Dataset Information

Exercise training as a novel primary treatment for localised prostate cancer: a multi-site randomised controlled phase II study.

ABSTRACT: Alternative management strategies for localised prostate cancer are required to reduce morbidity and overtreatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety and acceptability of exercise training (ET) with behavioural support as a primary therapy for low/intermediate risk localised prostate cancer. Men with low/intermediate-risk prostate cancer were randomised to 12 months of ET or usual care with physical activity advice (UCwA) in a multi-site open label RCT. Feasibility included acceptability, recruitment, retention, adherence, adverse events and disease progression. Secondary outcomes included quality of life and cardiovascular health indices. Of the 50 men randomised to ET (n?=?25) or UCwA (n?=?25), 92% (n?=?46) completed 12 month assessments. Three men progressed to invasive therapy (two in UCwA). In the ET group, men completed mean: 140?mins per week for 12 months (95% CI 129,152?mins) (94% of target dose) at 75% Hrmax. Men in the ET group demonstrated improved body mass (mean reduction: 2.0?kg; 95% CI -2.9,-1.1), reduced systolic (mean: 13?mmHg; 95%CI 7,19) and diastolic blood pressure (mean:8?mmHg; 95% CI 5,12) and improved quality of life (EQ.5D mean:13 points; 95% CI 7,18). There were no serious adverse events. ET in men with low/intermediate risk prostate cancer is feasible and acceptable with a low progression rate to radical treatment. Early signals on clinically relevant markers were found which warrant further investigation.

SUBMITTER: Bourke L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5976628 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exercise training as a novel primary treatment for localised prostate cancer: a multi-site randomised controlled phase II study.

Bourke L L Stevenson R R Turner R R Hooper R R Sasieni P P Greasley R R Morrissey D D Loosemore M M Fisher A A Payne H H Taylor S J C SJC Rosario D J DJ

Scientific reports 20180530 1

Alternative management strategies for localised prostate cancer are required to reduce morbidity and overtreatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety and acceptability of exercise training (ET) with behavioural support as a primary therapy for low/intermediate risk localised prostate cancer. Men with low/intermediate-risk prostate cancer were randomised to 12 months of ET or usual care with physical activity advice (UCwA) in a multi-site open label RCT. Feasibility in ...[more]

PMID: 29849032

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Despite the development of new therapies for advanced prostate cancer, it remains the most common cause of cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in men. It is critical to develop novel agents for the treatment of prostate cancer, particularly those that target aspects of androgen receptor (AR) signalling or prostate biology other than inhibition of androgen synthesis or AR binding. Neoadjuvant pharmacodynamic studies allow for a rational approach to the decisions regarding which targeted therapies should progress to phase II/III trials. CDK4/6 inhibitors have evidence of efficacy in breast cancer, and have been shown to have activity in preclinical models of hormone sensitive and castrate resistant prostate cancer. The LEEP trial aims to assess the pharmacodynamic effects of LEE011 (ribociclib), an orally bioavailable and highly selective CDK4/6 inhibitor, in men undergoing radical prostatectomy for high-risk, localised prostate cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The multicentre randomised, controlled 4:1 two-arm, phase II, open label pharmacodynamic study will recruit 47 men with high risk, localised prostate cancer who are planned to undergo radical prostatectomy. Participants who are randomised to receive the study treatment will be treated with LEE011 400?mg daily for 21 days for one cycle. The primary endpoint is the frequency of a 50% reduction in Ki-67 proliferation index from the pretreatment prostate biopsy compared to that present in prostate cancer tissue from radical prostatectomy. Secondary and tertiary endpoints include pharmacodynamic assessment of CDK4/6?cell cycle progression via E2F levels, apoptotic cell death by cleaved caspase-3, changes in serum and tumour levels of Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA), pathological regression, safety via incidence of adverse events and exploratory biomarker analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The protocol was approved by a central ethics review committee (St Vincent's Hospital HREC) for all participating sites (HREC/17/SVH/294). Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific conferences. DRUG SUPPLY:Novartis. PROTOCOL VERSION:2.0, 30 May 2019 TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618000354280).

