4.5 Article

The role of lifestyle characteristic on prostate dancer progression in two active surveillance cohorts

期刊

PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 305-310

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2016.22

关键词

-

资金

  1. Cancer Research UK [19727] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Although much research has examined the relationship between lifestyle and prostate cancer (PCa) risk, few studies focus on the relationship between lifestyle and PCa progression. The present study examines this relationship among men initially diagnosed with low- to intermediate-risk PCa and managed with active surveillance (AS). METHODS: Men enrolled in two separate AS programs were recruited for this study. Data regarding clinical, demographic and lifestyle characteristics were collected. Results were then compared between men whose disease remained low- to intermediate-risk and men whose disease progressed. RESULTS: Demographic, clinical and physical characteristics were similar between comparative groups and cohorts, with the exception that age at the time of diagnosis and questionnaire was increased among men whose disease progressed. Lifestyle scores among men who remained low- to intermediate-risk were higher than those whose risk progressed; however, scores were only significant in one cohort on univariable analysis. On multivariable analysis, the only predictor of progression was age at diagnosis. Physical activity was consistently higher in both low risk groups, although this difference was insignificant. Consistent differences in other lifestyle variables were not observed. CONCLUSIONS: Age remains an important predictor of PCa progression. Improving lifestyle characteristics among men initially managed with AS might help to reduce the risk of progression. Given the limitations of this study, more rigorous investigation is required to confirm whether lifestyle characteristics influence the progression of low- to intermediate-risk PCa.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据