| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Bill-Axelson, Anna, et al.
(författare)
-
Experiences of randomization : Interviews with patients and clinicians in the SPCG-IV trial
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology. - : Informa UK Limited. - 0036-5599 .- 1651-2065. ; 42:4, s. 358-363
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective. Recruitment of both patients and clinicians to randomized trials is difficult. Low participation carries the risk of terminating studies early and making them invalid owing to insufficient statistical power. This study investigated patients' and clinicians' experiences of randomization with the aim of facilitating trial participation in the future. Material and methods. This was a qualitative study using content analysis. Patients offered to participate in a randomized trial and randomizing clinicians were interviewed. Five participants, four non-participants and five randomizing clinicians were interviewed, 2-8 years from randomization. Results. Clinicians used strategies in interaction with the patients to facilitate decision making. Patients' attitudes differed and experiences of relatives or friends were often stated as reasons for treatment preferences. Patients described that letting chance decide treatment was a difficult barrier to overcome for randomization. The clinicians used a number of different strategies perceived to make randomization more acceptable to their patients. The clinicians' own motivation for randomizing patients for trials depended on the medical relevance of the study question and the clinicians' major obstacle was to maintain equipoise over time. Regular meetings with the study group helped to maintain equipoise and motivation. Conclusions. To establish a good platform for randomization the clinician needs to know about the patient's treatment preferences and the patient's attitude concerning the role of the clinician to facilitate decision making. The strategies used by the clinicians were perceived as helpful and could be tested in an intervention study.
|
|
| 3. |
- Bill-Axelson, Anna, 1965-
(författare)
-
Localized Prostate Cancer : Results From a Randomized Clinical Trial
- 2005
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The aims of the thesis were to• explore whether radical prostatectomy is beneficial compared with watchful waiting in survival and disease progression• find possible effect modifiers• evaluate a protocol of multiple biopsies and investigate if men with previous benign prostate biopsies are a group at risk for later prostate cancer• inquire into patients’ and clinicians’ experiences of randomization in order to find out what made this study possible to conduct, and thereby contribute to improve randomization in the futureThe background material was a large randomized clinical trial, the Scandinavian Prostatic Cancer Group Study Number 4, or SPCG-4, which was open for inclusion from February 1989 through December 1999. It comprised 695 men in Sweden, Finland and Iceland who had localized prostate cancer and were randomized to either radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting. After a mean follow-up time of 6.2 years the first analyses, according to intention-to-treat, showed that radical prostatectomy reduced disease specific mortality, risk of metastases and risk of local progression but did not statistically significantly reduce overall mortality. The second analyses confirmed our earlier findings and furthermore, at ten years, radical prostatectomy also statistically significantly reduced overall mortality. Age appeared as an independent effect modifier that will be further investigated.A total of 547 men, with a suspicion of prostate cancer that had undergone multiple biopsies, and whose biopsies had benign histology were later compared with the background population to evaluate whether they were a group at risk of developing prostate cancer. Within six years of follow-up, there was no increased risk of prostate cancer.Patients as well as clinicians used individual strategies to cope with the situation. The randomizing clinician has to understand the patient’s strategy and his expectations in order to individualize the information accordingly.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Bill-Axelson, Anna, et al.
(författare)
-
No increased prostate cancer incidence after negative transrectal ultrasound guided multiple biopsies in men with increased prostate specific antigen and/or abnormal digital rectal examination.
- 2003
-
Ingår i: Journal of Urology. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 0022-5347 .- 1527-3792. ; 170:4 Pt 1, s. 1180-3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: We investigated the incidence of prostate cancer after negative transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided multiple biopsies. Our secondary aim was to calculate the sensitivity of the extended protocol used.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 547 men with elevated prostate specific antigen and/or abnormal digital rectal examination but with results negative for prostate cancer on a mean of 9 TRUS guided biopsies was followed through record linkage to the national cancer Registry. The observed number of prostate cancers was compared with the expected number during the same calendar period in an age matched male population to determine the standardized incidence ratio. The sensitivity of TRUS with multiple biopsies after 5 years of followup was calculated. Relative survival was estimated if there was an excess death rate due to undiagnosed prostate cancer.RESULTS: We found 11 men diagnosed with prostate cancer. The expected number in the age standardized male population was 15, resulting in a standardized incidence ratio of 0.8 (95% CI 0.4 to 1.2). Five-year sensitivity of the extended protocol of TRUS guided biopsies was 95.2% (95% CI 93.5 to 96.4) and relative survival was more than 100%, indicating a selection of men deemed candidates for curative treatment.CONCLUSIONS: Men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who are examined by an extended protocol of TRUS guided biopsies negative for cancer do not have an increased incidence of prostate cancer within 6 years compared with an age matched male population. Five-year sensitivity of this protocol was high.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Bill-Axelson, Anna, et al.
