Clinical impact of the Predict Prostate risk communication tool in men newly diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer: a multi-centre randomised controlled trial.
Thurtle, D.; Jenkins, V.; Freeman, A.; Pearson, M.; Recchia, G.; Tamer, P.; Leonard, K.; Pharoah, P.; Aning, J.; Madaan, S.; Goh, C.; Hilman, S.; McCracken, S.; Ilie, C.; Lazarowicz, H.; Gnanapragasam, V.
Show abstract
IntroductionPredict Prostate is a freely-available online personalised risk communication tool for men newly diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer. Its accuracy has been assessed in multiple validation studies but the clinical impact of the tool on patient decision-making had not previously been evaluated. MethodsA multi-centre randomised controlled trial was performed across 8 UK centres, wherein newly diagnosed men considering either active surveillance or radical treatment, were randomised to either standard of care (SOC) information or SOC and presentation of Predict Prostate. Validated questionnaires were completed assessing impact of the tool on decisional conflict, uncertainty, anxiety and understanding of survival. Results156 patients were included; mean age 67 years (range 44-80) and PSA of 6.9ng/ml (range 0.5-59.8). 81 were randomised to the Predict Prostate arm, and 75 to SOC information only. Mean decisional conflict scores were 26% lower in the Predict Prostate group (mean = 15.9) than in the SOC group (mean = 21.5) (p=0.01). Scores on the effective decision, uncertainty and value clarity subscales all indicated that the Predict Prostate group felt more informed and clear about their decision (all p<0.05). There was no significant difference in anxiety between the two groups. Patient perceptions of 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality (PCSM) and overall survival benefit from radical treatment were considerably lower among men in the Predict Prostate group (p<0.0001). 58% of men reported the Predict Prostate estimates for PCSM were lower than expected, and 35% reported being less likely to select radical treatment. Over 90% of patients in the Predict Prostate group found it useful and 94% would recommend it to others. ConclusionPredict Prostate reduces decisional conflict and uncertainty in non-metastatic prostate cancer and shifts patient perceptions around prognosis to be more realistic. This is the first randomised study of such a tool in this context; it demonstrates Predict Prostate can directly inform the complex decision-making process in prostate cancer.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Protocol summary and statistical analysis plan for the randomized trial of early detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (ProScreen) 94%
- Prescribing patterns for medical treatment of suspected prostatic obstruction: A spatiotemporal statistical analysis of Scottish open access data 91%
- Retrospective Validation of an Artificial Intelligence System for Diagnostic Assessment of Prostate Biopsies on the ProMort Cohort: Study Protocol 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Glycoprofiling of proteins as prostate cancer biomarkers: a multinational population study 91%
- The impact of positive surgical margin parameters and pathological stage on biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis 91%
- Study Protocol: LIAM Mc Trial (Linking In with Advice and supports for Men impacted by Metastatic cancer) 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- A population-level analysis of the protective effects of androgen deprivation therapy against COVID-19 disease incidence and severity 89%
- Extensive testing may reduce COVID-19 mortality: a lesson from northern Italy 85%
- COVID-19 clinical characteristics, and sex-specific risk of mortality: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis 84%
Similar papers in this journal
- Applying a genetic risk score for prostate cancer to men with lower urinary tract symptoms in primary care to predict prostate cancer diagnosis: a cohort study in the UK Biobank 94%
- BRCA-DIRECT digital pathway for diagnostic germline genetic testing within a UK breast oncology setting: a randomised, non-inferiority trial 88%
- CA125 and age-based models for ovarian cancer detection in primary care: a population-based external validation study 87%
Similar papers in this journal
- The NILS study protocol - a retrospective validation study of a preoperative decision-making tool for non-invasive lymph node staging in women with primary breast cancer [ISRCTN14341750] 86%
- Volumetric lung cancer screening reduces unnecessary low-dose computed tomography scans: results from a single-centre prospective trial on 4,119 subjects 84%
- A Machine Learning Ensemble Based on Radiomics to Predict BI-RADS Category and Reduce the Biopsy Rate of Ultrasound-Detected Suspicious Breast Masses 82%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.