A Randomised Controlled Trial of Regular MRI Scans Compared to Standard Care in Patients With Prostate Cancer Managed Using Active Surveillance
Phase: NA
Conditions: Prostate Cancer
Sponsor: Imperial College London

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
 
CLINICAL STUDY PROTOCOL 
 
ICTU ADOPTED 
 
Full Study Title: 
A randomised controlled trial of regular MRI scans compared to standard care in patients 
with prostate cancer managed using active surveillance 
 
Short Study title / Acronym: 
Imperial Prostate 9 – ATLAS (Approaches To Long-Term Active Surveillance) 
 
Sponsor: 
Imperial College London 
 
Version no: 
1.0 
 
Protocol Date: 
30th May 2023 
 
Funder acknowledgement and disclaimer statement:  
This study is funded by the NIHR HTA Programme (NIHR152027). The views expressed 
are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health 
and Social Care 
 
Property of Imperial Clinical Trials Unit (ICTU). May not be used, divulged or published 
without the consent of ICTU. This protocol has regard for the HRA guidance 
 
 
 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2
RESEARCH REFERENCE NUMBERS 
 
 
IRAS ID: 
328263 
REC Reference Number: 
23/WA/0323 
ISRCTN Number / Clinical trials.gov 
Number: 
 
Sponsor Protocol Number: 
22CX7971 
Funder reference: 
NIHR152027 
 
 
 
Keywords: 
 
Prostate Cancer 
MRI 
Active surveillance 
Prostate Biopsy 
Prostate Specific Antigen 
 
 
 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3
CONTACT LIST 
 
Chief Investigator  
 
Professor Hashim Ahmed 
Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of 
Medicine, Imperial College London, London, W6 8RF, UK 
 
Email: hashim.ahmed@imperial.ac.uk  
 
Joint Lead applicant 
 
Professor Mark Emberton 
Dean, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, W6 8RF, UK 
 
Email: m.emberton@ucl.ac.uk  
 
Sponsor 
 
Sponsor’s Name: Imperial College London  
Address: Research Governance and Integrity Team (RGIT) Room 215, Level 2, Medical 
School Building, St Mary’s Campus, Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG 
  
Name of contact person: Keith Boland  
Title: Head of Research Governance and Integrity  
Tel: Tel: 0207 594 1862  
Email: k.boland@imperial.ac.uk 
Imperial College - Research Governance and Integrity Team (RGIT) Website 
 
 
Clinical queries 
 
 
Clinical queries should be directed to the Chief Investigator or ICTU Study Manager who will 
direct the query to the appropriate person. 
 
 
Funder 
 
National Institute of Health Research – Health Technology Assessment 
NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC), University of 
Southampton, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Southampton SO16 7NS 
 
 
ICTU Operations Manager  
 
Name: Mrs Natalia Klimowska-Nassar  
Address: Imperial College Trials Unit & Division of Surgery  
1st Floor, Stadium House, 68 Wood Lane, London W12 7RH  
Tel: 0207 594 3424  
Email: n.klimowska@imperial.ac.uk 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4
 
Name: Dr Thiagarajah Sasikaran  
Address: Imperial College Trials Unit & Division of Surgery  
1st Floor, Stadium House, 68 Wood Lane, London W12 7RH  
Tel: 0207 594 6017  
Email: t.sasikaran@imperial.ac.uk  
  
 
 
ICTU Study Manager  
 
Name: Increase Akinyemi 
Address: Imperial College Trials Unit & Division of Surgery  
1st Floor, Stadium House, 68 Wood Lane, London W12 7RH 
Tel: 
Email:  I.akinyemi@imperial.ac.uk 
 
Senior Statistician 
 
Dr Francesca Fiorentino 
Senior Lecturer in Clinical Trials Statistics, Nightingale-Saunders Clinical Trials & 
Epidemiology Unit (King’s CTU), King’s College London, Strand, London, WC2R 2LS 
Email: francesca.fiorentino@kcl.ac.uk 
 
 
Study Statistician (To be appointed) 
 
Clinical Trials Statistician, Nightingale-Saunders Clinical Trials & Epidemiology Unit 
(King’s CTU), King’s College London, Strand, London, WC2R 2LS 
Email: callum.glen@kcl.ac.uk 
 
 
Protocol development group 
 
Consumer representatives 
- Ray Monk 
- Graham Baker 
- Mark Andrews 
 
Health economics 
- Professor Mark Sculpher, York 
- Professor Claire Rothery, York 
 
Clinical (Urology) 
- Professor Rakesh Heer, Imperial 
- Mr Taimur Shah, Imperial 
 
Clinical (Oncology) 
- Dr Stephen Mangar, Imperial 
 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5
Clinical (Radiology) 
- Professor Shonit Punwani, UCL and National Cancer Imaging Translational Accelerator 
(NCITA) 
- Professor Anwar Padhani, ICR/Paul Strickland and Chair, PIRADS committee of ESUR 
- Dr Heminder Sokhi, Mount Vernon Hospital/Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Hillingdon 
Hospital 
- Dr Tristan Barrett, Cambridge 
- Dr Francesca Giganti, UCLH 
 
Clinical (Pathology) 
- Dr Alex Freeman, UCLH 
 
 
This protocol describes the IP9-ATLAS trial and provides information about procedures for 
enrolling participants to the trial. The protocol should not be used as a guide for the treatment 
of other participants; every care was taken in its drafting, but corrections or amendments 
may be necessary. These will be circulated to investigators in the study, but centres enrolling 
participants for the first time are advised to contact the Trial Coordination centre to confirm 
they have the most recent version. Problems relating to this trial should be referred to the 
Chief Investigator in the first instance. 
 
This trial will adhere to the principles outlined in the UK Policy Frame Work for Health and 
Social Care Research.. It will be conducted in compliance with the protocol, the Data 
Protection Act 2018 and other regulatory requirements as appropriate. 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6
ABBREVIATIONS (AMEND AS NECESSARY) 
 
AE 
Adverse Event 
CI 
Chief Investigator 
CRF 
Case Report Form 
DMC 
Data Monitoring Committee 
eCRF 
Electronic Case Report Form 
HRA 
Health Research Authority 
ICHNT 
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust 
ICMJE 
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors 
ICTU 
Imperial Clinical Trials Unit 
ITT 
Intention to Treat 
QA 
Quality Assurance 
QC 
Quality Control  
REC 
Research Ethics Committee 
SAE 
Serious Adverse Event 
SAP 
Statistical Analysis Plan 
SOP 
Standard Operating Procedure 
TMG 
Trial Management Group  
TSC 
Trial Steering Committee 
 
 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7
Table of Contents  
 
RESEARCH REFERENCE NUMBERS 
2 
CONTACT LIST 
3 
ABBREVIATIONS (AMEND AS NECESSARY) 
6 
TRIAL SUMMARY 
9 
 
BACKGROUND 
11 
1.1 Clinical setting ................................................................................................................ 11 
1.2 Intervention details ......................................................................................................... 12 
1.3 Rationale for the study ................................................................................................... 15 
1.4 Risk / Benefit Assessment ............................................................................................. 16 
 
OBJECTIVES AND ENDPOINTS 
16 
2.1 Primary Objective ........................................................................................................... 16 
2.2 Secondary Objective ...................................................................................................... 16 
2.3 Primary Endpoint ........................................................................................................... 17 
2.4 Secondary Endpoints ..................................................................................................... 17 
2.5 Summary Table of Objectives and Endpoints ................................................................. 17 
 
STUDY DESIGN 
18 
3.1 Flowchart ....................................................................................................................... 19 
 
PARTICIPANT ENTRY 
20 
4.1 Study setting and population .......................................................................................... 20 
 
PROCEDURES AND MEASUREMENTS 
21 
Prostate Specific Antigen measurements ............................................................................. 21 
Magnetic Resonance Imaging .............................................................................................. 21 
5.1 Identification and recruitment of participants .................................................................. 24 
5.2 Screening and pre-randomisation evaluations ............................................................... 24 
5.3 Randomisation and Blinding........................................................................................... 25 
5.4 Visit Schedule ................................................................................................................ 26 
5.5 Follow-up ....................................................................................................................... 27 
5.6 Laboratory Evaluations .................................................................................................. 28 
 
INTERVENTION 
28 
6.1 Permanent Discontinuation of Study Intervention and Withdrawal from Study ............... 28 
 
SAFETY REPORTING 
29 
7.1 Adverse Event (AE) ....................................................................................................... 29 
7.2 Adverse Event recording ................................................................................................ 29 
7.3 Serious Adverse Events (SAE) ...................................................................................... 30 
7.4 Reporting of SAEs ......................................................................................................... 30 
7.5 Reporting urgent safety measures ................................................................................. 32 
 
STATISTICAL ANALYSES 
32 
8.1 Sample Size and power considerations ......................................................................... 32 
8.2 Planned recruitment rate ................................................................................................ 32 
8.3 Statistical Analysis ......................................................................................................... 33 
 
REGULATORY, ETHICAL AND LEGAL ISSUES 
35 
9.1 Declaration of Helsinki ................................................................................................... 35 
9.2 Good Clinical Practice .................................................................................................... 35 
9.3 Research Ethics Committee (REC) Approval ................................................................. 36 
9.4 HRA approval ................................................................................................................ 36 
9.5 Other Required Approvals .............................................................................................. 36 
Not applicable ...................................................................................................................... 36 
9.6 Non-Compliance and Serious Breaches ........................................................................ 37 
9.7 Insurance and Indemnity and Sponsor ........................................................................... 37 
9.8 Trial Registration ............................................................................................................ 37 
9.9 Informed Consent .......................................................................................................... 37 
9.10 
Contact with General Practitioner .............................................................................. 38 
9.11 
Participant Confidentiality .......................................................................................... 38 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8
9.12 
Data Protection and Participant Confidentiality .......................................................... 38 
9.13 
End of Trial ................................................................................................................ 38 
9.14 
Study Documentation and Data Storage ................................................................... 39 
 
DATA MANAGEMENT 
39 
10.1 
Source Data .............................................................................................................. 39 
10.2 
Language .................................................................................................................. 39 
10.3 
Database ................................................................................................................... 39 
10.4 
Data Collection .......................................................................................................... 39 
10.5 
Archiving ................................................................................................................... 40 
 
STUDY MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE 
40 
11.1 
Trial Steering Committee ........................................................................................... 40 
11.2 
Trial Management Group ........................................................................................... 40 
11.3 
Data Monitoring Committee ....................................................................................... 40 
11.4 
Early Discontinuation of the Study ............................................................................. 40 
11.5 
Risk Assessment ....................................................................................................... 40 
11.6 
Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 41 
11.7 
Quality Control and Quality Assurance ...................................................................... 41 
11.8 
Peer review ............................................................................................................... 41 
11.9 
Patient and Public Involvement ................................................................................. 41 
11.10 Publication and Dissemination policy ......................................................................... 43 
 
REFERENCES 
44 
 
REVISION HISTORY 
48 
SIGNATURE PAGE 1 (CHIEF INVESTIGATOR) 
49 
SIGNATURE PAGE 2 (SPONSOR) 
50 
SIGNATURE PAGE 3 (STATISTICIAN) 
51 
SIGNATURE PAGE 4 (PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR) 
52 
APPENDICES 
53 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9
TRIAL SUMMARY 
 
TITLE 
 
 
A randomised controlled trial of regular MRI scans compared to 
standard care in patients with prostate cancer managed using active 
surveillance 
OBJECTIVES 
 
Primary Objective 
In patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer, to demonstrate 
that use of regular MRI scans is better able to detect cancer progression 
over 5 years compared to the current NICE defined strategy.   
 
Secondary Objectives 
- To carry out an economic evaluation to determine the cost-
effectiveness of revising the prostate cancer active surveillance protocol 
to incorporate regular surveillance MRI. 
 
In each randomised group to measure, 
- Compliance to allocated surveillance strategy 
- Patient reported outcome measures on urinary, sexual and bowel 
function; cancer-related anxiety; and overall health-related quality of life 
- Proportion undergoing biopsy 
- MRI and biopsy-related side-effects and complications 
- Proportion treated, and types of treatment (surgery, radiotherapy, focal 
therapy) in patients with or without progression 
 
DESIGN 
 
Two-arm randomised controlled trial 
 
SAMPLE SIZE 
 
1,263 participants will be randomised to allow for 5% loss to follow-up. 
 
INCLUSION 
AND 
EXCLUSION 
CRITERIA  
Inclusion 
- Age 18 years or above (no upper limit)  
- Patients with a prostate (either cis-male gender or trans-female gender 
with no prior androgen deprivation hormone use at all). 
- Diagnostic bi-parametric or multiparametric MRI 
- Diagnostic systematic biopsy +/- targeted biopsy 
- A histological diagnosis of localised prostate cancer 
- Patient chosen active surveillance 
  
Exclusion 
- on active surveillance for greater than 9 months prior to screening 
date.  
- Contraindication to MRI or gadolinium contrast 
- Previous hip replacement to both hips 
- Contraindication to performing a biopsy guided by a transrectal 
ultrasound probe 
MAIN 
STUDY 
PROCEDURES 
Current (NICE defined active surveillance):  
 
PSA 3 monthly in year 1 and then 6 monthly with rectal exam annually. 
MRI will be carried out at 12 months (if not had one at diagnosis). If a 
diagnostic MRI was carried out, a 12 month MRI scan will not be 
required. A biopsy will be required if indicated due to changes in rectal 
exam or PSA. Follow-up for 5 years. 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10
 
Intervention (Regular MRI based active surveillance): 
 
Patients with a visible lesion or medium risk cancer will have PSA 6 
monthly and MRI annually. As per international PIRADS committee 
guidance the surveillance MRIs will be biparametric MRI scans which 
last approximately 15 minutes and exclude gadolinium contrast 
injection. All other patients will undergo PSA 6 monthly and MRI in years 
1, 3 and 5. In all patients, a targeted biopsy will be carried out if the MRI 
PRECISE score is >/=4. 
OUTCOME 
MEASURES 
(PRIMARY 
ENDPOINTS) 
 
Progression in each group defined as higher risk cancer on biopsy 
(Grade Group >/=3) or higher stage (>/=T3 or >/=N or >/=M1) over 5 
years  
 
Prostate cancer progression rates and time to progression in each 
randomised arm defined on, 
• 
biopsy: grade progression to Grade Group 3 or greater or 
detection on biopsy of intraductal cancer or lymphovascular invasion. 
Many of our clinicians would include patients on active surveillance with 
cribriform pattern on Grade Group so this is not a factor for progression. 
• 
staging: cancer has spread to surrounding tissues (extracapsular), 
lymph node involvement or distant body parts as demonstrated on 
cross-sectional imaging including MRI, CT, bone-scan or PET scans as 
deemed appropriate by the local multidisciplinary cancer team. 
OUTCOME 
MEASURES 
(SECONDARY 
ENDPOINTS) 
 
- Cost-effectiveness of revising the prostate cancer active surveillance 
protocol to incorporate regular surveillance MRI 
- Proportion of patients requiring biopsy 
- MRI & biopsy-related adverse events 
- Type of treatment for patients who progress and those who do not 
progress (prostatectomy, radiotherapy, brachytherapy, focal therapy) 
- Type of treatment for lower urinary symptoms for patients who 
progress and those who do not progress 
- Use of systemic therapy and type in those who progress and those 
who do not progress 
- Compliance measured as proportion having each test (PSA, rectal 
exam, MRI) at each allocated timepoint and proportion agreeing to a 
biopsy when clinically recommended 
- Annual changes in PROMS using validated questionnaires, compared 
to baseline, to measure impact on urinary, erectile and bowel function 
(EPIC) as well as cancer-related anxiety (HADS) and overall health-
related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) 
- Inter-observer variability in reporting surveillance MRI scans in the MRI 
group 
 
Longer-term follow-up 
All patients will be consented for linkage to national databases. Clinical 
outcomes can be collected after study end on use of subsequent tests 
and treatments as well as adverse events and survival. 
 
 
 
 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11
 
 BACKGROUND 
 
 
 
Our research question is the following:  
P - In patients who have chosen active surveillance following a diagnosis of localised 
prostate cancer,  
I - is the use of regular MRI scans  
C - compared to current NICE defined active surveillance,  
O - better at detecting cancer progression (biopsy evidence Grade Group >/=3 OR stage 
>/=T3 OR >/=N1 or >/=M1) with less cost to the NHS (fewer PSA tests, biopsies and clinic 
visits)? 
 
What is the problem being addressed? 
 
Of 5 research priorities that NICE have identified for prostate cancer, two relate to improving 
active surveillance [1]. Similarly, the James Lind Alliance has 3 research priorities to improve 
active surveillance [2]. Of 50,000 newly diagnosed patients with prostate cancer every year, 
about 7,600 choose active surveillance rather than immediate surgery or radiotherapy [3-5]. 
Most have low risk (70-80%) whilst 20-30% have medium risk prostate cancer [6]. This is 
because low and medium risk prostate cancers grow slowly [7]. As a result, immediate 
treatment does not improve cancer-specific survival over 10 years [8] but can cause 
significant urinary, sexual and bowel side-effects [9,10]. Given this fact, it is important that 
patients suitable for active surveillance have confidence in choosing it [11]. Our recent 
discrete choice experiment (COMPARE) study of 740 newly diagnosed patients with 
localised prostate cancer showed that patients were willing to prioritise active surveillance 
so as to avoid the impacts of radical therapy and even accept slight detriments in cancer 
control to do so [12]. 
 
Although these cancers are generally slow growing, nevertheless 25-34% will progress to 
higher risk cancer over 5 years and subsequently need treatment. Whilst the long-term data 
describing the effects of delayed detection of progression on survival are maturing, a recent 
systematic review has shown detrimental effects on other important aspects of cancer 
control [13], including metastasis which has been shown to be a validated surrogate for 
cancer related mortality [14]. For instance, in the largest RCT comparing active surveillance 
to immediate surgery or radiotherapy, 2.4 times as many patients had disease progression 
and cancer spread to other parts of the body in the active surveillance arm [8]. So, active 
surveillance needs to be improved. 
 
The UK NICE guidelines currently advise that active surveillance should involve regular 
prostate specific antigen (PSA) blood tests and rectal examinations. They advise an MRI 
within 12-18 months if the patient did not previously have an MRI (a scenario which is 
increasingly unlikely in the UK due to a new NICE recommendation in 2019 incorporating 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
12
an MRI for diagnosis before first biopsy) [1]. After one year, NICE advise regular PSA and 
rectal examination and for doctors to decide when further tests should be done. PSA and 
rectal examination changes are inaccurate in predicting progression. As a result, some 
centres do repeat regular biopsies every 1-2 years [15]. However, biopsies on their own are 
inaccurate as they are ultrasound-guided, so the operator can see the prostate but not areas 
that are suspicious for cancer progression. As a result, biopsies sample the whole prostate 
in a random manner in the hope of hitting the cancer. Biopsies also have side-effects such 
as infection/sepsis, bleeding and pain [16] and when these occur, patients are less likely to 
agree to further biopsy [17]. Biopsies cost £488 and lead to significant NHS resource use. 
Regular and repeat biopsies can also cause scarring around the prostate making any 
subsequent surgical treatment more difficult [18] with impacts on erectile function [19,20]. 
Whilst there is no evidence of that delayed detection of progression has an impact on 
survival, a recent systematic review has shown deleterious effects on other aspects of 
cancer control [21].  NICE currently advise that active surveillance should involve 3-6 
monthly prostate specific antigen (PSA) blood tests and rectal examinations. They advise 
an MRI and biopsy at 12 months [1]. After one year, 3-6 monthly PSA and rectal 
examinations are recommended and further biopsy if the PSA starts to rise or if the rectal 
exam detects a prostate nodule. This is problematic for 3 reasons:  
 
First, PSA and rectal examination changes are inaccurate in detecting progression. As a 
result, some centres do regular biopsies every 1-2 years; this is borne out by our 48 
physician survey (Jan 2022). However, biopsies alone are also inaccurate as they are 
ultrasound-guided; the operator can see the prostate but not areas suspicious for cancer 
progression. Second, biopsies have side-effects such as infection, bleeding and pain; when 
these occur, patients are less likely to agree to further biopsies. Third, 10-43% of patients 
often decide to have treatment even if the cancer has not progressed. This is because of 
anxiety about living with cancer [22], or because of the biopsy and burden of tests [23,24]. 
Some studies have shown other psychological impacts such as sub-clinical depression, 
illness uncertainty and hopelessness [25,26].  
 
We propose using regular MRI scans in active surveillance to detect progression. Our team 
led the pivotal UK studies which changed recommendations for MRI in diagnosing prostate 
cancer [27,28]. Subsequently, we and others have shown that regular prostate MRI scans 
with targeted biopsies to areas of suspicion are accurate in ruling-out and detecting 
progression [29,30]. To change NHS practice, an RCT is needed to compare regular MRI 
scans to current NICE defined standard of care in patients who choose active surveillance 
following an MRI-directed biopsy at time of diagnosis. Our proposal was positively reviewed 
by the NCRI Prostate Proposal Guidance panel (7/2/2022). 
 
 
 
 Clinical studies  
 
Current active surveillance 
 
Currently NICE recommends regular PSA measurement and rectal examinations but does 
not define what type of changes should trigger further investigations. Metrics such as PSA 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
13
doubling time and PSA velocity are often used but the literature demonstrates that PSA 
doubling time changes are not, and PSA velocity only weakly, associated with progression 
[32-37]. NICE also admit there is scarcity of data supporting regular rectal examinations but 
as this is included in most active surveillance studies, they do recommend its use. There is 
some limited evidence that rectal examinations may be useful in predicting progression [38]. 
The sensitivity of rectal exam in predicting progression in 2029 patients on active 
surveillance was shown to be in the range of 32% to 37% [39]. The sensitivity and specificity 
of PSA kinetics in predicting progression on biopsy has been shown to be 40-59% and 44-
78%, respectively [40]. 
PSA increases on active surveillance are weakly associated with progression, with 
sensitivity of 40-59% and specificity of 44-78%, respectively. NICE also state there is 
scarcity of data supporting regular rectal examinations but as this is included in most active 
surveillance studies, they recommend its use. Rectal examinations have sensitivity of 32-
37% in predicting progression (specificity not reported) [34]. 
The 
European 
Association 
of 
Urology 
guidelines 
(2023) 
(https://uroweb.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer/chapter/treatment) state that: 
- 
Base follow-up during active surveillance (AS) on a strict protocol including digital 
rectal examination (at least once yearly), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (at least 
once every 6 months) and repeated biopsy every 2 to 3 years. 
- 
Perform magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and repeat biopsy if PSA is rising (PSA-
doubling time < 3 years) 
 
Regular MRI in active surveillance 
 
Two RCTs evaluated the role of an early MRI within the first year of active surveillance. The 
ROMAS RCT [41] followed up to only 12 months (2015-2018). 124 patients were initially 
diagnosed without MRI and then randomized to have an early confirmatory MRI and biopsy 
at 3 months followed by a further 12-core systematic biopsy at 12 months. The control group 
underwent 12-core random biopsy at 12 months. They showed that by doing an early MRI 
at 3 months many important cancers missed at the time of diagnostic systematic biopsy 
were picked up so that there were fewer of these cancers subsequently detected at 12 
months. The updated 2-year 259 patient follow-up data from the ASIST RCT in Canada also 
similarly evaluated the role of a confirmatory MRI-directed biopsy carried out within 3-6 
months of a patient choosing active surveillance when diagnosed using a systematic biopsy 
without MRI. Subsequent MRI scans were not performed routinely [42,43]. ASIST showed 
fewer downstream cases progressing in the confirmatory MRI (19/98, 19%) compared to the 
standard care group (35/101, 35%; p=0.017); 2-yr biopsy outcomes were 9.9% (8/81) for 
confirmatory MRI and 23% (17/75) for standard care; p=0.048). Critically, significant 
differences in failure rates were detected across the 3 centres in the confirmatory MRI arm 
(4.2% [2/48] vs 17% [4/24] vs 27% [7/26]; p=0.019) indicating the importance of centre 
expertise.  
Critically, the RCTs did not evaluate the role of surveillance MRI scans after the first year. 
Rather they evaluated the role of an early confirmatory MRI with biopsy to overcome the 
initial inaccuracy of a systematic biopsy, so have less relevance to UK practice. This is 
because in the UK practice has changed to doing an initial diagnostic MRI before first biopsy 
[cross-reference].  
Five systematic reviews on the role of MRI in active surveillance have been conducted in 
the last 6 years including 800 to 6605 patients. These have shown pooled sensitivities of 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
14
59%, 61%, 74%, 79% and 81%; studies using stringent criteria on biopsy (as we propose in 
our RCT) show higher sensitivities. Specificity was 75%, 76%, 78%, and 81% (one did not 
report). Negative predictive values were in the range 75%-94% indicating patients could 
safely avoid repeat biopsies if the MRI shows no progression. 
Guo et al (2015) [44] evaluated 6 studies with diagnostic accuracy of MRI for disease 
reclassification among active surveillance patients. They showed a sensitivity of 0.74 
(95%CI 0.45–0.91) and specificity 0.81 (95%CI 0.56–0.94). In addition, when no suspicious 
disease progression (66%) was identified on MRI, the chance of finding progression on 
repeat biopsy was extremely low at 6%. Cantiello et al (2019) [45] had a much broader entry 
criteria for their meta-analysis including 43 studies with a total of 6,605 patients. They 
showed 1.5 Tesla MRI had sensitivity of 0.60 and NPV 0.75 and for 3.0 Tesla MRI a 
sensitivity of 0.81 and NPV 0.78.  
Hettiarachchi et al (2020) [46] evaluated 7 studies with 800 patients. The pooled pathological 
progression rate was 27%. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of MRI for disease 
progression were 0.61 (95%CI 0.46–0.74) and 0.78 (95%CI 0.54–0.91), respectively. 
Adjusting for a prevalence of disease progression of 30% resulted in a PPV 0.43 (95% CI: 
0.39–0.46) and NPV of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.78–0.84). They observed significant heterogeneity.  
Baccaglini et al (2020) [47] conducted a meta-analysis of 6 studies enrolling 741 patients. 
The pooled sensitivity for MRI with targeted biopsy of suspicious areas was 0.79 (95%CI, 
0.74-0.83) and 0.67 for systematic biopsy alone (95%CI 0.63-0.74). They did not report 
specificity.  
Finally, Rajwa et al (2021) [48] included 15 studies with 2240 patients. Six used PRECISE 
criteria [49] and nine institution-specific definitions of MRI progression. The pooled 
progression rate, which included histological progression to ISUP Grade Group ≥2, was 
27%. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.59 (95%CI 0.44-0.73) and 0.75 (95%CI 
0.66-0.84), respectively. There was significant heterogeneity between included studies. 
Depending on prevalence of progression, the pooled NPV for serial prostate MRI ranged 
from 0.81 (95%CI 0.73-0.88) to 0.88 (95%CI 0.83-0.93) and the pooled positive predictive 
value ranged from 0.37 (95%CI 0.24-0.54) to 0.50 (95%CI 0.36-0.66). When using a more 
robust definition of histological progression (ISUP GG >/=3), the performance was better: 
sensitivity 0.695 (95% CI 0.465–0.925), specificity 0.619 (95% CI 0.446–0.793), PPV 0.134 
(95% CI 0.059–0.209), NPV 0.954 (95% CI 0.907–0.100). 
 