(författare)
-
Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer
- 2005
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 352:19, s. 1977-1944
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND:In 2002, we reported the initial results of a trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting in the management of early prostate cancer. After three more years of follow-up, we report estimated 10-year results.METHODS:From October 1989 through February 1999, 695 men with early prostate cancer (mean age, 64.7 years) were randomly assigned to radical prostatectomy (347 men) or watchful waiting (348 men). The follow-up was complete through 2003, with blinded evaluation of the causes of death. The primary end point was death due to prostate cancer; the secondary end points were death from any cause, metastasis, and local progression.RESULTS:During a median of 8.2 years of follow-up, 83 men in the surgery group and 106 men in the watchful-waiting group died (P=0.04). In 30 of the 347 men assigned to surgery (8.6 percent) and 50 of the 348 men assigned to watchful waiting (14.4 percent), death was due to prostate cancer. The difference in the cumulative incidence of death due to prostate cancer increased from 2.0 percentage points after 5 years to 5.3 percentage points after 10 years, for a relative risk of 0.56 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.36 to 0.88; P=0.01 by Gray's test). For distant metastasis, the corresponding increase was from 1.7 to 10.2 percentage points, for a relative risk in the surgery group of 0.60 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.42 to 0.86; P=0.004 by Gray's test), and for local progression, the increase was from 19.1 to 25.1 percentage points, for a relative risk of 0.33 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.25 to 0.44; P<0.001 by Gray's test).CONCLUSIONS:Radical prostatectomy reduces disease-specific mortality, overall mortality, and the risks of metastasis and local progression. The absolute reduction in the risk of death after 10 years is small, but the reductions in the risks of metastasis and local tumor progression are substantial.
|
|
| 9. |
- Bill-Axelson, Anna, et al.
(författare)
-
Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer : the Scandinavian prostate cancer group-4 randomized trial
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. - : Oxford University Press. - 0027-8874 .- 1460-2105. ; 100:16, s. 1144-1154
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The benefit of radical prostatectomy in patients with early prostate cancer has been assessed in only one randomized trial. In 2005, we reported that radical prostatectomy improved prostate cancer survival compared with watchful waiting after a median of 8.2 years of follow-up. We now report results after 3 more years of follow-up.METHODS: From October 1, 1989, through February 28, 1999, 695 men with clinically localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to radical prostatectomy (n = 347) or watchful waiting (n = 348). Follow-up was complete through December 31, 2006, with histopathologic review and blinded evaluation of causes of death. Relative risks (RRs) were estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model. Statistical tests were two-sided.RESULTS: During a median of 10.8 years of follow-up (range = 3 weeks to 17.2 years), 137 men in the surgery group and 156 in the watchful waiting group died (P = .09). For 47 of the 347 men (13.5%) who were randomly assigned to surgery and 68 of the 348 men (19.5%) who were not, death was due to prostate cancer. The difference in cumulative incidence of death due to prostate cancer remained stable after about 10 years of follow-up. At 12 years, 12.5% of the surgery group and 17.9% of the watchful waiting group had died of prostate cancer (difference = 5.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.2 to 11.1%), for a relative risk of 0.65 (95% CI = 0.45 to 0.94; P = .03). The difference in cumulative incidence of distant metastases did not increase beyond 10 years of follow-up. At 12 years, 19.3% of men in the surgery group and 26% of men in the watchful waiting group had been diagnosed with distant metastases (difference = 6.7%, 95% CI = 0.2 to 13.2%), for a relative risk of 0.65 (95% CI = 0.47 to 0.88; P = .006). Among men who underwent radical prostatectomy, those with extracapsular tumor growth had 14 times the risk of prostate cancer death as those without it (RR = 14.2, 95% CI = 3.3 to 61.8; P < .001).CONCLUSION: Radical prostatectomy reduces prostate cancer mortality and risk of metastases with little or no further increase in benefit 10 or more years after surgery.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
