Literature DB >> 18783735

The Prostate cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial:VA/NCI/AHRQ Cooperative Studies Program #407 (PIVOT): design and baseline results of a randomized controlled trial comparing radical prostatectomy to watchful waiting for men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

Timothy J Wilt1, Michael K Brawer, Michael J Barry, Karen M Jones, Young Kwon, Jeffrey R Gingrich, William J Aronson, Imad Nsouli, Padmini Iyer, Ruben Cartagena, Glenn Snider, Claus Roehrborn, Steven Fox.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most common noncutaneous malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer death in men. Ninety percent of men with prostate cancer are over aged 60 years, diagnosed by early detection with the prostate specific antigen (PSA) blood test and have disease believed confined to the prostate gland (clinically localized). Common treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer include watchful waiting surgery to remove the prostate gland (radical prostatectomy), external beam radiation therapy and interstitial radiation therapy (brachytherapy) and androgen deprivation. Little is known about the relative effectiveness and harms of treatments due to the paucity of randomized controlled trials. The VA/NCI/AHRQ Cooperative Studies Program Study #407: Prostate cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT), initiated in 1994, is a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing radical prostatectomy to watchful waiting in men with clinically localized prostate cancer.
METHODS: We describe the study rationale, design, recruitment methods and baseline characteristics of PIVOT enrollees. We provide comparisons with eligible men declining enrollment and men participating in another recently reported randomized trial of radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting conducted in Scandinavia.
RESULTS: We screened 13,022 men with prostate cancer at 52 United States medical centers for potential enrollment. From these, 5023 met initial age, comorbidity and disease eligibility criteria and a total of 731 men agreed to participate and were randomized. The mean age of enrollees was 67 years. Nearly one-third were African-American. Approximately 85% reported they were fully active. The median prostate specific antigen (PSA) was 7.8 ng/mL (mean 10.2 ng/mL). In three-fourths of men the primary reason for biopsy leading to a diagnosis of prostate cancer was a PSA elevation or rise. Using previously developed tumor risk categorizations incorporating PSA levels, Gleason histologic grade and tumor stage, approximately 43% had low risk, 36% had medium risk and 20% had high-risk prostate cancer. Comparison to our national sample of eligible men declining PIVOT participation as well as to men enrolled in the Scandinavian trial indicated that PIVOT enrollees are representative of men being diagnosed and treated in the U.S. and quite different from men in the Scandinavian trial.
CONCLUSIONS: PIVOT enrolled an ethnically diverse population representative of men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the United States. Results will yield important information regarding the relative effectiveness and harms of surgery compared to watchful waiting for men with predominately PSA detected clinically localized prostate cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18783735     DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2008.08.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials        ISSN: 1551-7144            Impact factor:   2.226


  58 in total

Review 1.  Management of low (favourable)-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  H Ballentine Carter
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 2.  Comparative effectiveness research in urology.

Authors:  Amy T Wang; Jeffrey K Wang; Victor M Montori; Mohammad Hassan Murad
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2010-12-28       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Prostate-specific antigen screening can be beneficial to younger and at-risk men.

Authors:  Monique J Roobol; Chris H Bangma; Stacy Loeb
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2012-05-07       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 4.  The ABC model of prostate cancer: A conceptual framework for the design and interpretation of prognostic studies.

Authors:  Andreas Pettersson; Travis Gerke; Katja Fall; Yudi Pawitan; Lars Holmberg; Edward L Giovannucci; Philip W Kantoff; Hans-Olov Adami; Jennifer R Rider; Lorelei A Mucci
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  [Magnetic resonance tomography-guided interventional procedure for diagnosis of prostate cancer].

Authors:  M Schernthaner; T H Helbich; B J Fueger; M Margreiter; M Memarsadeghi; A Stiglbauer; H-G Linhart; A Doan; K Pinker; P Brader
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 0.635

6.  Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer.

Authors:  Robin Wm Vernooij; Michelle Lancee; Anne Cleves; Philipp Dahm; Chris H Bangma; Katja Kh Aben
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-06-04

7.  Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer?

Authors:  H Ballentine Carter; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; Bruce J Trock; Robert W Veltri; William G Nelson; Donald S Coffey; Eric A Singer; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-10-01       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 8.  Do surgical trials meet the scientific standards for clinical trials?

Authors:  Danielle M Wenner; Baruch A Brody; Anna F Jarman; Jacob M Kolman; Nelda P Wray; Carol M Ashton
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2012-07-21       Impact factor: 6.113

9.  Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Timothy J Wilt; Michael K Brawer; Karen M Jones; Michael J Barry; William J Aronson; Steven Fox; Jeffrey R Gingrich; John T Wei; Patricia Gilhooly; B Mayer Grob; Imad Nsouli; Padmini Iyer; Ruben Cartagena; Glenn Snider; Claus Roehrborn; Roohollah Sharifi; William Blank; Parikshit Pandya; Gerald L Andriole; Daniel Culkin; Thomas Wheeler
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-07-19       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 10.  Active surveillance or active treatment in localized prostate cancer?

Authors:  Lothar Weissbach; Jens Altwein
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2009-05-29       Impact factor: 5.594

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.