4.5 Article

Total energy expenditure and vigorous-intensity physical activity are associated with reduced odds of reclassification among men on active surveillance

Journal

PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES
Volume 21, Issue 2, Pages 187-195

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41391-017-0010-0

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Research examining the association between physical activity (PA) and prostate cancer (PCa) has accumulated; however, few studies have examined this association in the context of active surveillance. The current study examines this among men initially diagnosed with favorable-risk PCa and managed by active surveillance at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Canada and the Royal Marsden Hospital in the United Kingdom. Methods Participants completed a questionnaire on daily participation in non-leisure, transport, and recreational PA. A logistic regression was employed using PA as the independent variable and whether the patient reclassified to higher-risk PCa while on active surveillance as the dependent variable. Demographic and lifestyle covariates were incorporated in the analysis to assess potential confounding and effect modification. Results Men from both hospitals presented with similar clinical and demographic characteristics. Total PA was inversely associated with odds of reclassification while on active surveillance (p-trend = 0.027). A weaker inverse association was observed with recreational PA (p-trend = 0.30). Men who participated in weekly vigorous PA were less likely to reclassify than those who did not (odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 0.42 (0.20-0.85)). Conclusions Total and vigorous PA were inversely associated with odds of reclassification in two active surveillance cohorts. Given the limitations of this study, more robust prospective observational studies involving objective PA measures are warranted to confirm findings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available