Dataset Information

Effectiveness of community-based football compared to usual care in men with prostate cancer: Protocol for a randomised, controlled, parallel group, multicenter superiority trial (The FC Prostate Community Trial).

ABSTRACT: Prostate cancer is the most common non-cutaneous malignancy in men. Today most patients may expect to live years following the diagnosis and may thus experience significant morbidity due to disease progression and treatment toxicity. In order to address some of these problems exercise has been suggested and previously studies have shown improvements of disease specific quality of life and a reduction in treatment-related toxicity. Cohort studies with long term follow up have suggested that physical activity is associated with improved survival in prostate cancer patients. Previously one randomised controlled trial has examined the efficacy of football in prostate cancer patients undergoing androgen deprivation therapy to usual care and reported positive effects on lean body mass and bone markers. Against this background, we wish to examine the effectiveness of community-based football for men diagnosed with prostate cancer.Using a randomised controlled parallel group, multicenter, superiority trial design, two hundred prostate cancer patients will be recruited and randomised (1:1) to either community-based football one hour twice weekly or to a control group. The intervention period will be six months. The primary outcome is quality of life assessed after 12 weeks based on the change from baseline in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are change from baseline to six months in quality of life, lean body mass, fat mass, whole body and regional bone markers, as well as physical activity and functional capacity at 12 weeks and six months. Safety outcome variables will be falls resulting in seeking medical assessment and fractures during the six-month period.Football is viewed as a case for non-professional, supervised community-based team sport for promoting long-term physical activity in men diagnosed with prostate cancer. This randomised trial will provide data on effectiveness and safety for men with prostate cancer when football training is delivered in local football clubs.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02430792.

SUBMITTER: Bjerre E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5048405 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of community-based football compared to usual care in men with prostate cancer: Protocol for a randomised, controlled, parallel group, multicenter superiority trial (The FC Prostate Community Trial).

Bjerre Eik E Bruun Ditte Marie DM Tolver Anders A Brasso Klaus K Krustrup Peter P Johansen Christoffer C Christensen Robin R Rørth Mikael M Midtgaard Julie J

BMC cancer 20161003 1

<h4>Background</h4>Prostate cancer is the most common non-cutaneous malignancy in men. Today most patients may expect to live years following the diagnosis and may thus experience significant morbidity due to disease progression and treatment toxicity. In order to address some of these problems exercise has been suggested and previously studies have shown improvements of disease specific quality of life and a reduction in treatment-related toxicity. Cohort studies with long term follow up have s ...[more]

PMID: 27716218

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Physical activity has been shown to mitigate the unwanted psychological and physiological side effects of prostate cancer treatments, but sustainable exercise possibilities are limited. OBJECTIVE:Our objective was to examine whether football in a real-world setting (i.e., local football clubs) was safe and feasible in practice and could improve quality of life, mitigate decline in muscle mass and bone density, and increase fat mass in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS:In this pragmatic, multicentre, parallel randomized controlled trial, men diagnosed with prostate cancer were recruited from five Danish urological departments. Men (N?=?214) diagnosed with prostate cancer were randomly allocated, using random generated lists (block size 4-8) stratified for center and androgen-deprivation therapy status, to either 1 h of football twice weekly in a local football club or to usual care, which was a 15- to 30-min telephone session covering their options for physical activity or free-of-charge rehabilitation delivered as standard in Denmark. Allocation was concealed from the trial investigator performing the randomization, but-given the nature of the intervention-this was not possible for personnel and participants. Assessments were performed at baseline, 12 weeks, and 6 months. The primary outcome was mean change difference in prostate cancer-specific quality of life at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were body composition, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) physical and mental health, and safety-reported as fractures, falls, and serious adverse events. RESULTS:Attrition was 1 and 3% at 12 weeks, and 5% and 5% at 6 months for the usual care and football groups, respectively. Prostate cancer-specific quality of life was equal between groups at 12 weeks (mean difference + 1.9 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.0-4.8; P?=?0.20) and at 6 months (+ 0.5 points, 95% CI -2.8-3.8; P?=?0.76). Fractures were equally distributed, with two fractures in the usual care group and one in the football group. Likewise, body composition outcomes were equal. Mental health improved after 6 months of football (mean difference +?2.7 points, 95% CI 0.8-4.6; P?=?0.006). CONCLUSIONS:In this trial, community-based football was a feasible exercise strategy for men with prostate cancer. Football did not improve prostate cancer-specific quality of life but did improve mental health; the clinical significance of this is unclear. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02430792.

Project description:BackgroundSkeletal metastatic disease excludes many cancer patients from participating in exercise and physical activity due to safety concerns. Empirical evidence from high-quality trials is warranted to guide clinicians and patients.ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and potential benefits of high-impact aerobic exercise in patients with prostate cancer with skeletal metastases.DesignExploratory subgroup analysis of a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel randomised controlled trial.SettingThe trial recruited 214 patients from five hospital urological departments in Denmark.ParticipantsPatients with prostate cancer with skeletal metastases (n = 41).InterventionSix months of football training twice weekly at a local club or usual care. Both groups received brief information on physical activity recommendations at the time of randomisation.Main outcome(s) and measure(s)Safety, defined as falls, fractures and hospital admissions. Effects were evaluated on the primary outcome (prostate cancer-specific quality of life) and secondary outcomes (lean body mass, fat mass, hip and spine bone mineral density, and general physical and mental health).ResultsThe original trial comprised 214 participants, 41 of whom had skeletal metastases at enrolment. Of these, 22 were allocated to football and 19 to usual care. The trial retention rate was 95% at 12 weeks and 88% at 6 months. Football participants attended 13 sessions on average at 12 weeks and 23 at 6 months. There were two falls, one in each group after 6 months, and no fractures. There were four unplanned hospital admissions in the study period, all four in the usual care group. Statistically significant between-group difference was observed in the primary outcome change in prostate cancer-specific quality of life at 12 weeks (7.6 points [95% CI 0.5 to 15.0]; P = 0.038). No statistical changes were found in the secondary outcomes.ConclusionThe analysis showed that football training was safe in patients with skeletal metastatic prostate cancer and significantly improved quality of life. Larger analyses and/or trials are warranted to confirm the safety of exercise more broadly in cancer patients with skeletal metastatic disease.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02430792 . Date of registration 30 April 2015.

Project description:IntroductionPeople with experience of the criminal justice system typically have worse physical and mental health, lower levels of mental well-being and have less healthy lifestyles than the general population. Health trainers have worked with offenders in the community to provide support for lifestyle change, enhance mental well-being and signpost to appropriate services. There has been no rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of providing such community support. This study aims to determine the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomised trial and delivering a health trainer intervention to people receiving community supervision in the UK.Methods and analysisA multicentre, parallel, two-group randomised controlled trial recruiting 120 participants with 1:1 individual allocation to receive support from a health trainer and usual care or usual care alone, with mixed methods process evaluation. Participants receive community supervision from an offender manager in either a Community Rehabilitation Company or the National Probation Service. If they have served a custodial sentence, then they have to have been released for at least 2 months. The supervision period must have at least 7 months left at recruitment. Participants are interested in receiving support to change diet, physical activity, alcohol use and smoking and/or improve mental well-being. The primary outcome is mental well-being with secondary outcomes related to smoking, physical activity, alcohol consumption and diet. The primary outcome will inform sample size calculations for a definitive trial.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the Health and Care Research Wales Ethics Committee (REC reference 16/WA/0171). Dissemination will include publication of the intervention development process and findings for the stated outcomes, parallel process evaluation and economic evaluation in peer-reviewed journals. Results will also be disseminated to stakeholders and trial participants.Trial registration numbersISRCTN80475744; Pre-results.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Physical exercise has been shown to be effective in relation to fatigue, aerobic fitness, and lower body strength in men with prostate cancer. However, research into the clinically relevant effects of interventions conducted in heterogeneous patient populations and in real-life clinical practice settings is warranted. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We conducted a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel randomised controlled trial in 5 Danish urological departments. Recruitment began in May 2015, the first participant was randomised in June 2015, and the last participant was included in February 2017. In total, 214 men with prostate cancer were randomly assigned to either 6 months of free-of-charge football training twice weekly at a local club (football group [FG]) (n = 109) or usual care (usual care group [UG]) (n = 105), including brief information on physical activity recommendations at randomisation. Participants were on average 68.4 (SD 6.2) years old, 157 (73%) were retired, 87 (41%) were on castration-based treatment, 19 (9%) had received chemotherapy, and 41 (19%) had skeletal metastases at baseline. In this 1-year follow-up study, we evaluated the effects of community-based football training on the following outcomes: primary outcome, quality of life; secondary outcomes: continuation of football after 6 months, hip and lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD), mental health score, fat and lean body mass, and safety outcomes, i.e., fractures, falls, and hospital admissions. Intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses were conducted. No statistically significant between-group difference was observed in change in prostate-cancer-specific quality of life (ITT: 1.9 points [95% CI -1.9 to 5.8], p = 0.325; PP: 3.6 points [95% CI -0.9 to 8.2], p = 0.119). A statistically significant between-group difference was observed in change in total hip BMD, in favour of FG (0.007 g/cm2 [95% CI 0.004 to 0.013], p = 0.037). No differences were observed in change in lumbar spine BMD or lean body mass. Among patients allocated to football, 59% chose to continue playing football after the end of the 6-month intervention period. At 1-year follow-up in the PP population, FG participants had more improvement on the Mental Component Summary (2.9 [95% CI 0.0 to 5.7], p = 0.048 points higher) than UG participants, as well as a greater loss of fat mass (-0.9 kg [95% CI -1.7 to -0.1], p = 0.029). There were no differences between groups in relation to fractures or falls. Hospital admissions were more frequent in UG compared to FG (33 versus 20; the odds ratio based on PP analysis was 0.34 for FG compared to UG). There were 3 deaths in FG and 4 in UG. Main limitations of the study were the physically active control group and assessment of physical activity by means of self-report. CONCLUSIONS:In this trial, participants allocated to football appeared to have improved hip BMD and fewer hospital admissions. Men who played football more than once a week for 1 year lost fat mass and reported improved mental health. Community-based football proved to be acceptable, even when club membership was not subsidised. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02430792.