Project description:IntroductionNon-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) accounts for about 75% of newly diagnosed bladder cancers. The treatment for NMIBC involves surgical removal of the tumour followed by 6 weekly instillations of immunotherapy or chemotherapy directly into the bladder (ie, intravesical therapy). NMIBC has a high rate of recurrence (31%-78%) and progression (15%). Moreover, bladder cancer and its treatment may affect patient functioning and quality of life. Exercise is a safe and effective intervention for many patient with cancer groups, however, no studies have examined exercise during intravesical therapy for NMIBC. The primary objective of the Bladder cancer and exeRcise trAining during intraVesical thErapy (BRAVE) trial is to examine the safety and feasibility of an exercise intervention in patients with bladder cancer undergoing intravesical therapy. The secondary objectives are to investigate the preliminary efficacy of exercise on health-related fitness and patient-reported outcomes; examine the social cognitive predictors of exercise adherence; and explore the potential effects of exercise on tumour recurrence and progression.Methods and analysisBRAVE is a phase II randomised controlled trial that aims to include 66 patients with NMIBC scheduled to receive intravesical therapy. Participants will be randomly assigned to the exercise intervention or usual care. The intervention consists of three supervised, high-intensity interval training sessions per week for 12 weeks. Feasibility will be evaluated by eligibility, recruitment, adherence and attrition rates. Preliminary efficacy will focus on changes in cardiorespiratory fitness and patient-reported outcomes from baseline (prior to intravesical therapy) to pre-cystoscopy (3 months). Cancer outcomes will be tracked at 3 months, and 1-year follow-up by cystoscopy. Analysis of covariance will compare between-group differences at post-intervention (pre-cystoscopy) for all health-related fitness and patient-reported outcomes.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the Health Research Ethics Board of Alberta-Cancer Committee (#20-0184). Dissemination will include publication and presentations at scientific conferences and public channels.Trial registration numberNCT04593862; Pre-results.

Project description:UnlabelledWHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: Multiple treatment alternatives exist for localised prostate cancer, with few high-quality studies directly comparing their comparative effectiveness and costs. The present study is the most comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis to date for localised prostate cancer, conducted with a lifetime horizon and accounting for survival, health-related quality-of-life, and cost impact of secondary treatments and other downstream events, as well as primary treatment choices. The analysis found minor differences, generally slightly favouring surgical methods, in quality-adjusted life years across treatment options. However, radiation therapy (RT) was consistently more expensive than surgery, and some alternatives, e.g. intensity-modulated RT for low-risk disease, were dominated - that is, both more expensive and less effective than competing alternatives.ObjectiveTo characterise the costs and outcomes associated with radical prostatectomy (open, laparoscopic, or robot-assisted) and radiation therapy (RT: dose-escalated three-dimensional conformal RT, intensity-modulated RT, brachytherapy, or combination), using a comprehensive, lifetime decision analytical model.Patients and methodsA Markov model was constructed to follow hypothetical men with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk prostate cancer over their lifetimes after primary treatment; probabilities of outcomes were based on an exhaustive literature search yielding 232 unique publications. In each Markov cycle, patients could have remission, recurrence, salvage treatment, metastasis, death from prostate cancer, and death from other causes. Utilities for each health state were determined, and disutilities were applied for complications and toxicities of treatment. Costs were determined from the USA payer perspective, with incorporation of patient costs in a sensitivity analysis.ResultsDifferences across treatments in quality-adjusted life years across methods were modest, ranging from 10.3 to 11.3 for low-risk patients, 9.6-10.5 for intermediate-risk patients and 7.8-9.3 for high-risk patients. There were no statistically significant differences among surgical methods, which tended to be more effective than RT methods, with the exception of combined external beam + brachytherapy for high-risk disease. RT methods were consistently more expensive than surgical methods; costs ranged from $19?901 (robot-assisted prostatectomy for low-risk disease) to $50?276 (combined RT for high-risk disease). These findings were robust to an extensive set of sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsOur analysis found small differences in outcomes and substantial differences in payer and patient costs across treatment alternatives. These findings may inform future policy discussions about strategies to improve efficiency of treatment selection for localised prostate cancer.