Standardised reporting of surveillance MRI scans 
 
The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation 
(PRECISE) scoring system was developed by some of our group as part of an international 
consortium to standardise the reporting of surveillance MRI scans [50-52]. A 5-point ordinal 
scale was developed to determine what constitutes a clinically significant change on MRI. A 
score >/=4 shown to accurately rule-out and detect progression. A number of studies have 
subsequently validated the role of PRECISE scoring showing good performance 
characteristics in ruling-out and detecting progression [52-57] with the latest UK data 
showing sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of 74.1% (95%CI 57.5–90.6), 94.7 (95%CI 
87.6–1), 90.9% (95%CI 78.9–1), 83.7% (95%CI 72.7–94.8), 84.4% (95%CI 72.6–96.2), 
respectively [58]. There is also substantial inter-rater agreement [59]. This system has been 
shown, when taught through a dedicated teaching course once, significantly improve 
accuracy of assessment of radiological change in serial prostate MRI in the average area 
under the curve (AUC) from 0.60 [95% CI 0.51-0.69] to 0.77 [95% CI 0.70-0.84]) (p = 0.004). 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
15
Some of our group, as part of an international consortium, developed and validated a 5-point 
ordinal scoring system called Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in 
Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE). This standardised the reporting of surveillance MRI [35-
37].  Studies have shown good accuracy for detecting progression [38-40]. Sensitivity, 
specificity, PPV and NPV were 74%, 95%, 92%, 84%, respectively [41] with good inter-rater 
agreement [42].  
Rates of MRI reported change as indicated by a PRECISE score of 4 or greater was 22% 
of patients with median follow-up 52 month (IQR 35-68) (Cambridge) and 43% (UCL) with 
median follow-up 76 months (IQR 52-100.5). Only 4/309 (1.3%) in the Cambridge series 
and 1/672 in the UCL series left the AS programme due to patient choice. 
 
Progression rates 
 
A number of studies have shown progression rates using MRI in surveillance in the modern 
diagnostic era where a baseline MRI or confirmatory MRI was carried out. 5-year outcomes 
from 519 patients undergoing surveillance MRI scans from two US centres showed 
progression to Grade Group >/=2 of 31.6% and Grade Group >/=3 in 17.7% [60] with those 
having a cancer from an MRI-targeted biopsy much more likely to progress. An Italian group 
has shown progression of 91 (25%) and 21 patients (5.8%) experienced ISUP GG≥2 with 
>10% of pattern 4 and ISUP GG ≥ 3, respectively in 588 patients over a median of 3 years 
follow-up [61]. Our UK cohort of 672 patients on active surveillance over a median of 5-6 
years showed progression to requirement of treatment of about 30% [62,63]. The PRIAS 
consortium has recently shown reclassification rates at the first biopsy while on AS is similar 
between patients diagnosed with and without upfront MRI (23% to GG ≥2 and 7% to GG ≥3 
vs 19% and 6%, respectively) [64].  
A recent 2022 systematic review focusing on comparing risk of progression with 
intermediate versus low-risk disease included 25 studies with 29,673 unselected 
intermediate risk patients [65]. The 10-yr treatment-free, metastasis-free, cancer-specific, 
and overall survival ranged from 19.4% to 69%, 80.8% to 99%, 88.2% to 99%, and 59.4% 
to 83.9%, respectively. IR patients had similar treatment-free survival to LR patients (risk 
ratio [RR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.99–1.36, p = 0.07), but significantly higher 
risks of metastasis (RR 5.79, 95% CI, 4.61–7.29, p < 0.001), death from prostate cancer 
(RR 3.93, 95% CI, 2.93–5.27, p < 0.001), and all-cause death (RR 1.44, 95% CI, 1.11–1.86, 
p = 0.005). In a subgroup analysis of studies including patients with GG ≤2 only (n = 4), 
treatment-free survival (RR 1.03, 95% CI, 0.62–1.71, p = 0.91) and metastasis-free survival 
(RR 2.09, 95% CI, 0.75–5.82, p = 0.16) were similar between low risk and intermediate risk 
patients. Treatment-free survival was significantly reduced in subgroups of patients with 
unfavourable intermediate disease and increased cancer length on biopsy. 
 
Overall cancer progression rates during active surveillance in the modern diagnostic era are 
27-34% over 5 years [43-47]. 
 
 
 
a) The regular use of MRI in active surveillance will lead to greater confidence in active 
surveillance for patients with low and medium risk prostate cancer. This is because such a 
strategy is likely to detect cancer progression earlier with fewer invasive biopsies [31]. In our 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
16
studies, <2% patients chose treatment during surveillance due to anxiety (UCL and 
Cambridge). 
 
b) An additional ~2000 patients with medium risk cancer could be managed with active 
surveillance in future [3].  This is because there is currently reluctance to monitor particularly 
those patients who have intermediate grade group to disease due to a concern about 
progression. Both patient and physician confidence will increase if there is a robust strategy 
for monitoring that can detect progression earlier than current practice.  
 
c) Fewer NHS resources for clinic follow-ups, PSA tests and biopsies. With regular and 
routine imaging follow-up we anticipate that there should be fewer clinical reviews in hospital 
and fewer PSA blood tests and as a result of our study outcomes if MRI is shown to be a 
robust strategy follow for follow up then routine biopsy can also be avoided and thus avoid 
the toxicity of those biopsies and the fact that such biopsies add both burden to patients and 
healthcare systems and can often lead to patients deciding on treatment even though the 
cancer shows no sign of progression. Our own data shows that patients on routine regular 
MRI scans are more likely to stay on surveillance with one percent or less deciding to come 
off surveillance even though the disease is not progressing. 
 
Our study was reviewed by the NCRI panel in February 2022. The feedback was very 
positive and the proposal was strongly supported. The panel gave critical feedback in how 
to improve the proposal in terms of radiological and biopsy standardisation and ensuring 
patient education within the trial material. They also asked that we provide guidance to 
centres on a standardised approach to the control arm and ensure compliance. NCRI asked 
that we ensure wide representation but not include unfavourable intermediate risk disease. 
We have explained this in our section on eligibility criteria. 
 
 
 
Patients participating in this study will continue on their standard care pathway with 
monitoring, so will not be at risk of progression not being detected. Those patients 
randomised to the intervention arm will have additional MRI scans. These will be non-
contrast so there is no risk from having repeated 1-2 yearly injections of gadolinium contrast. 
Patients with contraindications to MRI will not be taking part in the study so will not be 
exposed to an unnecessary MRI. 
 OBJECTIVES AND ENDPOINTS 
 
 
 
In patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer, to demonstrate that use of regular MRI 
scans is better able to detect cancer progression over 5 years compared to the current NICE 
defined strategy. 
 
 
 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
17
- To carry out an economic evaluation to determine the cost-effectiveness of revising the 
prostate cancer active surveillance protocol to incorporate regular surveillance MRI. 
 
In each randomised group to measure, 
- Compliance to allocated surveillance strategy 
- Patient reported outcome measures on urinary, sexual and bowel function; cancer-related 
anxiety; and overall health-related quality of life 
- Proportion undergoing biopsy 
- MRI and biopsy-related side-effects and complications 
- Proportion treated, and types of treatment (surgery, radiotherapy, focal therapy) in patients 
with or without progression  
 
 
 
Progression in each group defined as higher risk cancer on biopsy (Grade Group >/=3) or 
higher stage (>/=T3 or >/=N or >/=M1) over 5 years. 
 
Prostate cancer progression rates and time to progression in each randomised arm defined 
on, 
• 
biopsy: grade progression to Grade Group 3 or greater or detection on biopsy of 
intraductal cancer or lymphovascular invasion. Many of our clinicians would include patients 
on active surveillance with cribriform pattern on Grade Group so this is not a factor for 
progression. 
• 
staging: cancer has spread to surrounding tissues (extracapsular), lymph node 
involvement or distant body parts as demonstrated on cross-sectional imaging including 
MRI, CT, bone-scan or PET scans as deemed appropriate by the local multidisciplinary 
cancer team. 
 
 
 
- Cost-effectiveness of revising the prostate cancer active surveillance protocol to 
incorporate regular surveillance MRI 
- Proportion of patients requiring biopsy 
- MRI & biopsy-related adverse events 
- Compliance measured as proportion having each test (PSA, rectal exam, MRI) at each 
allocated timepoint and proportion agreeing to a biopsy when clinically recommended 
- Annual changes in PROMS using validated questionnaires, compared to baseline, to 
measure impact on urinary, erectile and bowel function (EPIC) as well as cancer-related 
anxiety (HADS) and overall health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) 
- Inter-observer variability in reporting surveillance MRI scans in the MRI group 
 
Longer-term follow-up 
All patients will be consented for linkage to national databases. Clinical outcomes can be 
collected after study end on use of subsequent tests and treatments as well as adverse 
events and survival. 
 
 
 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
18
Objectives 
Endpoints  
Timepoint(s) 
of 
evaluation 
of 
this 
endpoint (if applicable) 
Primary 
Objective 
 
As above  
5 years 
Secondary 
Objectives 
 
As above 
5 years 
 
 STUDY DESIGN   
A multicentre, RCT allocating patients in a 1:1 ratio to either regular MRI scans or the current NICE 
defined standard, with embedded trial and model based economic evaluation. Randomisation will 
be blocked (random block size) and stratified by MRI visibility of lesion (3 categories [no visible 
lesion, diffuse changes, discrete visible lesion]), cancer Grade Group (GG1, GG2) and time since 
diagnosis. 
 
 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
19
 
 
 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
20
 PARTICIPANT ENTRY 
 
Patients with a histological diagnosis of localised prostate cancer in the 9 months prior to 
screening visit who have chosen active surveillance. Nine months was chosen following 
advice from our focus groups to include patients diagnosed as close to 1 year prior to 
screening as possible to maximise participation as they felt this study would be very popular 
for men on active surveillance. 
 Inclusion criteria 
• 
Age >/= 18 years 
• 
Diagnostic pre-biopsy MRI (either biparametric or multi-parametric). We are allowing 
either multi-parametric or by parametric as the follow-up scans in active surveillance that we 
are proposing will all be b-parametric given that the international PIRADS committee have 
recommended this approach for surveillance MRI scans given that the value of continuing 
to inject gadolinium in serial MRIs is questionable. 
• 
Diagnostic systematic biopsy +/- targeted biopsy. We will permit, in a pragmatic 
manner, any number of targets and any number of systematic biopsies and we will also 
permit either transperineal or transrectal biopsies. In the UK, 2-3 years ago, 60% of centres 
were carrying out transperineal biopsy and we anticipate by the time we start our study, the 
vast majority of centres will be carrying out transperineal targeted and systematic biopsies 
following a standard protocol equivalent to Ginsberg or the RAPID protocol.  This is the 
approach we have taken in our multi-centre prospective randomised controlled trial called 
IP7–PACIFIC funded by Cancer Research UK [66]. 
• 
A histological diagnosis of localised prostate cancer staged using a pre-biopsy prostate 
MRI. Grade Group attribution will be based on an overall assessment of all positive cores 
and not on the maximal grade in any one core, which is standard UK practice. Recently, 
NICE have adopted the CPG vacation criteria and have recommended that patients in CPG 
groups 1, 2 and 3 can be offered active surveillance. These two groups approximate to the 
previous low and medium risk strata but exclude men who have unfavourable intermediate 
risk disease who the majority of clinicians would not offer active surveillance to, due to the 
significant risk of progression of disease and subsequent higher risk of disease failure 
following treatment. The CPG 1 includes Gleason score 3+3=6 (grade group 1) and 
prostate-specific antigen (PSA) less than 10 microgram/litre and Stages T1–T2. CPG 2 
includes Gleason score 3+4=7 (grade group 2) or PSA 10 microgram/litre to 20 
microgram/litre and Stages T1–T2. CPG 3 includes Gleason score 3+4=7 (grade group 2) 
and PSA 10 microgram/litre to 20 microgram/litre and Stages T1–T2 or Gleason 4+3=7 
(grade group 3) and Stages T1–T2.  For CPG 3, our clinician survey was unanimous in 
showing that physicians were not willing to place on active surveillance those men who had 
grade group 3 disease even if they were within CPG3. This is because evidence was quite 
clear that these men fare much worse after radical treatment even when it is applied at the 
time of diagnosis and therefore active surveillance recommendations internationally and 
eligibility criteria for active surveillance studies have never included patients with an overall 
grade attribution of 4+3. Further our physician survey and wide international consensus is 
that there are certain histological subtypes which increase the risk of progression and 
increase the risk of recurrence after treatment and these subtypes will also be excluded as 
there will otherwise be lack of physician buy-in if we allow such patients to be recruited. 
These include GG2 that harbours intraductal carcinoma or lymphovascular invasion (2019 
International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference on Prostate Cancer 
Grading). 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
21
 
 Exclusion criteria 
Patients on active surveillance for greater than 9 months prior to consent. Our PPI co-
applicants and focus groups were quite keen that we include as many men in the study as 
possible and therefore widen our inclusion criteria to permit those who have been on active 
surveillance up to 9 months prior to consent but before they undergo their one year MRI 
scan if it is required. This allows us to exclude those men who have already undergone their 
NICE recommended one-year MRI (where required) and potentially repeat biopsy, as to do 
so otherwise would impact on our sample size assumptions. 
Any absolute contraindication to MRI. It is likely that men who have an absolute 
contraindication to MRI will not fulfil the inclusion criteria to have a pre-biopsy diagnostic 
level MRI of the prostate and therefore ongoing surveillance MRIs will not be possible in this 
group. Increasingly, this group is diminishing with newer forms of hip replacement that do 
not impact on MRI quality, MR-compatible pacemakers and the use of biparametric MRI 
without contrast injection with gadolinium.  
Unable to give informed consent to the study. We have outlined our plans to ensure that as 
many men are given the opportunity to participate and therefore our recruitment strategy will 
involve translation of documentation into a number of languages as well as easy to read 
recruitment documents for vulnerable individuals including those who may lack capacity but 
whose carers and legal guardians could give consent on their behalf.  
 PROCEDURES AND MEASUREMENTS  
 
There are currently no validated metrics such as a PSA doubling time or PSA velocity that 
indicates cancer progression. However, the EAU recommends a PSA doubling time of 3 
years to trigger ‘for cause’ MRI and biopsy. 
  
MRI conduct: A study-specific MRI QA/QC Standard Operating procedure (SOP) will be 
drafted building on our experience in the PROMIS, PICTURE and PROSTAGRAM studies. 
Scanners will be either 1.5T or 3.0T in order to reflect current UK practice at each recruiting 
centre and would need to meet the required standards set out for the UK as stipulated in the 
recent NICE guidance (2019) and reflecting recent expert radiology consensus [22]. Our 
lead radiology co-applicants alongside the NCITA imaging QA/QC process, will conduct a 
quality review of MRI scans of all centres prior to recruitment and optimise where necessary. 
However, since NICE recommended the use of MRI pre-biopsy, most centres have already 
gone through such a process within their local Cancer Alliance networks through a 
programme of work instigated by NHS England and the devolved nations that many in our 
group led on [3] alongside membership of PCUK’s Prostate MRI national expert group for 
standardisation of mpMRI conduct [22,29] [34]. Patient preparation for the MRI scans will 
follow up-to-date guidance at the time of study set-up; the current guidance is set out in the 
following 
documents: 
PI-RADS 
v2.1 
manual 
https://www.acr.org/-
/media/ACR/Files/RADS/Pi-RADS/PIRADS-V2-1.pdf?la=en and Brizmohun et al [22]. See 
MRI Conduct SOP. 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
22
 
Quality control of MRI: CRUK’s National Cancer Imaging Translational Accelerator will 
quality control MRI scans. Standardisation meetings will be held prior to recruitment to 
ensure all radiologists work to the same reporting standards and biopsy operators carry 
these out following the standard operating protocol. The study will use at least the NCITA 
MR Core Lab’s basic level of service. This involves the evaluation, qualification and periodic 
re-qualification of all MR scanners involved in the study, access to study template 
documents, and assistance in the harmonisation of a locked-down imaging protocol. This 
will ensure all scanners are capable of acquiring quality data throughout the study duration. 
The pilot phase will use the NCITA MR Core Lab’s advanced level of service. In addition to 
scanner qualification, this also includes fully-auditable repository-integrated data quality 
control (imaging protocol checking and visual assessment) and locked-down data analysis 
via XNAT of all MR imaging data and quality management reporting via Q-pulse. 
 
Radiology expertise: We will include 30 centres with a range of patient volumes. NHS 
Cancer Alliances have been engaged in a standardisation programme since 2017 for 
prostate MRI conduct and reporting and our proposal will involve three additional training 
and standardisation meetings for reporting using the PRECISE system with the third day 
being conducted near the end of the pilot. Reporters will also need to complete or be a 
Faculty 
member 
of 
either 
the 
free 
PCUK/RCR-approved 
online 
course 
(https://prostatecanceruk.org/for-health-professionals/online-learning/courses-and-
modules/courses/all-courses/mpmri-before-biopsy) or other approved courses (British 
Society of Uro-radiology, European Society of Uro-radiology, American College of 
Radiology). Finally, a minimum 5% of MRI scans will be double reported to evaluate inter-
observer variability. 
MRI Reporting scheme: we will use the latest version of the PRECISE scoring system. See 
MRI Reporting SOP. 
 
 
Biopsy  
Targeting and systematic biopsy protocol: We will follow standard care for centres in terms 
of type of analgesia/anaesthesia. Centres can use local anaesthetic, sedation or general 
anaesthetic; transperineal or transrectal route and visual-registration or image-fusion 
targeting. The exact anaesthesia type (local only, sedation, general anaesthetic) and biopsy 
type (transperineal vs transrectal, image fusion vs visual-registration) will be recorded. 
Number of systematic cores will be set out in a SOP and centres will declare which 
systematic biopsy protocol they are using. 4-6 cores per target and unlimited targets in total 
per patient [Hansen et al, 2020; Leyh-Bannurah et al, 2020; Kenigsberg et al, 2018]. 
Targeted biopsies will be carried out first, in order to minimise the impact of swelling on 
obtaining accurate sampling of targets. See Biopsy SOP. 
The EAU recommends regular biopsy in standard care every 2-3 years. In the new pathway, 
we will recommend biopsy when there is a change on the MRI or if there is a consistent rise 
in PSA over 3 readings that is concerning for progression even if the MRI shows no change 
and other factors such as infection or prostatitis have been ruled out. 
 
 
 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
23
Histology 
The histological report will evaluate the following aspects for each target and each location 
of systematic biopsies carried out according to Royal College of Pathology (UK) guidance 
[Royal College of Pathology Guidelines, 2016]: number of biopsies, number positive for 
cancer, core length in mm, cancer presence, maximum cancer core length in mm (where 
continuous and discontinuous numbers are given, for the purpose of analysis, the 
continuous number will be used), primary, secondary and highest Gleason grade, percent 
pattern 4 and presence of cribriform pattern when Gleason 3+4, perineural 
invasion/lymphovascular invasion/intraductal components/neuroendocrine differentiation; 
and 
vii) 
other 
features 
(high 
grade 
prostatic 
intraepithelial 
neoplasia/atypical 
acini/inflammation/atrophy). See Biopsy Reporting SOP. 
 
Validated patient reported outcome measures 
Questionnaires can be completed on paper and uploaded to the eCRF or completed 
electronically. We will ask consent from patients to be contacted by the central study team 
in order to issue and collate these directly from the central trials team. Completeness of data 
and patient questionnaire response rates is an important outcome as it informs our analysis 
of side-effects and adverse events. We will prompt patients to complete the questionnaires 
sent to them by text or email with up to two reminders; this will be coordinated by the central 
trials team. The researchers at the participating centres may also co-ordinate with the 
departmental clinic appointments in order to hand the questionnaires to the patient 
personally. 
 
- 
All patients 
Functional status, anxiety and health-related quality-of-life for all patients at baseline and 
annually: EPIC (Urinary, Erectile and Bowel domains) and the EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) will be 
used in the study as a generic measure of health-related quality-of-life which can be linked 
to public preferences [Janssen et al, 2013]. 
 
- Patients undergoing biopsy 
Patients will be asked to self-report pain and discomfort (referred to as pain hereafter) 
immediately after and seven days after biopsy on a 4-point Likert-type scale as none, mild, 
moderate, or severe. Specific related complications such as fever, flu-like shivers, pain, 
haematuria, haematochezia, and haemoejaculate will be self-reported at 35 to 90 days after 
prostate biopsy as absent or present following biopsy on a purpose designed questionnaire. 
For each symptom, patients will be asked to score the degree of “problem” as none, minor, 
moderate, or major. This will be used to derive a binary outcome for each symptom 
(present/moderate/severe problem vs. absent /minor problem).  
 
- 
Patients undergoing an MRI 
A questionnaire on MRI related side-effects will be given to all patients to be completed after 
the MRI but before the biopsy (if they have a biopsy) 
 
 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
24
 
 
Patients will initially be approached by their clinical team including urologists, oncologists 
and specialist nurses send the patient information sheets as well as links to recruitment 
videos online for them to view. If they are interested in the study, the research team will 
contact them to answer any further questions they may have about the study and for those 
who are interested in participating we will facilitate remote electronic consent . All 
participants must be provided with a Patient Information Sheet (PIS) which may be provided 
electronically using the Sealed Envelope database platform that complies with HRA-MHRA 
guidance on e-consenting. Participants must also be able to discuss the trial with the 
investigator prior to consent being obtained. Where it is not possible to do this in person, it 
may be conducted via a telephone conversation (following approval by an ethics committee). 
Confidentiality must be maintained and the method must be secure. An audit trail is present 
to confirm that the person providing the electronic signature is the participant. 
We will use remote electronic consenting which we used over the Covid pandemic era as 
well as printed consent forms for those men who prefer this approach. best. 
 
 
 
Written informed consent will be obtained before the patient undergoes any study related 
procedures such as screening for eligibility. There are no pre-screening or screening tests 
required for this study.  
Pre-screening log: Collects the number of eligible patients who were given the PIS, provides 
information regarding the number of drop-outs/withdrawals, the reasons behind why the 
patients decided not to enrol onto the study and the acceptance rate of the study within the 
patient population. This activity is included as part of ‘approach potential participant to 
discuss study’ within the SoECAT.  
Screening log: Collects and tracks details of all the patients with completed informed consent 
and any reasons for screen failures and patient withdrawals. This activity is included as part 
of ‘informed consent’ or as part of any subsequent visits within the SoECAT. 
 
We will also collect information about what treatment options are available for patients who 
have progression of the prostate cancer and what treatment they chose through 
multidisciplinary team (MDT) outcomes in the clinical records and clinic letters or entries by 
clinicians in the health records. Most patients with localised prostate cancer will be able to 
choose from a number of options that straddle active surveillance, focal therapy, radical 
surgery or radiotherapy (with some men started on androgen deprivation therapy), 
depending on cancer risk. Recent NHS guidance in 2019 was changed to allow for patients 
with intermediate and low risk cancer to take longer than the previous 31/62-day targets 
permitted so patients’ decision about final treatment choice can sometimes take up to 3 
months. This means we will be able to collect final treatment decisions for most of our 
participants with this information collated directly from health records; this information is 
unlikely to be available prior to database lock for many patients recruited and biopsied in the 
last 3 months of recruitment, so the eCRF will reflect this but given the size of the study is 
unlikely to have an impact on these findings. 
 
Participants will be asked consent to collect long-term healthcare information from national 
records (i.e., Office for National Statistics, NHS Digital, Office for Health Improvement and 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
25
Disparities, and/or other applicable NHS information systems, or national databases) and 
through a direct approach from the research team at any timepoint within 10 years of 
consent. We will ask patients to give permission to be contacted by a member of the central 
/ local study research team within 15 years of signing their consent form, after the study has 
ended to complete a questionnaire about their health status (including details of any other 
tests and treatment they have had since the study) and quality of life. If the patient decides 
to take part a member of the study research team may send this request to the patient’s 
home address.  
If funding can be successfully obtained for this longitudinal data collection, it will allow us to 
determine whether patients had further diagnostic tests, prostate cancer diagnosis and its 
risk (stage, grade, PSA level), as well as any subsequent treatments and cancer-related 
outcomes (progression, metastases, cancer-related mortality). 
 
Health Status 
At the screening visit, patients will also be asked to give consent for identifiable data to be 
linked with the national databases (ONS and HES database). The identifiable fields (NHS 
number) required for linkage will be encrypted using a one-way encryption algorithm. We 
will ask patients if they are happy to give consent for their health status to be followed up 
over time. This will be done by linking the patient’s identifiable data with records held by the 
NHS and maintained by the NHS Information Centre and the NHS Central Register, or any 
applicable NHS information system. This will allow us to track what happens after the study 
finishes and observe if anyone gets further tests/investigations and treatment they may 
have.  
 
As prostate cancer is often a slow-growing disease which may not develop or progress for 
many years we will also ask patients to give consent for us to keep personal data stored or 
accessed for an additional 15 years on the NHSCR (National Health Service Care Register) 
so that data from national registries can be evaluated. For instance, long-term survival 
information to be flagged through national registries, for example NHS Digital (previously 
the Health and Social Care Information Centre); Office of National Statistics (ONS) in 
England/Wales; General Register Office in Scotland; Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) or 
Office for Health Improvement & Disparities. 
 
 
 
 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
26
 
 
 
Standard Care (control) Arm 
 
Screening 
& Consent 
Visit 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
Month 
0 
12 
24 
36 
48 
60 
Informed consent 
X 
 
 
 
 
 
Inclusion & exclusion criteria 
X 
 
 
 
 
 
Demographics 
X 
 
 
 
 
 
Targeted medical history 
X1 
 
 
 
 
 
PSA blood tests (as defined in 
Standard Care SOP) 
 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
Digital Rectal Examination (as 
defined in Standard Care SOP) 
 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
Biparametric MRI and outcomes  
X2 
?2 
?2 
?2 
?2 
Biopsy and results (in some 
patients as clinically indicated as 
defined in Standard Care SOP) 
 
X3 
X3 
X3 
X3 
X3 
Patient questionnaires 
X4 
X4 
X4 
X4 
X4 
X4 
Further treatment for prostate 
cancer 
 
?5 
?5 
?5 
?5 
?5 
 
1 Prostate MRI and prostate biopsy details, current use of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (e.g., 
finasteride or dutasteride), use of testosterone supplementation or androgen suppression 
medication, family history of prostate cancer (defined as any immediate family relative diagnosed 
with prostate cancer at any time), ethnicity (using the UK Office for National Statistics groupings). 
2 MRI at 12 months and then only if clinically indicated as dictated by Standard Care SOP 
3 Biopsy may occur as clinically indicated. Outcomes can be taken from the electronic health record. 
4 The schedule of questionnaires is referenced in section 5 Validated patient reported outcome 
measures and also within the Patient Reported Outcomes and Experience Questionnaire. 
5 Patients who have treatment for their prostate cancer should be noted whether due to progression 
or for patient choice. 
 
