Imperial College London

Mrs Natalia Klimowska-Nassar

Faculty of MedicineSchool of Public Health

Operations Manager - Clinical Research



+44 (0)20 7594 3424n.klimowska




Stadium HouseWhite City Campus





Publication Type

2 results found

Connor M, Genie M, Gonzalez M, Sarwar N, Thippu Jayaprakash K, Horan G, Hosking-Jervis F, Klimowska-Nassar N, Sukumar J, Pokrovska T, Basak D, Robinson A, Beresford M, Rai B, Mangar S, Khoo V, Dudderidge T, Falconer A, Winkler M, Watson V, Ahmed Het al., 2021, Metastatic prostate cancer men’s Attitudes towards Treatment of the local Tumour and metastasis Evaluative Research (IP5-MATTER): Protocol for a prospective, multicentre discrete choice experiment study, BMJ Open, Vol: 11, Pages: 1-8, ISSN: 2044-6055

Introduction Systemic therapy with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and intensification with agents such as docetaxel, abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide has resulted in improved overall survival in men with de novo synchronous metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Novel local cytoreductive treatments and metastasis-directed therapy are now being evaluated. Such interventions may provide added survival benefit or delay the requirement for further systemic agents and associated toxicity but can confer additional harm. Understanding men’s preferences for treatment options in this disease state is crucial for patients, clinicians, carers and future healthcare service providers.Methods Using a prospective, multicentre discrete choice experiment (DCE), we aim to determine the attributes associated with treatment that are most important to men with mHSPC. Furthermore, we plan to determine men’s preferences for, and trade-offs between, the attributes (survival and side effects) of different treatment options including systemic therapy, local cytoreductive approaches (external beam radiotherapy, cytoreductive radical prostatectomy or minimally invasive ablative therapy) and metastases-directed therapies (metastasectomy or stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy). All men with newly diagnosed mHSPC within 4 months of commencing ADT and WHO performance status 0–2 are eligible. Men who have previously consented to a cytoreductive treatment or have developed castrate-resistant disease will be excluded. This study includes a qualitative analysis component, with patients (n=15) and healthcare professionals (n=5), to identify and define the key attributes associated with treatment options that would warrant trade-off evaluation in a DCE. The main phase component planned recruitment is 300 patients over 1 year, commencing in January 2021, with planned study completion in March 2022.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was obt

Journal article

Eldred-Evans D, Burak P, Connor M, Day E, Evans M, Fiorentino F, Gammon M, Hosking-Jervis F, Klimowska- Nassar N, McGuire W, Padhani A, Prevost A, Price D, Sokhi H, Tam H, Winkler M, Ahmed Het al., 2021, Population-based prostate cancer screening with Magnetic Resonance Imaging or Ultrasonography: the IP1-PROSTAGRAM study, JAMA Oncology, Vol: 7, Pages: 395-402, ISSN: 2374-2445

Importance: Screening for prostate cancer using PSA-testing can lead to problems of under- and over-diagnosis. A short, non-contrast MRI or transrectal ultrasound might overcome these limitations. Objective: To compare the performance of PSA, MRI and ultrasound as screening tests for prostate cancer. Design, Setting and Participants: This prospective, population-based, blinded cohort study was conducted at seven primary care practices and two imaging centres in the UK. 2034 community based men aged 50-69 years invited for prostate cancer screening and 408 were consented. Interventions: All participants underwent screening with a PSA test, MRI (T2-weighted and diffusion) and ultrasound (b-mode and shearwave elastography).-The tests were independently interpreted without knowledge of other results. Both imaging tests were reported on a validated 5-point scale of suspicion. If any test was screen-positive, a systematic 12-core biopsy was performed. Additionalimage-fusion targeted biopsies were taken if the MRI or ultrasound was positive. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of men with screen-positive MRI or ultrasound (defined as either score 3-5 or 4-5) or screen-positive PSA (defined as PSA≥3g/L). Key secondary outcomes were the number of clinically-significant and clinically-insignificant cancers detected if each test was used exclusively. Clinically-significant cancer was defined as any Gleason score≥3+4. Results: The proportion with a screen-positive MRI (score 3-5) was higher than the proportion with a screen-positive PSA (72/406, 17.7%[95%CI 14.3-21.8] vs. 40/406,9.9%[95%CI 7.3-13.2]; p<0.001). The proportion with a screen-positive ultrasound (score 3-5) was also higher than PSA (96/405, 23.7% [95%CI 19.8-28.1];p<0.001). For an imaging threshold of score 4-5, the proportion with a screen-positive MRI was similar to PSA (43/406, 10.6%[95%CI 7.9-13.2];p=0.71), as was the proportion with a screen-positive ultrasound (52/405, 12.8%[95%CI 9.9-16.5

Journal article

This data is extracted from the Web of Science and reproduced under a licence from Thomson Reuters. You may not copy or re-distribute this data in whole or in part without the written consent of the Science business of Thomson Reuters.

Request URL: Request URI: /respub/WEB-INF/jsp/search-html.jsp Query String: respub-action=search.html&id=00658221&limit=30&person=true