RESUMO
Background: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positron emission tomography/contrast-enhanced computed tomography (PET/CT) is a sensitive imaging modality for prostate cancer (PCa). Due to lack of knowledge of the patient benefit, PSMA-PET/CT is not yet recommended in the European guidelines for staging and treatment planning of patients with newly diagnosed PCa. We will investigate the potential difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and quality of life (QoL) of using PSMA-PET/CT versus sodium fluoride (NaF)-PET/CT for staging and treatment planning in patients with newly diagnosed PCa. Study Design: This is a prospective randomised controlled multicentre trial carried out at three centres in the Region of Southern Denmark. Endpoints: The primary endpoint is PFS. Secondary endpoints are residual disease, stage migration, impact on treatment strategies, stage distribution, QoL and diagnostic accuracy measures. Patients and Methods: Patients eligible for the study have newly diagnosed unfavourable intermediate- or high-risk PCa. A total of 448 patients will be randomised 1:1 into two groups: (A) a control group staged with Na[18F]F-PET/CT and (B) an intervention group staged with [18F]PSMA-1007-PET/CT. A subgroup in the intervention group will have a supplementary blinded Na[18F]F-PET/CT performed for the purpose of performing accuracy analyses. QoL will be assessed at baseline and with regular intervals (3-12 months) during the study period. Treatment decisions are achieved at multidisciplinary team conferences based on the results of the respective scans and according to current Danish guidelines. Trial Registration: The Regional Committees on Health Research Ethics for Southern Denmark (S-20190161) and the Danish Medicines Agency (EudraCT Number 2021-000123-12) approved the study, and it has been registered on clinicaltrials.gov (Record 2020110469).
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Skeletal 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. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and potential benefits of high-impact aerobic exercise in patients with prostate cancer with skeletal metastases. DESIGN: Exploratory subgroup analysis of a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel randomised controlled trial. SETTING: The trial recruited 214 patients from five hospital urological departments in Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with prostate cancer with skeletal metastases (n = 41). INTERVENTION: Six 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). RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSION: The 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 REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02430792 . Date of registration 30 April 2015.
RESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Exercício Físico , Neoplasias da Próstata/epidemiologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/reabilitação , Futebol , Acidentes por Quedas/prevenção & controle , Idoso , Densidade Óssea , Dinamarca , Terapia por Exercício , Seguimentos , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Admissão do Paciente , Neoplasias da Próstata/psicologia , Qualidade de Vida , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
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.