 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
27
 
Intervention Arm 
 
Screening 
& Consent 
Visit 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
Month 
0 
12 
24 
36 
48 
60 
Informed consent 
X 
 
 
 
 
 
Inclusion & exclusion criteria 
X 
 
 
 
 
 
Demographics 
X 
 
 
 
 
 
Targeted medical history 
X1 
 
 
 
 
 
PSA blood tests (as defined in 
Standard Care SOP) 
 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
Biparametric surveillance MRI 
and outcomes 
 
X2 
X2 
X2 
X2 
X2 
Biopsy and results (in some 
patients as clinically indicated as 
defined in Intervention Care 
SOP) 
 
?3 
?3 
?3 
?3 
?3 
Patient questionnaires 
X4 
X4 
X4 
X4 
X4 
X4 
Further treatment for prostate 
cancer 
 
?5 
?5 
?5 
?5 
?5 
Further 
treatment 
for 
lower 
urinary tract symptoms 
 
?6 
?6 
?6 
?6 
?6 
 
1 Prostate MRI and prostate biopsy details, current use of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (e.g., 
finasteride or dutasteride), use of testosterone supplementation or androgen suppression 
medication, family history of prostate cancer (defined as any immediate family relative diagnosed 
with prostate cancer at any time), ethnicity (using the UK Office for National Statistics groupings). 
2 MRI every 1-2 years depending on baseline classification. GG2 disease or visible lesion (score 4 
or 5 at baseline) to undergo annual MRI. All other cases to undergo 2 yearly MRI. Clinical need for 
contrast MRI to be noted and results collated if done in addition to biparametric MRI. 
3 Biopsy as clinically indicated as defined in the Intervention Care SOP. Outcomes can be taken from 
the electronic health record. 
4 The schedule of questionnaires is referenced in section 5 Validated patient reported outcome 
measures and also within the Patient Reported Outcomes and Experience Questionnaire. 
5 Patients who have treatment for their prostate cancer should be noted whether due to progression 
or for patient choice. 
6 Drug treatment or physical / operative interventions for lower urinary tract symptoms 
 
 
 
Standard care arm: 
These reflect standard care and there will be no additional follow-up visits required for the 
study. See Standard Care Active Surveillance SOP. 
 
Intervention Arm: 
Regular MRI based active surveillance. Patients with a visible lesion (score 4 or 5) or Grade 
Group 2 cancer will have PSA 6 monthly and MRI annually. As per international PIRADS 
committee guidance the surveillance MRIs will be biparametric MRI scans which last 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
28
approximately 15 minutes and exclude gadolinium contrast injection. All other patients will 
undergo PSA 6 monthly and MRI in years 1, 3 and 5. In all patients, a targeted biopsy will 
be carried out if the MRI PRECISE score is >/=4. See Standard Care Active Surveillance 
SOP. 
 
 
 
 Haematology  
Not applicable 
 
 Biochemistry 
Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) testing will be carried out as per local standards using 
standard methods and protocols by the GP or in hospital. These blood tests are part of 
routine care, and no additional blood is taken for the purpose of this study in any participant. 
 
 Urinalysis  
Not applicable  
 
Not applicable 
 
 
Not applicable 
 
Incidental findings on MRI will be stated on the clinical report and the local clinical team will 
take appropriate action commensurate with the finding(s). 
 
 INTERVENTION 
 
 Permanent discontinuation of study intervention 
Participants may discontinue study intervention for the following reasons: 
• At the request of the participant. 
• Adverse event/ Serious Adverse Event 
• If the investigator considers that a participant's health will be compromised due to 
adverse events or concomitant illness that develop after entering the study. 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
29
 Withdrawal from Study 
Withdrawal from the study refers to discontinuation of study intervention and study 
procedures and can occur for the following reasons: 
• Participant decision 
• Loss to follow-up 
 
 Procedures for Withdrawal from Study 
Patients may decide to opt out at any time. This is entirely within their right to do so. Such 
cases will be reported to the Research Team Office so that no further data are entered onto 
the database, as specified in the patient information leaflet and appropriate Standard 
Operating procedure. Data captured before consent was withdrawn will be used in the study, 
but no further data, beyond this date will be collected or used in any analysis. Reason for 
withdrawal should be recorded in the eCRF and medical records, if given by the patient. Our 
sample size calculation assumes a 5% withdrawal rate but if this exceeds that number, we 
will continue to recruit patients until the target number for each randomisation is met. 
Patients opting out of the study for undergoing the intervention can agree for ongoing data 
collection as we would analyse on an intention to treat basis and knowledge of whether 
progression occurred subsequently and any other treatments that the patient had would be 
included in the analysis. 
 SAFETY REPORTING 
 
An AE is any untoward medical occurrence in a patient or clinical trial subject undergoing a 
trial intervention and which does not necessarily have a causal relationship with this 
treatment. An AE can therefore be any unfavourable and unintended sign (including an 
abnormal laboratory finding), symptom, or disease temporally associated with the use of the 
trial interventions, whether or not considered related to the interventions being evaluated. 
 
 
 
For the purposes of the study, AEs will be followed up according to local practice until the 
event has stabilised or resolved, or the Follow-up Visit, whichever is the sooner. All AEs and 
SAEs will be recorded throughout the study and all SAES, where in the opinion of the Chief 
Investigator, the event is ‘related’ and ‘unexpected’ should be reported to the sponsor and  
also be reported to the REC. 
 
 Severity of Adverse Events 
Mild:  
Awareness of event but easily tolerated 
Moderate: 
Discomfort enough to cause some interference with usual activity 
Severe: 
Inability to carry out usual activity 
 Causality of Adverse Events 
Unrelated: 
No evidence of any causal relationship 
Unlikely: 
There is little evidence to suggest there is a causal relationship (e.g. the 
 
 
event did not occur within a reasonable time after administration of the trial 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
30
 
 
medication). There is another reasonable explanation for the event (e.g. 
 
 
the patient’s clinical condition, other concomitant treatment). 
Possible: 
There is some evidence to suggest a causal relationship (e.g. because the 
 
 
event occurs within a reasonable time after administration of the trial 
 
 
medication). However, the influence of other factors may have contributed 
 
 
to the event (e.g. the patient’s clinical condition, other concomitant 
 
 
treatments). 
Probable: 
There is evidence to suggest a causal relationship and the influence of 
 
 
other factors is unlikely. 
Definite: 
There is clear evidence to suggest a causal relationship and other possible 
 
 
contributing factors can be ruled out. 
 
 
 Definition of SAE 
An SAE is defined as any event that  
• Results in death;  
• Is life-threatening*; 
• Requires hospitalisation or prolongation of existing inpatient’s hospitalisation**; 
• Results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity; 
• Is a congenital abnormality or birth defect; 
 
* “Life-threatening” in the definition of “serious” refers to an event in which the subject was 
at risk of death at the time of the event; it does not refer to an event which hypothetically 
might have caused death if it were more severe. 
** “Hospitalisation” means any unexpected admission to a hospital department. It does not 
usually apply to scheduled admissions that were planned before study inclusion or visits to 
casualty (without admission). 
 
Medical judgement should be exercised in deciding whether an adverse event/reaction is 
serious in other situations. Important adverse events/reactions that are not immediately life-
threatening, or do not result in death or hospitalisation but may jeopardise a subject, or may 
require intervention to prevent one of the other outcomes listed in the definition above should 
also be considered serious. 
 
 
Reporting of all SAEs (for exceptions see below), occurring during the study must be 
performed as detailed in SAE reporting instructions. If the investigator becomes aware of 
safety information that appears to be related to the trial, involving a subject who participated 
in the study, even after an individual subject has completed the study, this should be 
reported to the Sponsor. 
 
All SAEs will be reviewed by the Chief Investigator or a designated medically qualified 
representative to confirm expectedness and causality within 24 hours. 
 
Reporting of SAEs and review by the CI will be via the trial data collection system 
(CRF/eCRF).  
 
 
 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
31
List of Expected Adverse Events 
 
There are number of expected potential adverse events after interventions that may occur 
and require hospitalisation but will not require reporting as SAEs but will be collected in the 
eCRF. These include:  
- 
Gadolinium or buscopan related allergic reactions of any severity 
- 
Claustrophobia leading to abandoning of MRI scan 
- 
Vasovagal fainting episode before, during or after MRI or biopsy  
- 
Urinary retention and any admission required for this  
- 
Urinary tract infection and any admission required for this  
- 
Epididymo-orchitis and any admission required for this  
- 
Dysuria  
- 
Debris in urine and any admission required for this  
- 
Haematuria and any admission required for this  
- 
Erectile dysfunction and any other sexual sequelae side-effects such as dry orgasm, lack 
of orgasm, poor libido  
 
 Related SAEs 
Related: resulted from administration of any of the research procedures 
 
 Unexpected SAEs 
Unexpected: type of event is not listed in the protocol as an expected occurrence 
 
 Reporting of SAEs that are related and unexpected  
All SAEs should be reported to the <name of REC> where in the opinion of 
the Chief Investigator, the event was: 
⦁ 
‘related’, ie resulted from the administration of any of the research 
procedures; and 
⦁ 
‘unexpected’, ie an event that is not listed in the protocol as an 
expected occurrence Reports of related and unexpected SAEs should be 
submitted within 15 days of the Chief Investigator becoming aware of the 
event, using the NRES SAE form for non-IMP studies. The Chief Investigator 
must also notify the Sponsor of all SAEs where in the opinion of the Chief 
Investigator, the event is ‘related’ and ‘unexpected’. Local investigators 
should report any SAEs as required by their Local Research Ethics 
Committee, Sponsor and/or Research & Development Office.  
 
 
Contact details of sponsor for reporting SAEs are as follows:  
 
The Research Governance and Integrity Team:  
Imperial College London and Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust. 
Email: rgit@imperial.ac.uk 
 
Chief Investigator: 
Professor Hashim U. Ahmed 
Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital Campus 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
32
E-mail: atlas@imperial.ac.uk 
Follow-up of patients who have experienced a related and unexpected SAE should continue 
until recovery is complete or the condition has stabilised. Reports for related and unexpected 
SAEs should be unblinded prior to submission if required by national requirements. 
 
 Annual reporting of Serious Adverse Events 
Annual Progress reports will be submitted to the Sponsor and the Research Ethics 
Committee in accordance with local requirements. The Annual Progress Report will detail 
all SAEs recorded. 
 
If any urgent safety measures are taken the CI/Sponsor shall immediately and in any event 
no later than 3 days from the date the measures are taken, give written notice to the relevant 
REC of the measures taken and the circumstances giving rise to those measures. 
 
 STATISTICAL ANALYSES 
 
 
The sample size is based on the following assumptions (references 43-47, 60-64):  
• 
25% of the study population have progression by 5 years 
• 
The NICE defined strategy detects 50% of these progressive cancers (12.5% of study 
population) 
• 
Regular MRI will detect 75% of these progressive cancers (17.5% of study 
population) 
• 
5% loss to follow up at 5 years (most surveillance studies have shown <5% loss to 
follow-up)  
 
1,200 participants (221 events) are required to have 90% power to detect a difference, 
between the two groups, in time to progression (defined as months from randomisation to 
first evidence of disease progression), using the log-rank test (two-sided alpha=0.05), 
considering 24 months of accrual and minimum 60 months of follow-up. 1,263 participants 
will be randomised to allow for 5% loss to follow-up. 
 
 
 
We will monitor recruitment and safety regularly throughout the trial. There will be an 
independent Trial Steering Committee (TSC) and Data and Ethics Monitoring Committee 
(DMEC) (see section G). The first 12 months of recruitment will be an internal pilot with an 
emphasis on ability to recruit, with targets at this stage being 216 men recruited from 12 
centres. The pilot will be defined as per HTA guidelines, using a traffic light system of red 
(stop the trial), yellow (remedial provisions), green (continue). 
 
Proposed length of internal pilot phase: 12 months 
 Pilot Trial Targets 
Red 
Amber 
Green 
% Recruitment threshold 
<60% 
60 – 99.9% 
≥100% 
Total number of participants recruited 
<130 
130-215 
≥216 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
33
Number of sites opened 
(accounting for gradual site opening) 
<6 
7-11 
≥12 
 
In summary, if at least 216 patients are recruited in the pilot, we would expect the TSC to 
recommend continuation of the trial (in line with the HTA guidance regarding green 
threshold). If the pilot recruits less than 130 patients (<60% pilot target), then this indicates 
a recommendation for stopping unless there is a very good reason for delay and a 
convincing solution can be employed. If the pilot recruits 130-215 (60-99%) then, in 
discussion with the TSC and HTA, measures to improve recruitment may be needed in the 
main trial. We shall use the % targets (100%, 60-99%, <60%) to inform study management 
setting site-specific targets, depending on the expected recruitment as declared by each of 
our pilot sites. We shall monitor site recruitment regularly as part of study management and 
if sites are under-performing or delayed in set-up, we shall consider opening other sites from 
a reserve list. 
 
Our centre survey, discussion with NCRI Prostate Research Group and patient focus groups 
indicate strong support for this study. Of the 40 centres responding to our feasibility 
questionnaire (48 physicians), 35 were willing to be recruiting sites. Based on the 
questionnaire, we estimate 30 open sites in the main phase, with approximately 5-7 eligible 
patients per month per centre. Therefore, in our 12-month internal pilot we estimate a 
recruitment rate of 25% of patients from the eligible pool which will be the average 
recruitment rate in the main phase. 
 
 
 
Interim analysis  
We will monitor recruitment and safety and formally review 12 months recruitment into the 
internal pilot as per RAG table. The trial committees will issue stopping guidance based on 
ability to recruit as set out in the criteria detailed in this proposal. The Independent Data 
Monitoring Committee (IDMC) will feedback to the Trial Steering Committee (TSC), and the 
TSC will provide advice for the funder.   
 
