Literature DB >> 23271771

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 with watchful waiting for men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

Timothy J Wilt1.   

Abstract

Prostate cancer is the most common noncutaneous malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer death in men. In the United States, 90% of men with prostate cancer are more than age 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 (WW), 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 because of the paucity of randomized controlled trials. The Department of Veterans Affairs/National Cancer Institute/Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Cooperative Studies Program Study #407:Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT), initiated in 1994, is a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing radical prostatectomy with WW in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. 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 vs WW conducted in Scandinavia. We screened 13 022 men with prostate cancer at 52 US 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 that they were fully active. The median PSA was 7.8ng/mL (mean 10.2ng/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, it was found that approximately 40% had low-risk, 34% had medium-risk, and 21% had high-risk prostate cancer based on local histopathology. 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 United States and quite different from men in the Scandinavian trial. 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 with WW for men with predominately PSA-detected clinically localized prostate cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23271771      PMCID: PMC3540866          DOI: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgs041

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr        ISSN: 1052-6773


  15 in total

Review 1.  Barriers to recruiting underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jean G Ford; Mollie W Howerton; Gabriel Y Lai; Tiffany L Gary; Shari Bolen; M Chris Gibbons; Jon Tilburt; Charles Baffi; Teerath Peter Tanpitukpongse; Renee F Wilson; Neil R Powe; Eric B Bass
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2008-01-15       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.

Authors:  M E Charlson; P Pompei; K L Ales; C R MacKenzie
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

3.  Radical prostatectomy versus expectant treatment for early carcinoma of the prostate. Twenty-three year follow-up of a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  P Iversen; P O Madsen; D K Corle
Journal:  Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl       Date:  1995

4.  Radical surgery versus radiotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate.

Authors:  D F Paulson; G H Lin; W Hinshaw; S Stephani
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1982-09       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Who is the average patient presenting with prostate cancer?

Authors:  Kirsten L Greene; Janet E Cowan; Matthew R Cooperberg; Maxwell V Meng; Janeen DuChane; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  Cancer statistics, 2012.

Authors:  Rebecca Siegel; Deepa Naishadham; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2012-01-04       Impact factor: 508.702

7.  Quality of life after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting.

Authors:  Gunnar Steineck; Fred Helgesen; Jan Adolfsson; Paul W Dickman; Jan-Erik Johansson; Bo Johan Norlén; Lars Holmberg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-09-12       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  6-month androgen suppression plus radiation therapy vs radiation therapy alone for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Anthony V D'Amico; Judith Manola; Marian Loffredo; Andrew A Renshaw; Alyssa DellaCroce; Philip W Kantoff
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-08-18       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Who can best recruit to randomized trials? Randomized trial comparing surgeons and nurses recruiting patients to a trial of treatments for localized prostate cancer (the ProtecT study).

Authors:  Jenny L Donovan; Tim J Peters; Sian Noble; Philip Powell; David Gillatt; Steven E Oliver; J Athene Lane; David E Neal; Freddie C Hamdy
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 6.437

10.  Patient satisfaction with treatment decisions for clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study.

Authors:  Richard M Hoffman; William C Hunt; Frank D Gilliland; Robert A Stephenson; Arnold L Potosky
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2003-04-01       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  14 in total

Review 1.  Conceptual review of key themes in treating prostate cancer in older adults.

Authors:  Ramy Sedhom; Arjun Gupta
Journal:  J Geriatr Oncol       Date:  2019-11-05       Impact factor: 3.599

2.  Designing Normative Messages About Active Surveillance for Men With Localized Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Robert J Volk; Gianna T Kinsman; Yen-Chi L Le; Paul Swank; Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby; Stephanie L McFall; Theresa L Byrd; Patricia Dolan Mullen; Scott B Cantor
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2015-06-11

3.  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

4.  Effectiveness of Rotating Shield Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer Dose Escalation and Urethral Sparing.

Authors:  Quentin Adams; Karolyn M Hopfensperger; Yusung Kim; Xiaodong Wu; Weiyu Xu; Hemant Shukla; James McGee; Joseph M Caster; Ryan T Flynn
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2018-08-06       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 5.  Interventional therapy in malignant conditions of the prostate.

Authors:  Attila Kovács; Michael Pinkawa
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 0.635

6.  Updates on the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Anne Gasnier; Nassim Parvizi
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-05-30       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Variation in serum prostate-specific antigen levels in men with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance.

Authors:  Behfar Ehdaie; Bing Ying Poon; Daniel D Sjoberg; Pedro Recabal; Vincent Laudone; Karim Touijer; James Eastham; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 5.588

8.  Association Between Choice of Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy, Brachytherapy, or Active Surveillance and Patient-Reported Quality of Life Among Men With Localized Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Ronald C Chen; Ramsankar Basak; Anne-Marie Meyer; Tzy-Mey Kuo; William R Carpenter; Robert P Agans; James R Broughman; Bryce B Reeve; Matthew E Nielsen; Deborah S Usinger; Kiayni C Spearman; Sarah Walden; Dianne Kaleel; Mary Anderson; Til Stürmer; Paul A Godley
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2017-03-21       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  PROMIS--Prostate MR imaging study: A paired validating cohort study evaluating the role of multi-parametric MRI in men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer.

Authors:  A El-Shater Bosaily; C Parker; L C Brown; R Gabe; R G Hindley; R Kaplan; M Emberton; H U Ahmed
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2015-03-03       Impact factor: 2.226

10.  Design and preliminary recruitment results of the Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer (CAP).

Authors:  E L Turner; C Metcalfe; J L Donovan; S Noble; J A C Sterne; J A Lane; K N Avery; L Down; E Walsh; M Davis; Y Ben-Shlomo; S E Oliver; S Evans; P Brindle; N J Williams; L J Hughes; E M Hill; C Davies; S Y Ng; D E Neal; F C Hamdy; R M Martin
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2014-05-27       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.