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
- PMID: 23271771
- PMCID: PMC3540866
- DOI: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgs041
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
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.
Figures
Similar articles
-
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.Contemp Clin Trials. 2009 Jan;30(1):81-7. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2008.08.002. Epub 2008 Aug 23. Contemp Clin Trials. 2009. PMID: 18783735 Clinical Trial.
-
Management of localised prostate cancer: watchful waiting, surgery or radiation therapy, depending on the natural course, which is often relatively slow.Prescrire Int. 2012 Oct;21(131):242-8. Prescrire Int. 2012. PMID: 23185849 Review.
-
The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial: a randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy versus expectant management for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.J Urol. 1994 Nov;152(5 Pt 2):1910-4. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)32413-8. J Urol. 1994. PMID: 7523736 Clinical Trial.
-
Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [Internet].Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2018 May. Report No.: 17-05229-EF-1. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2018 May. Report No.: 17-05229-EF-1. PMID: 30085502 Free Books & Documents. Review.
-
Generalizability of the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) Results to Contemporary North American Men with Prostate Cancer.Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):511-514. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.048. Epub 2016 Sep 13. Eur Urol. 2017. PMID: 27638094
Cited by
-
Clinical Outcomes for Patients with Gleason Score 9-10 Prostate Adenocarcinoma Treated With Radiotherapy or Radical Prostatectomy: A Multi-institutional Comparative Analysis.Eur Urol. 2017 May;71(5):766-773. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.046. Epub 2016 Jul 21. Eur Urol. 2017. PMID: 27452951 Free PMC article.
-
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.Contemp Clin Trials. 2015 May;42:26-40. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2015.02.008. Epub 2015 Mar 3. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015. PMID: 25749312 Free PMC article.
-
The concordance between the volume hotspot and the grade hotspot: a 3-D reconstructive model using the pathology outputs from the PROMIS trial.Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016 Sep;19(3):258-63. doi: 10.1038/pcan.2016.7. Epub 2016 Jul 12. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016. PMID: 27401032 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jun 4;6(6):CD006590. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006590.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020. PMID: 32495338 Free PMC article.
-
Designing Normative Messages About Active Surveillance for Men With Localized Prostate Cancer.J Health Commun. 2015;20(9):1014-20. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2015.1018618. Epub 2015 Jun 11. J Health Commun. 2015. PMID: 26066011 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62(1):10–29 - PubMed
-
- Healthcare cost and utilization project (US). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Web site. http://www.ahrq.gov/data/hcup/Accessed December 2006. - PubMed
-
- Wilt TJ, MacDonald R, Rutks I, Shamliyan TA, Taylor BC, Kane RL. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and harms of treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(6):435–448 - PubMed
-
- Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G, et al. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. American Urological Association Education and Research Web site: http://www.auanet.org/content/guidelines-and-quality-care/clinical-guide...Accessed October 17, 2012
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous