Dataset Information

Standardisation of information submitted to an endpoint committee for cause of death assignment in a cancer screening trial – lessons learnt from CAP (Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer).

ABSTRACT: In 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.Over 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.1099 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.It is possible to mask trial arm from cause of death reviewers, by using their feedback to standardise the information submitted to them.ISRCTN92187251.

SUBMITTER: Williams NJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4429825 | biostudies-other | 2015 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Standardisation of information submitted to an endpoint committee for cause of death assignment in a cancer screening trial – lessons learnt from CAP (Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer).

Williams Naomi J NJ Hill Elizabeth M EM Ng Siaw Yein SY Martin Richard M RM Metcalfe Chris C Donovan Jenny L JL Evans Simon S Hughes Laura J LJ Davies Charlotte F CF Hamdy Freddie C FC Neal David E DE Turner Emma L EL

BMC medical research methodology 20150123

<h4>Background</h4>In 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 ...[more]

PMID: 25613468

Similar Datasets

Project description:Infectious disease forecasting is gaining traction in the public health community; however, limited systematic comparisons of model performance exist. Here we present the results of a synthetic forecasting challenge inspired by the West African Ebola crisis in 2014-2015 and involving 16 international academic teams and US government agencies, and compare the predictive performance of 8 independent modeling approaches. Challenge participants were invited to predict 140 epidemiological targets across 5 different time points of 4 synthetic Ebola outbreaks, each involving different levels of interventions and "fog of war" in outbreak data made available for predictions. Prediction targets included 1-4 week-ahead case incidences, outbreak size, peak timing, and several natural history parameters. With respect to weekly case incidence targets, ensemble predictions based on a Bayesian average of the 8 participating models outperformed any individual model and did substantially better than a null auto-regressive model. There was no relationship between model complexity and prediction accuracy; however, the top performing models for short-term weekly incidence were reactive models with few parameters, fitted to a short and recent part of the outbreak. Individual model outputs and ensemble predictions improved with data accuracy and availability; by the second time point, just before the peak of the epidemic, estimates of final size were within 20% of the target. The 4th challenge scenario - mirroring an uncontrolled Ebola outbreak with substantial data reporting noise - was poorly predicted by all modeling teams. Overall, this synthetic forecasting challenge provided a deep understanding of model performance under controlled data and epidemiological conditions. We recommend such "peace time" forecasting challenges as key elements to improve coordination and inspire collaboration between modeling groups ahead of the next pandemic threat, and to assess model forecasting accuracy for a variety of known and hypothetical pathogens.

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:BACKGROUND:Vestibular migraine (VM) is the most frequent cause of recurrent spontaneous attacks of vertigo causally related to migraine. The objective of the Prophylactic treatment of vestibular migraine with metoprolol (PROVEMIG) trial was to demonstrate that metoprolol succinate is superior to placebo in the prevention of episodic vertigo- and migraine-related symptoms in patients with VM. METHODS:This phase III, two-arm, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial was designed to be conducted at tertiary referral centres at neurology and ear, nose and throat departments of eight German university hospitals. The planned sample size was a total of 266 patients to be allocated. Adults aged 18?years or above diagnosed with probable or definitive VM according to the Neuhauser criteria 2001 were randomly assigned 1:1 to 6 months blinded metoprolol (maintenance dosage of 95?mg daily) or placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was the self-reported number of vertiginous attacks per 30?days documented by means of a paper-based daily symptom diary. The pre-specified time period of primary interest was defined as months 4 to 6. Secondary outcomes included the patient-reported number of migraine days and vertigo days, the Dizziness Handicap Inventory, and clinical assessments. Adverse events were reported throughout the whole 9-month study period. RESULTS:At the time of trial termination, no evidence for a difference in the incidence of vertiginous attacks between groups was detected. For the full analysis set, the incidence rate ratio was 0.983 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.902-1.071) for metoprolol versus placebo. In both groups, there was a significant decline over time in the overall monthly vertigo attacks by a factor of 0.830 (95% CI 0.776-0.887). Results were consistent for all subjective and objective key measures of efficacy. The treatment was well tolerated with no unexpected safety findings. CONCLUSIONS:After randomizing 130 patients PROVEMIG had to be discontinued because of poor participant accrual not related to the tolerability of the study medication or safety concerns; no treatment benefit of metoprolol over placebo could be established. Additional preparatory work is much needed in the development, psychometric evaluation and interpretation of clinically meaningful end points in trials on episodic syndromes like VM taking into consideration the complexity of this disease entity comprising two domains (vertigo- and headache-related disability). TRIAL REGISTRATION:EudraCT, 2009-013701-34. Prospectively registered on 8 April 2011.

Dataset Information

Standardisation of information submitted to an endpoint committee for cause of death assignment in a cancer screening trial – lessons learnt from CAP (Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer).

Publications

Standardisation of information submitted to an endpoint committee for cause of death assignment in a cancer screening trial – lessons learnt from CAP (Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure