The primary objective is to identify the efficacy of current predictive tools used to predict clinical and patient reported outcomes for men who have been treated for prostate cancer.
The objective is to identify existing tools that are validated in the Australian population.
The objective is to identify existing tools that are not yet validated, but could be validated in the Australian poulation.
The objective is to identify treatment/ outcomes pairs, where there are currently no tools available, to direct future risk prediction research in Australia and potentially internationally.
The search strategy aims to find published studies. A three-step search strategy will be utilised in this review.
An initial limited search of EMBASE and PubMed will be undertaken using key words. A second search using all identified key words and index terms will be undertaken in EMBASE and PUBMED. Thirdly, the reference list of all identified literature will be searched for additional studies.
Synonyms, truncations and MeSM terms associated with the above key words will be combined using Boolean operations such as “OR”’ and “ AND” for the search.
Only studies available in English and published from Jan 1980 to Jan 2015 will be considered for this review. This date range is most relevant for studies relating to the use of predictive tools for prostate cancer.
Our search strategy produced a large volume of literature, so the team decided to review the selection criteria. We chose to alter the inclusion date from Jan 1980 - Jan 2015 to July 2007 - Jan 2015 on the grounds that a comprehensive catalogue of predictive tools was published in 2008.
Types of study to be included
The review will consider quantative analytical studies that examine predictive capabilities of specified tools in a clinical setting.
Condition or domain being studied
Prostate cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in Australian men (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) and the second most common cause of male cancer deaths.  Prostate cancer is a complex disease, both in terms of its diagnosis and the choice of treatments available. Once a diagnosis has been established, treatment choices include the surgical removal of the prostate gland, radiotherapy, androgen deprivation therapy, active surveillance and watchful waiting. The side effects of some of these treatments include impotence and incontinence which can be life changing for the individual. The possible over treatment of indolent tumours with consequent harmful adverse effects and the possible under treatment of aggressive tumours with consequent increased mortality is of concern. Selecting the appropriate treatment for the individual is a challenge which can be assisted by the use of predictive tools. 
The aim of this systematic review is to identify predictive tools that are available and assess their applicability and validity to the Australian population in order to enhance the treatment decision making process for men who have been recently diagnosed with prostate cancer.
1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Prostate Cancer in Australia. Cancer series no 79.2013.
2.National Health and Medical Research Council. Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) testing in asymptomatic men: Information for Health Practitioners. March 2014 NHMRC Ref# MEN4d http://www.nhmrc.gov.au
The review will consider studies that include men (with no age or ethnicity restriction) who have had treatment for prostate cancer and whose clinical data has been used to predict clinical and patient reported outcomes.
The focus is to review analytical tools used in predicting clinical and patient reported outcomes following treatment of men with prostate cancer.
Due to the nature of the review there are no comparators.
Identifying accurate and validated predictive tools to assist in making appropriate treatment choices for men diagnosed with prostate cancer.
To identify treatments /outcomes pairs where there are no current tools available to direct future risk prediction research.
Data extraction, (selection and coding)
Draft Data extraction tool
• Paper title
• Reference (pub med URL)
• Prostate cancer patients
• Clinical predictive tool
• Clinical outcome measure
• Date range
• Dates for patient recruitment
• Number of patients
• Inclusion/exclusion criteria
• One centre or multicentre
• Population based?
• Primary treatment
• Adjuvant therapies
• Neo-adjuvant therapies
• Patient reported
- Instrument used
• Type of model
• Accuracy tested?
• Accuracy observed
• Internal validation?
• External validation?
• Variables used
- Definition of variables
- Are variables readily available?
- OR/HR/B reported for each variable
- Authors contacted/responded with model details (if not reported)
Risk of bias (quality) assessment
The tools identified in this review will be assessed for both internal and external validation as well as accuracy. As such, risk of bias will not be assessed for each paper.
Strategy for data synthesis
Data extracted for this review will be summarised in tables and accompanied with a commentary.
Analysis of subgroups or subsets
As previously mentioned, the systematic review encompasses eight sub groups. Please refer to attached Search Strategy PDF.
In addition to producing a report for the funders of this review, the review will be submitted to Urology Journals.
Contact details for further information
Department of Urology, Repatriation General Hospital, Daws Road, Daw Park, South Australia, 5042
Organisational affiliation of the review
South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative
Dr Michael O'Callaghan, SA-PCCOC Mrs Elspeth Raymond, SA-PCCOC
Dr Kim Moretti, Associate Professor and Head of Urology, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 28 Woodville Road. Woodville South SA 5011 Dr Kerri Beckmann, Uni SA Dr Andrew Vincent, SAMHRI
Details of any existing review of the same topic by the same authors
Anticipated or actual start date
20 May 2015
Anticipated completion date
13 September 2017
The Movember Prostate Cancer Health Outcomes Unit. Australia
Formal screening of search results against eligibility criteria
Risk of bias (quality) assessment
PROSPERO This information has been provided by the named contact for this review. CRD has accepted this information in good faith and registered the review in PROSPERO. CRD bears no responsibility or liability for the content of this registration record, any associated files or external websites.