Dr. Behfar Ehdaie

But immediately right off the bat, I realized the important question needed to include our stakeholders. And because this was a multi-center trial, we brought everyone together at the very early stages, not to share an already written protocol, but to talk about the skeleton and more importantly, make everyone buy in to the outcome measure. And that was the first step.

But immediately right off the bat, I realized the important question needed to include our stakeholders. And because this was a multi-center trial, we brought everyone together at the very early stages, not to share an already written protocol, but to talk about the skeleton and more importantly, make everyone buy in to the outcome measure. And that was the first step.

We wrote a skeleton draft, brought everyone in a room. It was a Saturday morning in New York City. I remember people flew in. We sat around a table. And when I proposed the idea... the questions directed our trial, meaning they really guided our next steps. And the first question we had to ask was, do we want to do a trial in low-grade prostate cancer or intermediate-risk prostate cancer?

We wrote a skeleton draft, brought everyone in a room. It was a Saturday morning in New York City. I remember people flew in. We sat around a table. And when I proposed the idea... the questions directed our trial, meaning they really guided our next steps. And the first question we had to ask was, do we want to do a trial in low-grade prostate cancer or intermediate-risk prostate cancer?

We wrote a skeleton draft, brought everyone in a room. It was a Saturday morning in New York City. I remember people flew in. We sat around a table. And when I proposed the idea... the questions directed our trial, meaning they really guided our next steps. And the first question we had to ask was, do we want to do a trial in low-grade prostate cancer or intermediate-risk prostate cancer?

And it was interesting because at the time, this is now 2013, 2014, Although active surveillance was considered a treatment option for men with low-grade disease, there were still questions about percentage volume with Gleason 6, if there's extra capsular extension, if it's detectable on MRI.

And it was interesting because at the time, this is now 2013, 2014, Although active surveillance was considered a treatment option for men with low-grade disease, there were still questions about percentage volume with Gleason 6, if there's extra capsular extension, if it's detectable on MRI.

And it was interesting because at the time, this is now 2013, 2014, Although active surveillance was considered a treatment option for men with low-grade disease, there were still questions about percentage volume with Gleason 6, if there's extra capsular extension, if it's detectable on MRI.

And really the idea of Gleason 7 prostate cancer being something that we can monitor or think about outside of radical treatments was not firmly in place. But we also realized that that's the group of patients in 10 years that we will probably be speaking about with regards to focal therapy. So we had buy-in right off the bat that the group of patients we want to study...

And really the idea of Gleason 7 prostate cancer being something that we can monitor or think about outside of radical treatments was not firmly in place. But we also realized that that's the group of patients in 10 years that we will probably be speaking about with regards to focal therapy. So we had buy-in right off the bat that the group of patients we want to study...

And really the idea of Gleason 7 prostate cancer being something that we can monitor or think about outside of radical treatments was not firmly in place. But we also realized that that's the group of patients in 10 years that we will probably be speaking about with regards to focal therapy. So we had buy-in right off the bat that the group of patients we want to study...

Yeah, so obviously the first pearl is make sure the stakeholders are involved at the very beginning to help form the appropriate or important question. But within that, a small group is always better than a big group. I've been involved in consensus meetings where you have 20, 30, 40 people in a room, and you're right.

Yeah, so obviously the first pearl is make sure the stakeholders are involved at the very beginning to help form the appropriate or important question. But within that, a small group is always better than a big group. I've been involved in consensus meetings where you have 20, 30, 40 people in a room, and you're right.

Yeah, so obviously the first pearl is make sure the stakeholders are involved at the very beginning to help form the appropriate or important question. But within that, a small group is always better than a big group. I've been involved in consensus meetings where you have 20, 30, 40 people in a room, and you're right.

There should be a lot of conversation, and finding consensus is extremely difficult. But starting with a smaller group is the key. And so although we had a skeleton, we knew what direction we felt the discussion should be led. And we just provided some of the input, some of the data that helped people in that room understand. and help ourselves get to the right answer.

There should be a lot of conversation, and finding consensus is extremely difficult. But starting with a smaller group is the key. And so although we had a skeleton, we knew what direction we felt the discussion should be led. And we just provided some of the input, some of the data that helped people in that room understand. and help ourselves get to the right answer.

There should be a lot of conversation, and finding consensus is extremely difficult. But starting with a smaller group is the key. And so although we had a skeleton, we knew what direction we felt the discussion should be led. And we just provided some of the input, some of the data that helped people in that room understand. and help ourselves get to the right answer.

And so although I could have started that meeting saying we should treat only intermediate-risk prostate cancer, I think the data that was presented, the conversations that were had, not only allowed us to see a new perspective, maybe something we didn't consider, but it helped everyone else get on board because, frankly, they own that idea as well.

And so although I could have started that meeting saying we should treat only intermediate-risk prostate cancer, I think the data that was presented, the conversations that were had, not only allowed us to see a new perspective, maybe something we didn't consider, but it helped everyone else get on board because, frankly, they own that idea as well.

And so although I could have started that meeting saying we should treat only intermediate-risk prostate cancer, I think the data that was presented, the conversations that were had, not only allowed us to see a new perspective, maybe something we didn't consider, but it helped everyone else get on board because, frankly, they own that idea as well.