Primary outcome analysis 
The primary analysis will be on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. The primary analysis will 
use a multivariable Cox Proportional Hazards regression model, adjusted for the 
randomisation stratification factors. The estimated hazard ratio (HR) will be presented with 
95% CI and significance (p value). Kaplan-Meier curves will also be reported together with 
the median progression free survival for each treatment group. If the proportional hazard 
assumptions are not met, other appropriate time to event analysis methods for the analysis 
of the primary outcome will be used, e.g., an accelerated failure time model. As a secondary 
analysis of the primary outcome, absolute between groups difference in proportions of 
patients progressing at 5 years will also be presented and a logistic regression model, 
adjusted by the stratification factors, will be used. 
 
 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
34
Secondary outcomes analysis 
Analysis of secondary outcomes will use multivariable logistic or linear regression, 
depending on the type of outcome data. MRI & biopsy-related adverse events and proportion 
of patients agreeing to a biopsy when clinically recommended will be reported using 
summary statistics. PROMS data will be analysed using mixed linear models to account for 
the repeated measurements in time. 
Compliance to allocated surveillance strategy will be monitored and reported by study arm. 
In particular, compliance to each component of the intervention (PSA, rectal examination, 
MRI, biopsy) will be reported by study arm. During the course of the trial, compliance to each 
component will be reported to the DMEC to ensure compliance to the protocol and, if 
necessary, evaluation of the need for remedial actions. Rates of MRI in both arms will be 
regularly monitored throughout the trial and these will be reported to the DMEC during the 
periodical DMEC meetings. A statistical analysis plan, outlining all the data analysis and 
hypothesis tests, will be written and agreed with the TSC and DMEC before any look at the 
data. 
 
Inter-Observer Reliability 
Coefficients of reliability will be derived to determine inter-observer reliability (overall 
agreement and weighted kappa at each individual score and by dichotomised score at the 
PRECISE MRI threshold denoting progression. Although the local radiologist will report all 
images from their centre, in order to assess inter-observer variability, all MRI assessments 
will be randomly re-allocated to one of a panel of radiologists in equal numbers for re-
assessment. The radiologists will perform the re-assessments blind to the results of the first 
assessment and first examiner, but clinical data will be made available. 
 
Measurement of costs and outcomes 
The economic evaluation will estimate the long-term health outcomes and NHS costs of 
MRI-based active surveillance compared to the NICE defined strategy and ascertain if the 
MRI-based strategy represents good value for money to the NHS.  Cost and health 
outcomes associated with the interventions will be collected over the trial period. These 
costs and outcomes will be extrapolated and modelled over a longer time horizon than 
captured by the trial (e.g., lifetime of the patient). This will involve developing a decision-
analytic model to predict long-term quality-adjusted life expectancy and NHS costs given the 
observed differences in the trial’s primary endpoint of cancer progression at biopsy and 
relevant secondary endpoints. A model is required because a trial that could capture 
differences in risk of metastases, health-related quality of life, and life expectancy would be 
unfeasibly long and large (e.g., in our 5-year cohort study in the UK of MRI-based 
surveillance, metastases developed in 8/672 [45]). We will take the NHS and Personal 
Social Services perspective, consistent with that used by the National Institute for Health 
and Care Excellence, and follow relevant methods guidance for cost-effectiveness analysis 
[53-55]. 
 
Resource use and cost data for the trial period will be collected through annual patient-
reported questionnaires and eCRF questions and using the ModRUM tool (a generic, 
modular resource-use measure designed for collecting self-report resource utilisation data) 
[67]. These resource use data will be multiplied by appropriate unit costs obtained from the 
NHS Reference Costs databases, the British National Formulary, and other published 
literature. Health outcomes will be expressed in terms of the quality-adjusted life year 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
35
(QALY), which captures the impact of treatment on both mortality and morbidity by 
‘weighting’ each period of follow up time by the value corresponding to the quality of life 
(using the EQ-5D-5L) during that period.  The EQ-5D-5L will be administered at baseline 
and annually during the trial period. The EQ-5D-5L ‘profiles’ generated for each patient, at 
each follow-up point, will be valued using a set of estimated preferences based on the UK 
population.  These scores will be converted into QALYs using area under the curve analysis.  
A review of the literature will be conducted to establish whether it is possible to make links 
between the outcomes measured in the trial and longer term health-related quality of life. 
 
We will develop the model structure and select inputs based on a review of the cost-
effectiveness literature and feedback from the research team (both clinicians and PPI 
representatives). We will use the trial to inform the risk of progression, costs (using data on 
tests, investigations and procedures conducted during the trial, and patient reported 
healthcare use), and health-related quality of life (via EQ-5D-5L) by trial arm, and pre- and 
post-progression. For model parameters which cannot be informed by the trial (e.g., 
probability of developing distant metastases), we will conduct a review of cost-effectiveness 
models, updating a recent review [56], and appraising and selecting data sources given 
clinical and patient feedback. Cost and QALY data will be synthesised to generate an 
incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is defined as the ratio of the mean 
difference in costs to the mean difference in QALYs between the alternative intervention 
strategies (i.e., MRI-based active surveillance versus the NICE defined strategy).  In order 
to characterise the uncertainty in the data, probabilistic sensitivity analyses will be conducted 
and uncertainty relating to modelled assumptions using scenario analyses. 
 
To help inform NHS decision making regarding the choice of intervention strategy, 
consideration will also be given to the feasibility of implementing MRI-based active 
surveillance in light of any capacity constraints on the health system. There may be 
additional capacity constraints such as variation in availability of MRI scans across the 
country, allocating time and staff to MRI, and the interdependence of different components 
on MRI. Standard approaches to economic evaluation do not account for additional capacity 
constraints on care [68]. Therefore, consideration will be given to the implications of capacity 
constraints bringing in insights from other fields, such as operational research, so that the 
impacts of the options available on population health can be generated [69]. 
 REGULATORY, ETHICAL AND LEGAL ISSUES 
 
The investigator will ensure that this study is conducted in full conformity with the seventh 
revision of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. 
 
 
The study will be conducted in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the International 
Conference on Harmonisation for Good Clinical Practice (ICH GCP E6 guidelines).  
 
 
 
 
 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
36
 
 
 Initial Approval 
Prior to the enrolment of participants, the REC must provide written approval of the conduct 
of the study at named sites, the protocol and any amendments, the Participant Information 
Sheet and Consent Form, any other written information that will be provided to the 
participants, any advertisements that will be used and details of any participant 
compensation.  
 
 Approval of Amendments 
Proposed amendments to the protocol and aforementioned documents must be submitted 
to the REC for approval as instructed by the Sponsor. Amendments requiring REC approval 
may be implemented only after a copy of the REC’s approval letter has been obtained.  
 
Amendments that are intended to eliminate an apparent immediate hazard to participants 
may be implemented prior to receiving Sponsor or REC approval. However, in this case, 
approval must be obtained as soon as possible after implementation. 
 
Amendments will be reviewed and approved by the Trial Management Group. Amendments 
will be version controlled and updated study documents have an updated version number 
and date. Approved amendments will be circulated to all sites and any online trial registries 
materials will be updated. 
 
 Annual Progress Reports 
Annual Progress Reports will be submitted to the Research Ethics Committee (REC) and 
the Sponsor in accordance with local / national requirements. The Annual Progress Report 
will also detail all SAEs recorded. 
 
 End of Trial Notification 
The REC will be informed about the end of the trial, within the required timelines. The end 
of trial notification will be submitted within 90 days of the end of trial definition being met. 
 
 
Health Research Authority (HRA) approval will be obtained prior to starting the study. Each 
participating site will confirm capacity and capability prior to commencing. 
The HRA and all participating sites also need to be notified of all protocol amendments to 
assess whether the amendment affects the institutional approval for each site.  
 
 
 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
37
 
All protocol deviations and protocol violations will be reported via the eCRF/CRF and 
reviewed by the Chief Investigator and reported to the ICTU QA manager on a monthly 
basis. Protocol violations will be reported to the Sponsor. 
An assessment of whether the protocol deviation/violation constitutes a serious breach will 
be made.  
A serious breach is defined as: 
A breach of the conditions and principles of GCP in connection with a trial or the trial 
protocol, which is likely to affect to a significant degree:  
• The safety or physical or mental integrity of the UK trial participants; or 
• The overall scientific value of the trial 
 
The Sponsor will be notified within 24 hours of identifying a likely Serious Breach. If a 
decision is made that the incident constitutes a Serious Breach, this will be reported to the 
REC within 7 days of becoming aware of the serious breach. 
 
 
Imperial College London holds negligent harm and non-negligent harm insurance policies 
which apply to this study. 
Imperial College London will act as the main Sponsor for this trial. Delegated responsibilities 
will be assigned to the NHS trusts taking part in the trial.  
The study is funded by the National Institute of Health Research – Health Technology 
Assessment. There is no payment for taking part in this study. The researchers won’t receive 
any personal payment over and above normal salary, or any other benefits or incentives. 
 
 
The study will be registered on a trial database ISRCTN and clinicaltrials.gov in accordance 
with requirements of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) 
regulations. 
 
 
All subjects must sign and personally date the REC approved Informed Consent Form after 
having received detailed written and verbal information about the reason, nature and 
possible risks associated with the research study.  
The right of the participant to refuse to participate without giving reasons must be respected.  
After the participant has entered the study the clinician remains free to give alternative 
treatment to that specified in the protocol at any stage if he/she feels it is in the participant’s 
best interest, but the reasons for doing so should be recorded.  In these cases the 
participants remain within the study for the purposes of follow-up and data analysis.  All 
participants are free to withdraw at any time from the protocol treatment without giving 
reasons and without prejudicing further treatment. 
The ICF can be issued and signed electronically, remotely by postage of consent form or in 
person. 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
38
Subjects should be provided with a copy of the signed Subject Information Sheet/Informed 
Consent Form document. The original Informed Consent Form should be retained with the 
source documents.  
 
 
 
It is the investigator’s responsibility to inform the subject’s General Practitioner (where 
applicable) by letter that the subject is taking part in the study provided the subject agrees 
to this, and information to this effect is included in the Subject Information Sheet and 
Informed Consent. A copy of the letter should be filed in the subject’s medical records. 
 
 
The investigator must ensure that the subject’s confidentiality is maintained. On the CRF o 
subjects will be identified by a subject ID number only. Documents that are not submitted to 
the Sponsor (e.g., signed informed consent form) should be kept in a strictly confidential file 
by the investigator. 
The investigator shall permit direct access to subjects’ records and source document for the 
purposes of monitoring, auditing, or inspection by the Sponsor, authorised representatives 
of the Sponsor, NHS, Regulatory Authorities and REC. 
 
For trial follow-up purposes, the trial management team are required to contact each 
participant directly for collation of patient questionnaires. To allow for this, the team will 
require the names, addresses and email address where applicable of each participant. 
These details, i.e., the names, address and email address will be housed separately to the 
electronic CRF and pseudonymised, i.e., linked by the participant’s unique trial identifier and 
will be stored, securely walled off on Imperial College London University computers with 
access only granted to the study research team. 
 
King’s College London to be sent patients’ NHS number and name to perform linkage to the 
NHS Information Centre and the NHS Central Register or any applicable NHS information 
system, if subject has given permission for this in their consent.  
 
There may be a requirement to transfer information to countries outside the European 
Economic Area (for example, to a research partner). Where this information contains your 
personal data, Imperial College London will ensure that it is transferred in accordance with 
data protection legislation. If the data is transferred to a country which is not subject to a 
European Commission (EC) adequacy decision in respect of its data protection standards, 
Imperial College London will enter into a data sharing agreement with the recipient 
organisation that incorporates EC approved standard contractual clauses that safeguard 
how your personal data is processed. 
 
 
The investigators and study site staff will comply with the requirements of the Data Protection 
Act 2018 concerning the collection, storage, processing and disclosure of personal 
information and will uphold the Act’s core principles. 
 
 
Last patient Last Visit 
 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
39
 
The investigator must retain essential documents until notified by the Sponsor, and for at 
least ten years after study completion. Subject files and other source data (including copies 
of protocols, CRFs, original reports of test results, correspondence, records of informed 
consent, and other documents pertaining to the conduct of the study) must be retained. 
Documents should be stored in such a way that they can be accessed/data retrieved at a 
later date. Consideration should be given to security and environmental risks. 
 
No study document will be destroyed without prior written agreement between the Sponsor 
and the investigator. Should the investigator wish to assign the study records to another 
party or move them to another location, written agreement must be obtained from the 
Sponsor. 
 
 DATA MANAGEMENT 
 
All written or electronic patient health records held by the hospital or GP or other medical 
facility. 
 
 
CRFs will be in English. Generic names for concomitant medications should be recorded in 
the CRF wherever possible. All written material to be used by participants must use 
vocabulary that is clearly understood, and be in the language appropriate for the study site. 
 
 
 
We will use the SealedEnvelope database application for electronic data capture (EDC) to 
record case report form data for patients participating in the study (www.imperial.ac.uk/joint-
research-compliance-office/project-planning/nhs-project-planning/electronic-data-capture-
non-ctimps/). SealedEnvelope is a regulatory compliant database and is sponsor approved 
for non-CTIMP studies such as this proposal. Study staff at each participating site will enter 
baseline and follow up data into the online database. The database is password protected 
and users will have passwords to access, enter and use the data for the full study duration. 
All members of the research team will receive training appropriate to their role and duties 
and will respect and comply with patient confidentiality. 
 
 
eCRFs will be based on relevant data collection tools tested in previous studies that we have 
undertaken and will undergo review by the study team, relevant clinical staff and the 
statistician prior to use. Patient level data collection will include baseline factors, MRI results, 
biopsy recommendations, biopsy details and results, adverse events and post biopsy 
complications and treatments. Self-reported, validated patient questionnaires will be used 
to assess health-related quality of life. These will be collected at baseline and once at last 
follow-up. Details of procedures for CRF/eCRF completion will be provided in a study 
manual. 
 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
40
 
All trial documentation, including that held at participating sites and the trial coordinating 
centre, will be archived for a minimum of 10 years following the end of the study.  
 STUDY MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE  
 
 
A Trial Steering Committee (TSC) will be convened including as a minimum an independent 
Chair, independent clinician, the Chief Investigator and Trial Manager. The role of the TSC 
is to provide overall supervision of trial conduct and progress. Details of membership, 
responsibilities and frequency of meetings will be defined in a separate Charter (See 
CR014). A lay person will be included. 
 
 
 
A Trial Management Group (TMG) will be convened including the Chief Investigator, co-
investigators and key collaborators, trial statistician and trial manager. The TMG will be 
responsible for day-to-day conduct of the trial and operational issues. Details of 
membership, responsibilities and frequency of meetings will be defined in separate terms of 
Reference. (See CR014). One to two lay people will be included. 
 
 
 
The DMC will comprise two independent clinicians with experience in clinical trials and an 
independent statistician. The DMC charter will be based on the DAMOCLES study group 
template. Its roles will include: monitoring the data (including interim analyses) and making 
recommendations to the TSC on whether there are any ethical or safety reasons why the 
trial should not continue; reviewing the interim analyses; advising the TSC regarding the 
release of data and/or information; and considering data emerging from other related 
studies. Refer to the separate DMC charter for further details (See CR014). 
 
 
 
In case of early discontinuation of the study, the Follow-up Visit assessment should be 
performed for each subject, as far as possible. The statistical criteria for termination of the 
study will be detailed in the statistical analysis plan (SAP). 
 
 
 
A study-specific risk assessment will be performed prior to the start of the study to assign a 
risk category of ‘low’, ‘medium’ or ‘high’ to the trial. Risk assessment will be carried out by 
the ICTU QA Manager in collaboration with the Study Manager and the result will be used 
to guide the monitoring plan. The risk assessment will consider all aspects of the study and 
will be updated as required during the course of the study. 
 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
41
 
The study will be monitored periodically by trial monitors to assess the progress of the study, 
verify adherence to the protocol, ICH GCP E6 guidelines and other national/international 
requirements and to review the completeness, accuracy and consistency of the data. 
Monitoring procedures and requirements will be documented in a Monitoring Plan, in 
accordance with the risk assessment. 
 
 
Quality Control will be performed according to ICTU internal procedures. The study may be 
audited by a Quality Assurance representative of the Sponsor and/or ICTU. All necessary 
data and documents will be made available for inspection. 
The study may be subject to inspection and audit by regulatory bodies to ensure adherence 
to GCP and the NHS Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care (2nd 
Edition).  
 
 
 
This study has been peer reviewed by funder NIHR-HTA, within the ICTU-Surgery Trials 
Forum at Imperial College London and detailed review by the NCRI (UK) Prostate Research 
Group (7/2/2022). 
 
 
    
PPIE during study development 
 
We have conducted two focus group meetings of 2 hours duration each with 6-7 patients 
who were on active surveillance around the UK through a summary sent to Prostate Cancer 
UK’s patient network. This involved the lead applicant professor Ahmed summarising the 
literature in an accessible format for these patients in a webinar which was followed by a 
broad group discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of active surveillance and the 
problems that the focus group participants felt that were pertinent within active surveillance. 
The participants fed back their concerns about regular biopsies and harms that these can 
often cause and their enthusiastic support for a strategy such as regular MRIs that could 
mitigate against the use of either regular biopsies or inaccurate surveillance using PSA 
blood tests or finger examinations. 
 
Our original design was one in which we would test regular MRI scans against regular 
biopsies in the same cohort of patients, but it was quite clear that there was no support for 
such a strategy and that there would be little to no buying from patients who participated in 
the focus group. Interestingly this was also supported by our clinicians survey the majority 
of him also stated that such a design would not be acceptable. As a result of this strong 
feedback, our study design changed from one that was more heavily reliant on routine 
biopsy to one that required biopsy only when a suspicious change occurred as the patients 
were strongly opposed to routine invasive biopsy. This meant our study would be much more 
impactful as it would demonstrate the usefulness of regular MRI scans as they would be 
conducted and used by clinicians to make decisions about patients, and we could therefore 
compare that strategy to standard normal care that occurs in the NHS. I will study therefore 
moved to one that would be much more impactful in that a comparative randomise study 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
42
was strongly supported by the focus groups who fully understood that in order to change 
practice for the greater good an RCT would be the best approach to meet our objectives. 
 
We asked participants in the focus group about the frequency of testing and were able to 
use both existing literature but also feedback from these focus groups. We designed our 
intervention arm on this basis. Remarkably, all stated a willingness to participate in an RCT 
as the study would offer a chance of having regular MRI that they would not normally have. 
Further, the groups also asked that we take a more proactive approach to giving health 
advice such as dietary and lifestyle changes within our information sheets, which we thought 
was an excellent idea. We will co-design this advice when the study starts with our co-
applicant PPI researchers as well as the focus groups and bringing in Dr Ali's work on 
vulnerable groups as well. We believe this proactive approach to broad healthcare advice 
could have significant subsequent impact beyond the specific question of prostate cancer 
active surveillance. Finally, we have also incorporated feedback from the panel about 
compliance and spoken to our co-applicants about this as well as the wider research team. 
We will design an active surveillance booklet either used in a paper format or electronically 
so that patients are empowered to know when and which tests to have within the study. 
Chronic diseases such as prostate cancer are best managed alongside patients taking a 
proactive approach, but they do require the tools to do so. 
 
Ongoing involvement 
 
Three PPI representatives will be co-applicants, attend research meetings and lead the 
regular focus groups. We will provide training and mentoring through our Patient Experience 
Research Centre. Focus groups will be asked whether in future some of them might be 
willing to be part of the research team so that during the study there will be ongoing 
representation.  
 
Our PPI co-applicants and focus groups will lead work throughout the study to share the 
trial’s concept and conduct, and at study end, the results. Final results will be shared with 
trial participants. Throughout the study, social media platforms will be used to communicate 
about the trial through accessible written, visual and video/Vlog formats in the 5 languages 
used for recruitment. Findings will be presented at international conferences and high impact 
journals. Stakeholders such as patient support groups, charities, NHS policy makers and 
professional organisations (representing urologists, oncologists, radiologists, radiographers) 
will be informed. Press releases will be used to widely disseminate to online, print and TV 
media. Results will be shared early with NICE so guidelines can be informed. 
 
Our physician survey shows the 35 NHS centres willing to participate cover most regions 
throughout the UK and include Scotland and Wales. The centres serve areas which have 
large groups of Black, Asian and Polish communities as well as socio-economically deprived 
areas with predominantly White populations. A PPI focus group will meet to review patient 
material and recruitment strategies before pilot start and then every 6-12 months to help 
make changes if required. We will use written, visual and video material which are accessible 
to different ethnic and socio-economic groups using our existing links to community and 
patient and carer support groups. 
 
In order to ensure active representation of vulnerable groups, such as people with learning 
disability, who are often excluded for screening studies and trials, we will convene separate 
PPI groups comprising individuals with mild learning disabilities and a group for carers. They 
will review information and consent forms to ensure that they are accessible, advise on 
recruitment and compliance strategies and develop dissemination materials (including 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
43
videos and newsletters) targeting people with learning disabilities, carers, charities and 
advocacy groups. Dr Ali has links to carer and patient advocacy and support groups through 
her previous research, such as Mencap and the Foundation for People with Learning 
Disabilities, who will assist in identifying suitable members and co-facilitation of the groups.  
 
All PPI members will be given gift vouchers for their time, and travel costs will be reimbursed. 
Ray Monk will be involved in analysis as he has a particular interest in MRI within the 
pathway and has specifically raised the issue of different types of resolution of scanners and 
different manufacturers. He has asked that the statistical analysis plan includes a broad 
exploration of different types of scanners within the NHS to determine whether these might 
have an impact on the monitoring of prostate cancer within the study. We will incorporate 
this feedback and involve Ray within the analysis so that we can cluster different MRI 
scanners according to whether they are 1.5 Tesla or 3.0 Tesla resolution and we will also 
explore scanners which are greater than five years old compared to those purchased in the 
last five years. 
 
Information concerning the study, patent applications, processes, scientific data or other 
pertinent information is confidential and remains the property of the Sponsor. The 
investigator may use this information for the purposes of the study only. 
 
It is understood by the investigator that the Sponsor will use information developed in this 
clinical study and, therefore, may disclose it as required to other clinical investigators. In 
order to allow the use of the information derived from this clinical study, the investigator 
understands that he/she has an obligation to provide complete test results and all data 
developed during this study to the Sponsor. 
 
Verbal or written discussion of results prior to study completion and full reporting should only 
be undertaken with written consent from the Funder. 
 
Therefore all information obtained as a result of the study will be regarded as 
CONFIDENTIAL, at least until appropriate analysis and review by the investigator(s) are 
completed.  
 
Permission from the Trial Management Group is necessary prior to disclosing any 
information relative to this study Any request by site investigators or other collaborators to 
access the study dataset must be formally reviewed by the TMG.    
 
The results may be published or presented by the investigator(s), but the Funder will be 
given the opportunity to review and comment on any such results for up to 1 month before 
any presentations or publications are produced. Lay summary of the results for public and 
patient engagement Webinar or podcast or both to publicise the result to patients and public, 
 
 
A Clinical Study Report summarising the study results will be prepared and submitted to the 
REC within a year of the end of study. 
 
We will publish the protocol and have it available on our institutional website. This publication 
will be in line with ICMJE requirements and therefore explicitly state our conditions on: data 
types; additional available documentation; window of availability [dates indicating opening 
and closure of access]; eligibility of requests; types of analysis permitted; method of access. 
We will post the data sharing opportunity on our university websites. We will also take 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
44
queries from interested third parties to assist and guide them to the opportunity. All 
subsequent publications of primary and secondary outcomes will be compliant with the NIHR 
Open Access Policy (www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/nihr-open-access-policy/12251). 
 
During the period of funding, our datasets will be collected and completed in the manner 
described above. We anticipate opening up access beyond the existing research group 
within 24-months after funding is complete. There will be a lock-out period to enable the key 
outcomes of the studies to report first after which data access will be through application to 
the study group. All participants will provide written informed consent for involvement in this 
study and permission for use of their data in scientific research (including sharing with the 
wider research community). We will ensure they have read and have a readily available 
copy of the latest version of our sponsor-approved privacy notice at the time of reading the 
patient information sheet and before providing consent. All external users will be bound by 
a data sharing agreement. This will be drawn up and ratified by Imperial Research Contracts 
Office and form part of the contract with NIHR (www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/nihr-position-on-
the-sharing-of-research-data/12253). Ahmed will act as the data custodian on behalf of 
Imperial College London and hold overall responsibility for data management. The persons 
responsible for data security and quality assurance will be Ahmed and Fiorentino. 
 REFERENCES 
1. NICE Guidance 2022. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng131 
2. James Lind Alliance. https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/priority-setting-partnerships/prostate-
cancer/top-10-priorities/ 
3. National 
Prostate 
Cancer 
Audit 
2021. 
https://www.npca.org.uk/content/uploads/2021/02/NPCA-Short-Report-2021_Using-
the-CPG-in-the-NPCA_Final-11.02.21.pdf 
4. Enikeev D, et al. Active Surveillance for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Systematic 
Review and Meta-analysis of Current Protocols and Outcomes. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 
2020;18(6):e739-e753.  
5. Shill DK, Roobol MJ, Ehdaie B, Vickers AJ, Carlsson SV. Active surveillance for prostate 
cancer. Transl Androl Urol. 2021;10(6):2809-2819. 
6. Ahmed HU. Prostate cancer: Time for active surveillance of intermediate-risk disease? 
Nat Rev Urol. 2013;10(1):6-8. 
7. Ahmed HU, Arya M, Freeman A, Emberton M. Do low-grade and low-volume prostate 
cancers bear the hallmarks of malignancy? Lancet Oncol. 2012 Nov;13(11):e509-17. 
8. Hamdy FC, et al; ProtecT Study Group. 10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or 
Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016 Oct 13;375(15):1415-
1424.. 
9. Kinsella N, et al. Factors Influencing Men's Choice of and Adherence to Active 
Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer: A Mixed-method Systematic Review. Eur 
Urol. 2018 Sep;74(3):261-280. 
10. Watson V, et al. Evaluating the Trade-Offs Men with Localized Prostate Cancer Make 
between the Risks and Benefits of Treatments: The COMPARE Study. J Urol. 
2020;204(2):273-280. 
11. Kinsella N, et al. Factors Influencing Men's Choice of and Adherence to Active 
Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer: A Mixed-method Systematic Review. Eur 
Urol. 2018 Sep;74(3):261-280. 
12. Watson V, et al. Evaluating the Trade-Offs Men with Localized Prostate Cancer Make 
between the Risks and Benefits of Treatments: The COMPARE Study. J Urol. 2020 
Aug;204(2):273-280. 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
45
13. Chan VW, et al. Effects of Delayed Radical Prostatectomy and Active Surveillance on 
Localised Prostate Cancer-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers (Basel). 
2021;13(13):3274. 
14. Xie W, et al; ICECaP Working Group. Metastasis-Free Survival Is a Strong Surrogate of 
Overall Survival in Localized Prostate Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017 Sep 20;35(27):3097-
3104. 
15. Enikeev D, et al. Active Surveillance for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Systematic 
Review and Meta-analysis of Current Protocols and Outcomes. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 
2020 Dec;18(6):e739-e753. 
16. Rosario DJ, et al. Short term outcomes of prostate biopsy in men tested for cancer by 
prostate specific antigen: prospective evaluation within ProtecT study. BMJ. 2012 Jan 
9;344:d7894. 
17. Bokhorst LP, et al. Complications after prostate biopsies in men on active surveillance 
and its effects on receiving further biopsies in the Prostate cancer Research 
International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study. BJU Int. 2016 Sep;118(3):366-71. 
18. Sooriakumaran, P., et al. The impact of multiple biopsies on outcomes of nerve-sparing 
robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Int J Impot Res 24, 161–164 (2012).  
19. Fujita K, Landis P, McNeil BK, Pavlovich CP. Serial prostate biopsies are associated with 
an increased risk of erectile dysfunction in men with prostate cancer on active 
surveillance. J Urol. 2009 Dec;182(6):2664-9.  
20. Braun K, et al. Effect of repeated prostate biopsies on erectile function in men on active 
surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2014 Mar;191(3):744-9.  
21. Chan VW, et al. Effects of Delayed Radical Prostatectomy and Active Surveillance on 
Localised Prostate Cancer-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers (Basel). 
2021 Jun 30;13(13):3274.  
22. Marzouk K, Assel M, Ehdaie B, Vickers A. Long-Term Cancer Specific Anxiety in Men 
Undergoing Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: Findings from a Large Prospective 
Cohort. J Urol. 2018;200(6):1250-1255. 
23. Van Hemelrijck M, et al; Members of the Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan 
Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance GAP3 consortium; Members of the Movember 
Foundation's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance GAP3 consortium. 
Reasons for Discontinuing Active Surveillance: Assessment of 21 Centres in 12 
Countries in the Movember GAP3 Consortium. Eur Urol. 2019;75(3):523-531. 
24. Dall'Era MA, et al. Active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer: review of the 
current literature. Cancer. 2008;112(8):1650-9. 
25. Biddle S. The psychological impact of active surveillance in men with prostate cancer: 
implications for nursing care. Br J Nurs. 2021;30(10):S30-S37. 
26. Rittenmeyer L, Huffman D, Alagna M, Moore E. The experience of adults who choose 
watchful waiting or active surveillance as an approach to medical treatment: a qualitative 
systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016;14(2):174-255. 
27. Ahmed HU, et al; PROMIS study group. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI 
and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. 
Lancet. 2017;389(10071):815-822. 
28. Kasivisvanathan V, et al; PRECISION Study Group Collaborators. MRI-Targeted or 
Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018 May 
10;378(19):1767-1777. 
29. Moore CM, Petrides N, Emberton M. Can MRI replace serial biopsies in men on active 
surveillance for prostate cancer? Curr Opin Urol. 2014;24(3):280-7. 
30. Chiam K, et al. Use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in active 
surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: a scoping review on the benefits and harm of 
mpMRI in different biopsy scenarios. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021;24(3):662-673.  

