Imperial College London
Portrait Picture

Professor Hashim Ahmed

Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgery & Cancer

Chair in Urology (Clinical)
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

hashim.ahmed

 
 
//

Location

 

5L28Lab BlockCharing Cross Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{Hamdy:2018:10.3310/hta22520,
author = {Hamdy, FC and Elliott, D and le, Conte S and Davies, LC and Burns, RM and Thomson, C and Gray, R and Wolstenholme, J and Donovan, JL and Fitzpatrick, R and Verrill, C and Gleeson, F and Singh, S and Rosario, D and Catto, JWF and Brewster, S and Dudderidge, T and Hindley, R and Emara, A and Sooriakumaran, P and Ahmed, HU and Leslie, TA},
doi = {10.3310/hta22520},
journal = {Health Technology Assessment},
title = {Partial ablation versus radical prostatectomy in intermediate-risk prostate cancer: the PART feasibility RCT},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta22520},
volume = {22},
year = {2018}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - BackgroundProstate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men in the UK. Patients with intermediate-risk, clinically localised disease are offered radical treatments such as surgery or radiotherapy, which can result in severe side effects. A number of alternative partial ablation (PA) technologies that may reduce treatment burden are available; however the comparative effectiveness of these techniques has never been evaluated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT).ObjectivesTo assess the feasibility of a RCT of PA using high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) versus radical prostatectomy (RP) for intermediate-risk PCa and to test and optimise methods of data capture.DesignWe carried out a prospective, multicentre, open-label feasibility study to inform the design and conduct of a future RCT, involving a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to understand barriers to participation.SettingFive NHS hospitals in England.ParticipantsMen with unilateral, intermediate-risk, clinically localised PCa.InterventionsRadical prostatectomy compared with HIFU.Primary outcome measureThe randomisation of 80 men.Secondary outcome measuresFindings of the QRI and assessment of data capture methods.ResultsEighty-seven patients consented to participate by 31 March 2017 and 82 men were randomised by 4 May 2017 (41 men to the RP arm and 41 to the HIFU arm). The QRI was conducted in two iterative phases: phase I identified a number of barriers to recruitment, including organisational challenges, lack of recruiter equipoise and difficulties communicating with patients about the study, and phase II comprised the development and delivery of tailored strategies to optimise recruitment, including group training, individual feedback and ‘tips’ documents. At the time of data extraction, on 10 October 2017, treatment data were available for 71 patients. Patient characteristics were similar at baseline and the rate of return of all clinical case report forms (CRFs) was 95%; the retu
AU  - Hamdy,FC
AU  - Elliott,D
AU  - le,Conte S
AU  - Davies,LC
AU  - Burns,RM
AU  - Thomson,C
AU  - Gray,R
AU  - Wolstenholme,J
AU  - Donovan,JL
AU  - Fitzpatrick,R
AU  - Verrill,C
AU  - Gleeson,F
AU  - Singh,S
AU  - Rosario,D
AU  - Catto,JWF
AU  - Brewster,S
AU  - Dudderidge,T
AU  - Hindley,R
AU  - Emara,A
AU  - Sooriakumaran,P
AU  - Ahmed,HU
AU  - Leslie,TA
DO  - 10.3310/hta22520
PY  - 2018///
SN  - 1366-5278
TI  - Partial ablation versus radical prostatectomy in intermediate-risk prostate cancer: the PART feasibility RCT
T2  - Health Technology Assessment
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta22520
UR  - http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000446127000001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=1ba7043ffcc86c417c072aa74d649202
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/63352
VL  - 22
ER  -
Download