Project description:IntroductionPeople often experience distress following stroke due to fundamental challenges to their identity.ObjectivesTo evaluate (1) the acceptability of 'HeART of Stroke' (HoS), a community-based arts and health group intervention, to increase psychological well-being; and (2) the feasibility of a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT).DesignTwo-centre, 24-month, parallel-arm RCT with qualitative and economic components. Randomisation was stratified by centre and stroke severity. Participant blinding was not possible. Outcome assessment blinding was attempted.SettingCommunity.ParticipantsCommunity-dwelling adults ≤2 years poststroke recruited via hospital clinical teams/databases or community stroke/rehabilitation teams.InterventionsArtist-facilitated arts and health group intervention (HoS) (ten 2-hour sessions over 14 weeks) plus usual care (UC) versus UC.OutcomesThe outcomes were self-reported measures of well-being, mood, capability, health-related quality of life, self-esteem and self-concept (baseline and 5 months postrandomisation). Key feasibility parameters were gathered, data collection methods were piloted, and participant interviews (n=24) explored the acceptability of the intervention and study processes.ResultsDespite a low recruitment rate (14%; 95% CI 11% to 18%), 88% of the recruitment target was met, with 29 participants randomised to HoS and 27 to UC (57% male; mean (SD) age=70 (12.1) years; time since stroke=9 (6.1) months). Follow-up data were available for 47 of 56 (84%; 95% CI 72% to 91%). Completion rates for a study-specific resource use questionnaire were 79% and 68% (National Health Service and societal perspectives). Five people declined HoS postrandomisation; of the remaining 24 who attended, 83% attended ≥6 sessions. Preliminary effect sizes for candidate primary outcomes were in the direction of benefit for the HoS arm. Participants found study processes acceptable. The intervention cost an estimated £456 per person and was well-received (no intervention-related serious adverse events were reported).ConclusionsFindings from this first community-based study of an arts and health intervention for people poststroke suggest a definitive RCT is feasible. Recruitment methods will be revised.Trial registration numberISRCTN99728983.

Project description:BackgroundMinor ailments are "self-limiting conditions which may be diagnosed and managed without a medical intervention". A cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) was designed to evaluate the clinical, humanistic and economic outcomes of a Minor Ailment Service (MAS) in community pharmacy (CP) compared with usual care (UC).MethodsThe cRCT was conducted for 6 months from December 2017. The pharmacist-patient intervention consisted of a standardised face-to-face consultation on a web-based program using co-developed protocols, pharmacists' training, practice change facilitators and patients' educational material. Patients requesting a non-prescription medication (direct product request) or presenting minor ailments received MAS or UC and were followed-up by telephone 10-days after the consultation. The primary economic outcomes were incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of the service and health related quality of life (HRQoL). Total costs included health system, CPs and patient direct costs: health professionals' consultation time, medication costs, pharmacists' training costs, investment of the pharmacy and consultation costs within the 10 days following the initial consultation. The HRQoL was obtained using the EuroQoL 5D-5L at the time of the consultation and at 10-days follow up. A sensitivity analysis was carried out using bootstrapping. There were two sub-group analyses undertaken, for symptom presentation and direct product requests, to evaluate possible differences.ResultsA total of 808 patients (323 MAS and 485 UC) were recruited in 27 CPs with 42 pharmacists (20 MAS and 22 UC). 64.7% (n = 523) of patients responded to follow-up after their consultation in CP. MAS patients gained an additional 0.0003 QALYs (p = 0.053). When considering only MAS patients presenting with symptoms, the ICUR was 24,733€/QALY with a 47.4% probability of cost-effectiveness (willingness to pay of 25,000€/QALY). Although when considering patients presenting for a direct product request, MAS was the dominant strategy with a 93.69% probability of cost-effectiveness.ConclusionsExpanding community pharmacists' scope through MAS may benefit health systems. To be fully cost effective, MAS should not only include consultations arising from symptom presentation but also include an oversight of self-selected products by patients. MAS increase patient safety through the appropriate use of non-prescription medication and through the direct referral of patients to GP.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN17235323 . Registered 07/05/2021 - Retrospectively registered.