Project description:BackgroundThe NRG/RTOG 9413 study showed that whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) plus neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT) improved progression-free survival in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk localised prostate cancer compared with prostate only radiotherapy (PORT) plus NHT, WPRT plus adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT), and PORT plus AHT. We provide a long-term update after 10 years of follow-up of the primary endpoint (progression-free survival) and report on the late toxicities of treatment.MethodsThe trial was designed as a 2 × 2 factorial study with hormonal sequencing as one stratification factor and radiation field as the other factor and tested whether NHT improved progression-free survival versus AHT, and NHT plus WPRT versus NHT plus PORT. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed, clinically localised adenocarcinoma of the prostate, an estimated risk of lymph node involvement of more than 15% and a Karnofsky performance status of more than 70, with no age limitations. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) by permuted block randomisation to receive either NHT 2 months before and during WPRT followed by a prostate boost to 70 Gy (NHT plus WPRT group), NHT 2 months before and during PORT to 70 Gy (NHT plus PORT group), WPRT followed by 4 months of AHT (WPRT plus AHT group), or PORT followed by 4 months of AHT (PORT plus AHT group). Hormonal therapy was combined androgen suppression, consisting of goserelin acetate 3·6 mg once a month subcutaneously or leuprolide acetate 7·5 mg once a month intramuscularly, and flutamide 250 mg twice a day orally for 4 months. Randomisation was stratified by T stage, Gleason Score, and prostate-specific antigen concentration. NHT was given 2 months before radiotherapy and was continued until radiotherapy completion; AHT was given at the completion of radiotherapy for 4 months. The primary endpoint progression-free survival was analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00769548. The trial has been terminated to additional follow-up collection and this is the final analysis for this trial.FindingsBetween April 1, 1995, and June 1, 1999, 1322 patients were enrolled from 53 centres and randomly assigned to the four treatment groups. With a median follow-up of 8·8 years (IQR 5·07-13·84) for all patients and 14·8 years (7·18-17·4) for living patients (n=346), progression-free survival across all timepoints continued to differ significantly across the four treatment groups (p=0·002). The 10-year estimates of progression-free survival were 28·4% (95% CI 23·3-33·6) in the NHT plus WPRT group, 23·5% (18·7-28·3) in the NHT plus PORT group, 19·4% (14·9-24·0) in the WPRT plus AHT group, and 30·2% (25·0-35·4) in the PORT plus AHT group. Bladder toxicity was the most common grade 3 or worse late toxicity, affecting 18 (6%) of 316 patients in the NHT plus WPRT group, 17 (5%) of 313 in the NHT plus PORT group, 22 (7%) of 317 in the WPRT plus AHT group, and 14 (4%) of 315 in the PORT plus AHT group. Late grade 3 or worse gastrointestinal adverse events occurred in 22 (7%) of 316 patients in the NHT plus WPRT group, five (2%) of 313 in the NHT plus PORT group, ten (3%) of 317 in the WPRT plus AHT group, and seven (2%) of 315 in the PORT plus AHT group.InterpretationIn this cohort of patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer, NHT plus WPRT improved progression-free survival compared with NHT plus PORT and WPRT plus AHT at long-term follow-up albeit increased risk of grade 3 or worse intestinal toxicity. Interactions between radiotherapy and hormonal therapy suggests that WPRT should be avoided without NHT.FundingNational Cancer Institute.

Dataset Information

Exercise training as a novel primary treatment for localised prostate cancer: a multi-site randomised controlled phase II study.

Publications

Exercise training as a novel primary treatment for localised prostate cancer: a multi-site randomised controlled phase II study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets