Kerri M Winters-Stone1, Jessica C Dobek, Jill A Bennett, Gianni F Maddalozzo, Christopher W Ryan, Tomasz M Beer. 1. 1School of Nursing, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR; 2School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR; and 3Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR; 4Department of Exercise and Sport Science, School of Biologic and Population Health, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is associated with significant bone loss and an increase in fracture risk among prostate cancer survivors (PCS). We investigated whether impact + resistance training could stop ADT-related declines in bone mineral density (BMD) among PCS on ADT. METHODS: We randomized 51 PCS (mean age, 70.2 yr) currently prescribed ADT to participate in 1 yr of impact + resistance training (Prevent Osteoporosis with Impact + Resistance (POWIR)) or in an exercise placebo program of stretching exercise (FLEX). Outcomes were proximal femur (total hip, femoral neck, and greater trochanter) and spine (L1-L4) BMD (g·cm) and bone turnover markers (serum osteocalcin (ng·mL) and urinary deoxypyrodinoline cross-links (nmol·mmol Cr)). RESULTS: Retention in the 1-yr study was 84% and median attendance to supervised classes was 84% in POWIR and 74% in FLEX. No study-related injuries were reported. There were no significant differences between groups for average L1-L4 BMD or for BMD at any hip site. When examining individual vertebrae, POWIR has a significant effect on preservation of BMD (-0.4%) at the L4 vertebrae compared with losses (-3.1%) in FLEX (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION:Impact + resistance training was a safe and acceptable form of exercise for older PCS on ADT. Among our limited sample, POWIR did not appear to have a clinically meaningful effect on hip or spine BMD, but some evidence of skeletal adaptation to resistance + impact training in an androgen-deprived state was apparent. Future studies need to be conducted on a larger sample of patients and should consider modifications to POWIR that could further enhance loading across the spine and at the hip to preserve BMD at these clinically relevant sites.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is associated with significant bone loss and an increase in fracture risk among prostate cancer survivors (PCS). We investigated whether impact + resistance training could stop ADT-related declines in bone mineral density (BMD) among PCS on ADT. METHODS: We randomized 51 PCS (mean age, 70.2 yr) currently prescribed ADT to participate in 1 yr of impact + resistance training (Prevent Osteoporosis with Impact + Resistance (POWIR)) or in an exercise placebo program of stretching exercise (FLEX). Outcomes were proximal femur (total hip, femoral neck, and greater trochanter) and spine (L1-L4) BMD (g·cm) and bone turnover markers (serum osteocalcin (ng·mL) and urinary deoxypyrodinoline cross-links (nmol·mmol Cr)). RESULTS: Retention in the 1-yr study was 84% and median attendance to supervised classes was 84% in POWIR and 74% in FLEX. No study-related injuries were reported. There were no significant differences between groups for average L1-L4 BMD or for BMD at any hip site. When examining individual vertebrae, POWIR has a significant effect on preservation of BMD (-0.4%) at the L4 vertebrae compared with losses (-3.1%) in FLEX (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Impact + resistance training was a safe and acceptable form of exercise for older PCS on ADT. Among our limited sample, POWIR did not appear to have a clinically meaningful effect on hip or spine BMD, but some evidence of skeletal adaptation to resistance + impact training in an androgen-deprived state was apparent. Future studies need to be conducted on a larger sample of patients and should consider modifications to POWIR that could further enhance loading across the spine and at the hip to preserve BMD at these clinically relevant sites.
Authors: Neil Binkley; John P Bilezikian; David L Kendler; Edward S Leib; E Michael Lewiecki; Steven M Petak Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Matthew R Smith; Won Chan Lee; Jane Brandman; Qin Wang; Marc Botteman; Chris L Pashos Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Daniel A Galvão; Kazunori Nosaka; Dennis R Taaffe; Nigel Spry; Linda J Kristjanson; Michael R McGuigan; Katsuhiko Suzuki; Kanemitsu Yamaya; Robert U Newton Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Jacob Uth; Therese Hornstrup; Jesper F Christensen; Karl B Christensen; Niklas R Jørgensen; Eva W Helge; Jakob F Schmidt; Klaus Brasso; Jørn W Helge; Markus D Jakobsen; Lars L Andersen; Mikael Rørth; Julie Midtgaard; Peter Krustrup Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: T Hasenoehrl; M Keilani; T Sedghi Komanadj; M Mickel; M Margreiter; M Marhold; R Crevenna Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-05-24 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kerri M Winters-Stone; Karen S Lyons; Jessica Dobek; Nathan F Dieckmann; Jill A Bennett; Lillian Nail; Tomasz M Beer Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: J Uth; T Hornstrup; J F Christensen; K B Christensen; N R Jørgensen; J F Schmidt; K Brasso; M D Jakobsen; E Sundstrup; L L Andersen; M Rørth; J Midtgaard; P Krustrup; E W Helge Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2015-11-16 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Kerri M Winters-Stone; Jessica C Dobek; Jill A Bennett; Nathan F Dieckmann; Gianni F Maddalozzo; Christopher W Ryan; Tomasz M Beer Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Arif Hussain; Abhishek Tripathi; Christopher Pieczonka; Diane Cope; Andrea McNatty; Christopher Logothetis; Theresa Guise Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 5.455