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
46
31. Kang SK, Mali RD, Prabhu V, Ferket BS, Loeb S. Active Surveillance Strategies for Low-
Grade Prostate Cancer: Comparative Benefits and Cost-effectiveness. Radiology. 
2021;300(3):594-604. 
32. van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Wolters T, Schröder FH, Bangma CH. 
Prostate-specific antigen kinetics in clinical decision-making during active surveillance 
for early prostate cancer--a review. Eur Urol. 2008 Sep;54(3):505-16.  
33. Iremashvili V, Manoharan M, Lokeshwar SD, Rosenberg DL, Pan D, Soloway MS. 
Comprehensive analysis of post-diagnostic prostate-specific antigen kinetics as 
predictor of a prostate cancer progression in active surveillance patients. BJU Int. 2013 
Mar;111(3):396-403.  
34. Ross AE, et al. Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable 
trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jun 
10;28(17):2810-6.  
35. Nelson TJ, et al. Association of Prostate-Specific Antigen Velocity With Clinical 
Progression Among African American and Non-Hispanic White Men Treated for Low-
Risk Prostate Cancer With Active Surveillance. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 May 
3;4(5):e219452.  
36. Vickers AJ, Thompson IM, Klein E, Carroll PR, Scardino PT. A commentary on PSA 
velocity and doubling time for clinical decisions in prostate cancer. Urology. 2014 
Mar;83(3):592-6. 
37. Bokhorst LP, et al; PRIAS study group. A Decade of Active Surveillance in the PRIAS 
Study: An Update and Evaluation of the Criteria Used to Recommend a Switch to Active 
Treatment. Eur Urol. 2016;70(6):954-960. 
38. Herrera-Caceres JO, et al. Utility of digital rectal examination in a population with 
prostate cancer treated with active surveillance. Can Urol Assoc J. 2020 
Sep;14(9):E453-E457.  
39. Herrera-Caceres JO, et al. Utility of digital rectal examination in a population with 
prostate cancer treated with active surveillance. Can Urol Assoc J. 2020 
Sep;14(9):E453-E457.  
40. Ross AE, et al. Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable 
trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jun 
10;28(17):2810-6.  
41. Schiavina R, et al. The role of multiparametric MRI in active surveillance for low-risk 
prostate cancer: The ROMAS randomized controlled trial. Urol Oncol. 2021 
Jul;39(7):433.e1-433.e7.  
42. Klotz L, et al. Active Surveillance Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study (ASIST): Results 
of a Randomized Multicenter Prospective Trial. Eur Urol. 2019 Feb;75(2):300-309.  
43. Klotz L, et al. Randomized Study of Systematic Biopsy Versus Magnetic Resonance 
Imaging and Targeted and Systematic Biopsy in Men on Active Surveillance (ASIST): 2-
year Postbiopsy Follow-up. Eur Urol. 2020;77(3):311-317. 
44. Guo R, Cai L, Fan Y, Jin J, Zhou L, Zhang K. Magnetic resonance imaging on disease 
reclassification among active surveillance candidates with low-risk prostate cancer: a 
diagnostic meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2015 Sep;18(3):221-8.  
45. Cantiello F, et al. Role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for patients under 
active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review with diagnostic meta-
analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019 May;22(2):206-220.  
46. Hettiarachchi D, et al. Can the Use of Serial Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance 
Imaging During Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer Avoid the Need for Prostate 
Biopsies?-A Systematic Diagnostic Test Accuracy Review. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021 
Jun;4(3):426-436.  

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
47
47. Baccaglini W, et al. Accuracy of MRI-guided Versus Systematic Prostate Biopsy in 
Patients Under Active Surveillance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin 
Genitourin Cancer. 2021 Feb;19(1):3-11.e1.  
48. Rajwa P, et al. Reliability of Serial Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Detect 
Prostate Cancer Progression During Active Surveillance: A Systematic Review and 
Meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2021 Nov;80(5):549-563. 
49. Moore CM, et al. Reporting Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Men on Active Surveillance 
for Prostate Cancer: The PRECISE Recommendations-A Report of a European School 
of Oncology Task Force. Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):648-655. 
50. Moore CM, et al. Reporting Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Men on Active Surveillance 
for Prostate Cancer: The PRECISE Recommendations-A Report of a European School 
of Oncology Task Force. Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):648-655.  
51. Giganti F, Kasivisvanathan V, Allen C, Moore CM. The Importance of Being PRECISE 
in Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Active Surveillance. Eur Urol. 2021 
Apr;79(4):560-563.  
52. Giganti F, Kirkham A, Allen C, Punwani S, Orczyk C, Emberton M, Moore CM. Update 
on Multiparametric Prostate MRI During Active Surveillance: Current and Future Trends 
and Role of the PRECISE Recommendations. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021 
Apr;216(4):943-951.  
53. O'Connor LP, Wang AZ, Yerram NK et al: Changes in magnetic resonance imaging using 
the prostate cancer radiologic estimation of change in sequential evaluation criteria to 
detect prostate cancer progression for men on active surveillance. Eur Urol Oncol 
2020;4:227  
54. Caglic I, et al. MRI-derived PRECISE scores for predicting pathologically-confirmed 
radiological progression in prostate cancer patients on active surveillance. Eur Radiol. 
2021 May;31(5):2696-2705. 
55. O'Connor LP, et al. Changes in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using the Prostate Cancer 
Radiologic Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation Criteria to Detect Prostate 
Cancer Progression for Men on Active Surveillance. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021 Apr;4(2):227-
234.  
56. Giganti F, et al. Natural history of prostate cancer on active surveillance: stratification by 
MRI using the PRECISE recommendations in a UK cohort. Eur Radiol. 2021 
Mar;31(3):1644-1655. 
57. Dieffenbacher S, et al. Standardized Magnetic Resonance Imaging Reporting Using the 
Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation Criteria and 
Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion with Transperineal 
Saturation Biopsy to Select Men on Active Surveillance. Eur Urol Focus. 2021 
Jan;7(1):102-110.  
58. Sushentsev N, et al. Comparative performance of MRI-derived PRECISE scores and 
delta-radiomics models for the prediction of prostate cancer progression in patients on 
active surveillance. Eur Radiol. 2022 Jan;32(1):680-689.  
59. Giganti F, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the PRECISE scoring system for prostate 
MRI on active surveillance: results from a two-centre pilot study. Eur Radiol. 2020 
Apr;30(4):2082-2090.  
60. Kinnaird A, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Biopsy in Active Surveillance of 
Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2021 Dec 2:101097JU0000000000002343.  
61. Luzzago S, et al. Repeat MRI during active surveillance: natural history of prostatic 
lesions and upgrading rates. BJU Int. 2021 Oct 22.  
62. Stavrinides V, et al. Five-year Outcomes of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-based Active 
Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Large Cohort Study. Eur Urol. 2020;78(3):443-451.  

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
48
63. Giganti F, et al. Natural history of prostate cancer on active surveillance: stratification by 
MRI using the PRECISE recommendations in a UK cohort. Eur Radiol. 2021 
Mar;31(3):1644-1655.  
64. Luiting, Henk Benjamin et al. A Multivariable Approach Using Magnetic Resonance 
Imaging to Avoid a Protocol-based Prostate Biopsy in Men on Active Surveillance for 
Prostate Cancer—Data from the International Multicenter Prospective PRIAS Study. Eur 
Urol Onc. Epub April 2022. 
65. Baboudjian M, et al. Active Surveillance for Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: A 
Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Metaregression. Eur Urol Oncol. 2022 Aug 
4:S2588-9311(22)00135-3.  
66. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11171089 
67. Garfield KM, Husbands SK, Thorn JC, Noble SM, Hollingworth W. Development of a 
brief, generic, modular resource-use measure (ModRUM): cognitive interviews with 
patients. BMC Health Services Research. 2021, 21(1). 371 
68. Wright SJ, Newman WG, Payne K. Accounting for Capacity Constraints in Economic 
Evaluations of Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019 
Aug;37(8):1011-1027. doi: 10.1007/s40273-019-00801-9.  
69. van Baal P, Morton A, Severens JL. Health care input constraints and cost effectiveness 
analysis decision rules. Soc Sci Med. 2018 Mar;200:59-64. 
 
 
REVISION HISTORY  
Version  
Date 
Summary of changes 
1.0 
30/MAY/2023 
First version  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
49
SIGNATURE PAGE 1 (CHIEF INVESTIGATOR) 
 
The signature below constitutes approval of this protocol by the signatory, on behalf of the 
Protocol Development Group, and provides the necessary assurances that this study will be 
conducted according to all stipulations of the protocol including all statements regarding 
confidentiality. 
 
 
Study Title: Imperial Prostate 9 – ATLAS (Approaches To Long-Term Active Surveillance) 
 
Protocol Number:  
Protocol number 22CX7971 
 
 
 
Signed: 
 
___________________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
Name of Chief Investigator: Hashim Ahmed 
 
 
 
Title: Professor 
 
 
 
 
 
Date:  
 
_____________________ 
  

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
50
SIGNATURE PAGE 2 (SPONSOR) 
 
The signatures below constitute approval of this protocol by the signatory.  
 
 
Study Title: Imperial Prostate 9 – ATLAS (Approaches To Long-Term Active Surveillance)
 
 
 
Protocol Number:  
Protocol number 22CX7971 
 
 
 
 
Signed: 
 
___________________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
Name of Sponsor’s Representative 
 
 
 
Title 
 
 
 
Sponsor name 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Date:  
 
_____________________ 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
51
SIGNATURE PAGE 3 (STATISTICIAN) 
 
The signatures below constitute approval of this protocol by the signatory.  
 
 
Study Title: Imperial Prostate 9 – ATLAS (Approaches To Long-Term Active Surveillance) 
 
Protocol Number:  
Protocol number 22CX7971 
 
 
 
 
Signed: 
 
___________________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
Name of Statistician 
 
 
 
Title 
 
 
 
Organisation/Company 
 
 
Date:  
 
_____________________ 
 
 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
52
 
SIGNATURE PAGE 4 (PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR) 
 
The signature of the below constitutes agreement of this protocol by the signatory and 
provides the necessary assurance that this study will be conducted at his/her investigational 
site according to all stipulations of the protocol including all statements regarding 
confidentiality. 
 
 
Study Title:  
Imperial Prostate 9 – ATLAS (Approaches To Long-Term Active 
Surveillance) 
 
Protocol Number:  
Protocol number 22CX7971 
 
 
Address of Institution:  
____________________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
____________________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
____________________________________________ 
 
 
 
Signed: 
 
 
____________________________________________ 
 
 
Print Name and Title: 
____________________________________________ 
 
 
Date:  
 
 
_____________________ 
 

IP9-ATLAS 
Protocol No: 22CX7971 
Imperial College London 
 v2.0 7th DEC 2023 
 
CONFIDENTIAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
53
 APPENDICES 
 
Appendices should be additional information to the protocol and can consist of:  
 
• 
Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI CTC).  
• 
RECIST criteria.  
• 
WHO / ECOG Performance status.  
• 
PIS, Consent form, GP letter (although may be more practical to have them separate).  
• 
Summary of dose modifications.  
• 
Schedule of events table.