Project description:Meta-analyses of nonrandomized studies have provided conflicting data on therapeutic hypothermia, or targeted temperature management (TTM), at 33°C in patients successfully resuscitated after nonshockable cardiac arrest. Nevertheless, the latest recommendations issued by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation and by the European Resuscitation Council recommend therapeutic hypothermia. New data are available on the adverse effects of therapeutic hypothermia, notably infectious complications. The risk/benefit ratio of therapeutic hypothermia after nonshockable cardiac arrest is unclear.HYPERION is a multicenter (22 French ICUs) trial with blinded outcome assessment in which 584 patients with successfully resuscitated nonshockable cardiac arrest are allocated at random to either TTM between 32.5 and 33.5°C (therapeutic hypothermia) or TTM between 36.5 and 37.5°C (therapeutic normothermia) for 24 hours. Both groups are managed with therapeutic normothermia for the next 24 hours. TTM is achieved using locally available equipment. The primary outcome is day-90 neurological status assessed by the Cerebral Performance Categories (CPC) Scale with dichotomization of the results (1?+?2 versus 3?+?4?+?5). The primary outcome is assessed by a blinded psychologist during a semi-structured telephone interview of the patient or next of kin. Secondary outcomes are day-90 mortality, hospital mortality, severe adverse events, infections, and neurocognitive performance. The planned sample size of 584 patients will enable us to detect a 9% absolute difference in day-90 neurological status with 80% power, assuming a 14% event rate in the control group and a two-sided Type 1 error rate of 4.9%. Two interim analyses will be performed, after inclusion of 200 and 400 patients, respectively.The HYPERION trial is a multicenter, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, superiority trial that may provide an answer to an issue of everyday relevance, namely, whether TTM is beneficial in comatose patients resuscitated after nonshockable cardiac arrest. Furthermore, it will provide new data on the tolerance and adverse events (especially infectious complications) of TTM at 32.5-33.5°C.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01994772 .

Project description:BACKGROUND:Adolescent antisocial behaviour is a major health and social problem. Studies in the USA have shown that multisystemic therapy reduces such behaviour and the number of criminal offences committed by this group. However, findings outside the USA are equivocal. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multisystemic therapy versus management as usual in the treatment of adolescent antisocial behaviour. METHODS:We did an 18 month, multisite, pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial in England. Eligible participants aged 11-17 years with moderate-to-severe antisocial behaviour had at least three severity criteria indicating past difficulties across several settings and one of five general inclusion criteria for antisocial behaviour. We randomly assigned families (1:1) using stochastic minimisation, stratifying for treatment centre, sex, age at enrolment to study, and age at onset of antisocial behaviour, to receive either management as usual or 3-5 months of multisystemic therapy followed by management as usual. Research assistants and investigators were masked to treatment allocation; the participants could not be masked. The primary outcome was out-of-home placement at 18 months. The primary analysis included all randomised participants for whom data were available. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN77132214. Follow-up of the trial is still ongoing. FINDINGS:Between Feb 4, 2010, and Sept 1, 2012, 1076 families were referred to nine multi-agency panels, 684 of whom were assigned to management as usual (n=342) or multisystemic therapy followed by management as usual (n=342). At 18 months, the proportion of participants in out-of-home placement was not significantly different between the groups (13% [43/340] in the multisystemic therapy group vs 11% [36/335] in the management-as-usual group; odds ratio 1·25, 95% CI 0·77-2·05; p=0·37). INTERPRETATION:The findings do not support that multisystemic therapy should be used over management as usual as the intervention of choice for adolescents with moderate-to-severe antisocial behaviour. FUNDING:Department for Children, Schools and Families, Department of Health.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of community-based football compared to usual care in men with prostate cancer: Protocol for a randomised, controlled, parallel group, multicenter superiority trial (The FC Prostate Community Trial).

Publications

Effectiveness of community-based football compared to usual care in men with prostate cancer: Protocol for a randomised, controlled, parallel group, multicenter superiority trial (The FC Prostate Community Trial).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets