Advanced prostate cancer experimental radioactive treatment—clinical trial decision making: patient experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Nested qualitative studies within clinical trials provide the opportunity to better understand participant experiences of participation and identify areas where improved support is required. The purpose of this qualitative study is to describe the lived experiences of men with advanced prostate cancer participating in the TheraP trial; a randomised trial of 177 Lu-PSMA-617 compared with cabazitaxel chemotherapy. Methods Fifteen men with advanced prostate cancer were recruited from the TheraP clinical trial and interviewed at three time points during the trial. Interviews were inductively analysed using thematic analysis. This research paper reports the results from the baseline interview at commencement of the trial, focusing specifically on participants’ enrolment experiences. Results Four themes were identified representing the lived experiences of men with advanced prostate cancer deciding to participate in the TheraP trial: (1) hoping to survive; (2) needing to feel informed; (3) choosing to participate and (4) being randomised. The process of deciding to enrol in a clinical trial is filled with indecision, emotional difficulties and focused on a desire to live. Conclusions For men with advanced prostate cancer, the experience of deciding to enrol in a clinical trial is principally driven by a desire to survive but interlinked with the need to make an informed decision as participants in this study expressed a preference for allocation to the experimental arm. Men seeking to enrol in clinical trials of new prostate cancer treatments would benefit from improved informational and decision support. Trial registration number NCT03392428 , ANZUP1603.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".