Impact of a Multi-Disciplinary Patient Education Session on Accrual to a Difficult Clinical Trial: The Toronto Experience With the Surgical Prostatectomy Versus Interstitial Radiation Intervention Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Random assignment to clinical trials involving different treatment modalities can be difficult. We describe our experience with the Surgical Prostatectomy Versus Interstitial Radiation Intervention Trial (SPIRIT; ACOSOG Z0070 NCIC PR10), a randomized trial for early-stage prostate cancer comparing radical prostatectomy (RP), and brachytherapy (BT). A multidisciplinary educational session was developed to improve patient understanding of treatment options and to facilitate accrual. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prostate cancer referrals were screened and men who met favorable risk criteria (T1c/T2a, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] < 10 ng/mL, Gleason < or = 6) were invited to a structured education session before a specialty consultation. Men and their partners viewed the SPIRIT informed-consent video and heard from a cancer patient who described his participation in a randomized trial. Then, a urologist and radiation oncologist together compared and contrasted RP and BT to establish the rationale for the trial. RESULTS: In May 2002, SPIRIT opened for accrual and was endorsed by the University Health Network urologists and radiation oncologists. The first 27 eligible patients were approached about SPIRIT, consulted both specialties, and viewed an educational video. No patients consented. The multidisciplinary education session was then introduced. Forty-seven education sessions with 263 patients resulted in 34 consents. Of 203 patients who were suitable for the study but declined random assignment, 62 chose surgery, 94 chose brachytherapy, three patients chose external radiotherapy, and 11 chose no treatment. Consent rates for eligible and suitable patients were one in six. CONCLUSION: Men who understand their treatment options and trial rationale as presented jointly by representative specialists from competing treatment modalities may be better equipped to make an informed decision and are more likely to consent to random assignment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.105 | 0.160 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".