HAROW: the first comprehensive prospective observational study comparing treatment options in localized prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To collect data on primary treatment decision and follow-up in patients with diagnosed, histologically confirmed localized (T1a-T2c/N0/M0) prostate cancer (PCa) for up to 5 years in a prospective observational non-interventional study. METHODS: Patients were non-randomly allocated to one of the five treatment strategies: hormone therapy, active surveillance, radiation, operation, or watchful waiting. RESULTS: A total of 3169 patients were included by 259 participating sites; 2957 patients had at least one follow-up visit. 54.8 % of tumors at baseline were staged as T1c, 38 % as T2a-T2c, and 7.1 % as T1a or T1b (missing: 0.2 %). 38.9, 32.6 and 26.6 % of patients were classified as low risk, intermediate risk, and high risk according to d'Amico, respectively (missing: 1.8 %). 56.6 % of patients underwent prostatectomy as primary therapy, 16.4 % received radiation, 6.9 % HT, 15.8 and 4.3 % decided for AS or WW. Mean follow-up was 28.4 months. Progression rates were between 8.6 % (RT) and 33.1 % (AS). CONCLUSION: Whereas RP remains the main treatment option of localized PCa, active surveillance appears to become an accepted and selectively employed treatment option. Careful selection of patients is documented by the highest proportion of patients with low risk (82.5 %), PSA density <0.2 ng/ml/ml (77.5 %), T1 staging (83.6 %), Gleason score ≤6 (92.5 %), ≤2 positive biopsies (79.4 %), and lowest mean PSA (5.8 ng/ml) in the AS group. The relatively high progression rate in the AS group has to be considered in the context of treatment changes; 71/155 patients had a documented change of treatment and 62 of them with a follow-up period of >3 months.

Returning genetic research results to individuals: points-to-consider.

This paper is intended to stimulate debate amongst stakeholders in the international research community on the topic of returning individual genetic research results to study participants. Pharmacogenetics and disease genetics studies are becoming increasingly prevalent, leading to a growing body of information on genetic associations for drug responsiveness and disease susceptibility with the potential to improve health care. Much of these data are presently characterized as exploratory (non-validated or hypothesis-generating). There is, however, a trend for research participants to be permitted access to their personal data if they so choose. Researchers, sponsors, patient advocacy groups, ethics committees and regulatory authorities are consequently confronting the issue of whether, and how, study participants might receive their individual results. Noted international ethico-legal guidelines and public policy positions in Europe and the United States are reviewed for background. The authors offer 'Points-to-Consider' regarding returning results in the context of drug development trials based on their knowledge and experience. Theses considerations include: the clinical relevance of data, laboratory qualifications, informed consent procedures, confidentiality of medical information and the competency of persons providing results to participants. The discussion is framed as a benefit-to-risk assessment to balance the potential positive versus negative consequences to participants, while maintaining the integrity and feasibility of conducting genetic research studies.