853; 3.6%) (RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.14 to 1.25]; P < .001). More prostate cancer tumors with a Gleason grade of 6 or lower were identified in the intervention group (n = 3263/189 386 [1.7%]) than in the control group (n = 2440/219 439 [1.1%]) (difference per 1000 men, 6.11 [95% CI, 5.38 to 6.84]; P < .001). In the analysis of all-cause mortality, there were 25 459 deaths in the intervention group vs 28 306 deaths in the control group (RR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.94 to 1.03]; P = .49). In the instrumental variable analysis for prostate cancer mortality, the adherence-adjusted causal RR was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.29; P = .66).Conclusions and relevanceAmong practices randomized to a single PSA screening intervention vs standard practice without screening, there was no significant difference in prostate cancer mortality after a median follow-up of 10 years but the detection of low-risk prostate cancer cases increased. Although longer-term follow-up is under way, the findings do not support single PSA testing for population-based screening.Trial registrationISRCTN Identifier: ISRCTN92187251.

Project description:BackgroundRacial/ethnic minority groups remain underrepresented in clinical trials. Many strategies to increase minority recruitment focus on minority communities and emphasize common diseases such as hypertension. Scant literature focuses on minority recruitment to trials of less common conditions, often conducted in specialty clinics and dependent on physician referrals. We identified trust/mistrust of specialist physician investigators and institutions conducting medical research and consequent participant reluctance to participate in clinical trials as key-shared barriers across racial/ethnic groups. We developed a trust-based continuous quality improvement intervention to build trust between specialist physician investigators and community minority-serving physicians and ultimately potential trial participants. To avoid the inherent biases of non-randomized studies, we evaluated the intervention in the national Randomized Recruitment Intervention Trial (RECRUIT). This report presents the design of RECRUIT. Specialty clinic follow-up continues through April 2017.MethodsWe hypothesized that specialist physician investigators and coordinators trained in the trust-based continuous quality improvement intervention would enroll a greater proportion of minority participants in their specialty clinics than specialist physician investigators in control specialty clinics. Specialty clinic was the unit of randomization. Using continuous quality improvement, the specialist physician investigators and coordinators tailored recruitment approaches to their specialty clinic characteristics and populations. Primary analyses were adjusted for clustering by specialty clinic within parent trial and matching covariates.ResultsRECRUIT was implemented in four multi-site clinical trials (parent trials) supported by three National Institutes of Health institutes and included 50 associated specialty clinics from these parent trials. Using current data, we have 88% power or greater to detect a 0.15 or greater difference from the currently observed control proportion adjusting for clustering. We detected no differences in baseline matching criteria between intervention and control specialty clinics (all p values > 0.17).ConclusionRECRUIT was the first multi-site randomized control trial to examine the effectiveness of a trust-based continuous quality improvement intervention to increase minority recruitment into clinical trials. RECRUIT's innovations included its focus on building trust between specialist investigators and minority-serving physicians, the use of continuous quality improvement to tailor the intervention to each specialty clinic's specific racial/ethnic populations and barriers to minority recruitment, and the use of specialty clinics from more than one parent multi-site trial to increase generalizability. The effectiveness of the RECRUIT intervention will be determined after the completion of trial data collection and planned analyses.

Project description:BackgroundSharing trial results with participants is an ethical imperative but often does not happen. We tested an Enhanced Webpage versus a Basic Webpage, Mailed Printed Summary versus no Mailed Printed Summary, and Email List Invitation versus no Email List Invitation to see which approach resulted in the highest patient satisfaction with how the results were communicated.Methods and findingsWe carried out a cluster randomised, 2 by 2 by 2 factorial, nonblinded study within a trial, with semistructured qualitative interviews with some patients (ISRCTN96189403). Each cluster was a UK hospital participating in the ICON8 ovarian cancer trial. Interventions were shared with 384 ICON8 participants who were alive and considered well enough to be contacted, at 43 hospitals. Hospitals were allocated to share results with participants through one of the 8 intervention combinations based on random permutation within blocks of 8, stratified by number of participants. All interventions contained a written plain English summary of the results. The Enhanced Webpage also contained a short video. Both the Enhanced Webpage and Email contained links to further information and support. The Mailed Printed Summary was opt-out. Follow-up questionnaires were sent 1 month after patients had been offered the interventions. Patients' reported satisfaction was measured using a 5-point scale, analysed by ordinal logistic regression estimating main effects for all 3 interventions, with random effects for site, restricted to those who reported receiving the results and assuming no interaction. Data collection took place in 2018 to 2019. Questionnaires were sent to 275/384 randomly selected participants and returned by 180: 90/142 allocated Basic Webpage, 90/133 Enhanced Webpage; 91/141 no Mailed Printed Summary, 89/134 Mailed Printed Summary; 82/129 no Email List Invitation, 98/146 Email List Invitation. Only 3 patients opted out of receiving the Mailed Printed Summary; no patients signed up to the email list. Patients' satisfaction was greater at sites allocated the Mailed Printed Summary, where 65/81 (80%) were quite or very satisfied compared to sites with no Mailed Printed Summary 39/64 (61%), ordinal odds ratio (OR) = 3.15 (1.66 to 5.98, p < 0.001). We found no effect on patient satisfaction from the Enhanced Webpage, OR = 1.47 (0.78 to 2.76, p = 0.235) or Email List Invitation, OR = 1.38 (0.72 to 2.63, p = 0.327). Interviewees described the results as interesting, important, and disappointing (the ICON8 trial found no benefit). Finding out the results made some feel their trial participation had been more worthwhile. Regardless of allocated group, patients who received results generally reported that the information was easy to understand and find, were glad and did not regret finding out the results. The main limitation of our study is the 65% response rate.ConclusionsNearly all respondents wanted to know the results and were glad to receive them. Adding an opt-out Mailed Printed Summary alongside a webpage yielded the highest reported satisfaction. This study provides evidence on how to share results with other similar trial populations. Further research is needed to look at different results scenarios and patient populations.Trial registrationISRCTN: ISRCTN96189403.

Dataset Information

Design and preliminary recruitment results of the Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer (CAP).

Publications

Design and preliminary recruitment results of the Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer (CAP).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets