STUDY QUESTION Does endometrial scratching in women with one failed IVF/ICSI treatment affect the chance of a live birth of the subsequent fresh IVF/ICSI cycle? SUMMARY ANSWER In this study, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch group, with a likely certainty range between −0.7% and +9.9%. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Since the first suggestion that endometrial scratching might improve embryo implantation during IVF/ICSI, many clinical trials have been conducted. However, due to limitations in sample size and study quality, it remains unclear whether endometrial scratching improves IVF/ICSI outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The SCRaTCH trial was a non-blinded randomised controlled trial in women with one unsuccessful IVF/ICSI cycle and assessed whether a single endometrial scratch using an endometrial biopsy catheter would lead to a higher live birth rate after the subsequent IVF/ICSI treatment compared to no scratch. The study took place in 8 academic and 24 general hospitals. Participants were randomised between January 2016 and July 2018 by a web-based randomisation programme. Secondary outcomes included cumulative 12-month ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth rate. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Women with one previous failed IVF/ICSI treatment and planning a second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment were eligible. In total, 933 participants out of 1065 eligibles were included (participation rate 88%). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE After the fresh transfer, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch compared to control group (110/465 versus 88/461, respectively, risk ratio (RR) 1.24 [95% CI 0.96–1.59]). These data are consistent with a true difference of between −0.7% and +9.9% (95% CI), indicating that while the largest proportion of the 95% CI is positive, scratching could have no or even a small negative effect. Biochemical pregnancy loss and miscarriage rate did not differ between the two groups: in the scratch group 27/153 biochemical pregnancy losses and 14/126 miscarriages occurred, while this was 19/130 and 17/111 for the control group (RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.71–2.07) and RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.38–1.40), respectively). After 12 months of follow-up, 5.1% more live births were observed in the scratch group (202/467 versus 178/466), of which the true difference most likely lies between −1.2% and +11.4% (95% CI). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION This study was not blinded. Knowledge of allocation may have been an incentive for participants allocated to the scratch group to continue treatment in situations where they may otherwise have cancelled or stopped. In addition, this study was powered to detect a difference in live birth rate of 9%. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The results of this study are an incentive for further assessment of the efficacy and clinical implications of endometrial scratching. If a true effect exists, it may be smaller than previously anticipated or may be limited to specific groups of women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Studying this will require larger sample sizes, which will be provided by the ongoing international individual participant data-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42017079120). At present, endometrial scratching should not be performed outside of clinical trials. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study was funded by ZonMW, the Dutch organisation for funding healthcare research. J.S.E. Laven reports grants and personal fees from AnshLabs (Webster, Tx, USA), Ferring (Hoofddorp, The Netherlands) and Ministry of Health (CIBG, The Hague, The Netherlands) outside the submitted work. A.E.P. Cantineau reports ‘other’ from Ferring BV, personal fees from Up to date Hyperthecosis, ‘other’ from Theramex BV, outside the submitted work. E.R. Groenewoud reports grants from Titus Health Care during the conduct of the study. A.M. van Heusden reports personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees from Ferring, personal fees from Goodlife, outside the submitted work. F.J.M. Broekmans reports personal fees as Member of the external advisory board for Ferring BV, The Netherlands, personal fees as Member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, The Netherlands, personal fees as Member of the external advisory for Gedeon Richter, Belgium, personal fees from Educational activities for Ferring BV, The Netherlands, grants from Research support grant Merck Serono, grants from Research support grant Ferring, personal fees from Advisory and consultancy work Roche, outside the submitted work. C.B. Lambalk reports grants from Ferring, grants from Merck, grants from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NL5193/NTR 5342). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 31 July 2015. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT 26 January 2016.

No abstract

Aim: Timing of radium-223 (Ra-223) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) remains challenging due to alternative options and short window of opportunity. Methods: Ra-223 treated patients in the CAPRI-registry were included. Outcomes were evaluated based on treatment line of Ra-223. Results: Out of 285 patients, 49% received Ra-223 in line ≥3. 51% completed six Ra-223 injections and 34% had a symptomatic skeletal event after first Ra-223 without differences between subgroups. After correction of known prognostic factors Ra-223 in line ≥3 (HR: 3.267; 95% CI: 1.689–6.317; p < 0.01) remained associated with worse OS. Conclusion: In the Netherlands, Ra-223 was mainly started as second or third mCRPC-treatment in 2014–2018. Later timing of Ra-223 did affect OS, but not treatment completion and occurrence of symptomatic skeletal events.

PurposeThis study aimed to assess the effects of 20 wk resistance exercise training with or without protein supplementation on body composition, muscle mass, muscle strength, physical performance, and aerobic capacity in prostate cancer patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).MethodsSixty prostate cancer patients receiving ADT were randomly assigned to perform 20 wk of resistance exercise training with supplementation of 31 g whey protein (EX + PRO, n = 30) or placebo (EX + PLA, n = 30), consumed immediately after exercise and every night before sleep. A separate control group (CON, n = 36) only received usual care. At baseline and after 20 wk, body composition (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry), muscle mass (computed tomography scan), muscle strength (1-repetition maximum strength tests), physical performance (Timed Up and Go Test, 30-Second Chair Stand Test, and Stair Climb Test), aerobic capacity (cardiopulmonary exercise test), and habitual dietary intake (food diary) were assessed. Data were analyzed using a two-factor repeated-measures ANOVA.ResultsOver time, muscle mass and strength increased in EX + PRO and EX + PLA and decreased in CON. Total fat mass and fat percentage increased in EX + PRO and CON, but not in EX + PLA. Physical performance did not significantly change over time in either group. Aerobic capacity was maintained in EX + PLA, but it decreased in EX + PRO and CON. Habitual protein intake (without supplements) averaged >1.0 g·kg body weight−1·d−1, with no differences over time or between groups.ConclusionsIn prostate cancer patients, resistance exercise training counteracts the adverse effects of ADT on body composition, muscle mass, muscle strength, and aerobic capacity, with no additional benefits of protein supplementation.

Objective• To determine the impact of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) publication in 2009 on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level testing by Dutch general practitioners (GPs) in men aged Ն40 years. Materials and Methods• Retrospective study with a Dutch insurance company database (containing PSA test claims) and a large district hospital-laboratory database (containing PSA-test results).• The difference in primary PSA-testing rate as well as follow-up testing before and after the ERSPC was tested using the chi-square test with statistical significance at P < 0.05. Results• Decline in PSA tests 4 months after ERSPC publication, especially for men aged Ն60 years.• Primary testing as well as follow-up testing decreased, both for PSA levels of <4 ng/mL as well as for PSA levels of 4-10 ng/mL. • Follow-up testing after a PSA level result of >10 ng/mL moderately increased (P = 0.171).• Referral to a urologist after a PSA level result of >4 ng/mL decreased slightly after the ERSPC publication (P = 0.044).