Clinical Trial Details
— Status: Completed
Administrative data
NCT number |
NCT06092918 |
Other study ID # |
NOMPROST-1 |
Secondary ID |
|
Status |
Completed |
Phase |
|
First received |
|
Last updated |
|
Start date |
January 1, 2013 |
Est. completion date |
January 1, 2023 |
Study information
Verified date |
October 2023 |
Source |
Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa |
Contact |
n/a |
Is FDA regulated |
No |
Health authority |
|
Study type |
Observational
|
Clinical Trial Summary
The generation of predictive models in radiotherapy has seen a significant increase. In 2017,
Raymond published the largest systematic review of predictive prognostic models for
biochemical relapse (BR), metastasis-free survival, and overall survival in patients with
localized prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy (14), attempting to identify whether they
were adequately developed and validated.
He found 72 unique predictive models for external radiotherapy: 22 corresponding to BR risk,
20 corresponding to Cancer-Specific Survival, 10 corresponding to Overall Survival, and 20
for Disease/Metastasis-Free Survival detection. In his analysis, he highlighted a significant
variation in the quality of these predictive models, understanding that they were developed
prior to the existence of TRIPOD guidelines.
In this regard, he pointed out that 54% of these models did not report their accuracy, and
61% of the models lacked validation (either internal or external). He also noted that they
had limited follow-up (only 65% had follow-up beyond 5 years), that the treatment doses in
these models were lower than current standards, and that the radiation techniques were
different from current practices. Although in his final assessment, Raymond maintains that
predictive models provide more certainty in predicting oncological outcomes than professional
assessments, he considers it vital to validate these models for each population that wants to
use them (the vast majority of these models are based on U.S. populations) or, even better,
to generate predictive models specific to the local population while adhering to the TRIPOD
guidelines.
Probably due to the lack of validation in our patients for existing predictive models and/or
the absence of predictive models originating from our population, in our routine clinical
practice (Multidisciplinary Oncology Committees), phisycians do not apply any predictive
models to patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer.
Description:
The general objective of the study is to develop a predictive model for oncological outcomes
and bladder and rectal toxicities based on the analysis of patients with localized prostate
cancer who have received external radiotherapy, useful for medical decision-making. This
objective is divided into three specific objectives:
1) Estimate a predictive model for oncological outcomes, such as the probability of
Biochemical Recurrence (BR), Disease-Free or Metastasis-Free Time (DFT), Overall Survival
(OS), and Cancer-Specific Survival (CSS).
2) Estimate a predictive model for bladder and rectal toxicities in patients with localized
prostate cancer who have received external radiotherapy.
3) Analyze the feasibility and impact of implementing an individualized decision-making model
based on this model, and its implementation in oncology committees and in initial
(informative) visits in radiation oncology.
- Hypotheses**:
1. The developed predictive model will have adequate predictive values.
2. Validate and compare the model with other shared decision-making methods in
localized prostate cancer in Radiation Oncology Services.
3. Professionals and patients will show appropriate satisfaction with the use of this
type of model for shared decision-making with the patient in radiation oncology.
- Method**:
This study is divided into phases for its execution:
1. Retrospective analysis of 400 patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and
treated with external radiotherapy between January 2014 and December 2019. Sub-analyses
of the population will be conducted to evaluate different oncological outcomes and the
produced toxicities, with particular emphasis on distinguishing differences that
technological variables may justify.
2. Generation and validation of a predictive model for treatment oncological outcomes and
bladder and rectal toxicities. The development of the model will follow the TRIPOD
guidelines.
3. Analysis of the model's implementation in patient decision-making, for which a validated
questionnaire will be applied to measure satisfaction with the decision made in patients
diagnosed with prostate neoplasia (15). The predictive model will be applied through a
pilot study involving 30 patients who will be presented with treatment options based on
different outcome scenarios. The questionnaire will be administered after the first
visit to radiation oncology to assess the use of predictive models as part of the
information provided. This questionnaire will evaluate improvements in the patient's
knowledge of prostate cancer, clarity of personal values, decision efficacy, and
reduction of uncertainty regarding the decision made.
- Statistical Analysis**:
Phase 1: The annual incidence rate will be calculated using the actuarial method for
oncological outcomes, estimating the annual number of cases divided by the sum of the total
person-years at risk per 100 treated patients. Rates will be calculated as crude and
age-standardized rates, stratified by relevant sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.
Rates will be summarized as cumulative incidences over time using a Kaplan-Meier estimator.
Individual associations between predictive factors and complication outcomes will be
calculated using a bivariate binomial logistic prediction model. The optimal prediction time
will be estimated by comparing changes in odds at different time-to-event cutoff points.
Phase 2: The risk prediction model will be constructed using penalized logistic regression
techniques to optimize predictive accuracy for the occurrence of oncological outcomes. Model
development will be conducted on a subset of training data using k-fold validation, and
diagnostic prediction will be calculated using the recalibrated algorithm. The predictive
model's performance will be evaluated by calculating the area under the receiver operating
characteristic curve and other measures of accuracy for various cutoff points (percentage of
patients at maximum risk, maximization of positive and negative predictive value, and
F-score).
Phase 3: The predictive model will be applied to 30 new patients. Mean satisfaction with the
provided information will be estimated using questionnaire results. Changes in uncertainty
before and after receiving information will be assessed using paired-sample t-tests.