4.1 Article

A randomized trial of diet in men with early stage prostate cancer on active surveillance: Rationale and design of the Men's Eating and Living (MEAL) Study (CALGB 70807 [Alliance])

期刊

CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS
卷 38, 期 2, 页码 198-203

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2014.05.002

关键词

Diet; Prostate cancer; Outcomes; Active surveillance; Carotenoids; Nutrition

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [1R01 CA132951-01A1, CA31946, CA33601]
  2. U.S. Department of Defense [PC073412]
  3. Prostate Cancer Foundation Creativity Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Diet may substantially alter prostate cancer initiation and progression. However, large-scale clinical trials of diet modification have yet to be performed for prostate cancer. The Men's Eating and Living (MEAL) Study (CALGB 70807 [Alliance]) is investigating the effect of increased vegetable consumption on clinical progression in men with localized prostate cancer. Study design: MEAL is a randomized, phase III clinical trial designed to test whether an intervention that increases vegetable intake will decrease the incidence of clinical progression in men with clinically localized prostate cancer on active surveillance. We are randomizing 464 patients to either a validated telephone-based diet counseling intervention or a control condition in which patients receive a published diet guideline. The intervention will continue for two years. The primary outcome variable is clinical progression defined by serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and pathological findings on follow-up prostate biopsy. Secondary outcome variables include incidence of surgical and non-surgical treatments for prostate cancer, prostate-cancer related patient anxiety and health-related quality of life. Conclusion: The MEAL Study is assessing the effectiveness of a high-vegetable diet intervention for preventing clinical progression in men with localized prostate cancer on active surveillance. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.1
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