Full Text View
Tabular View
No Study Results Posted
Related Studies
Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT):A Randomized Trial Comparing Radical Prostatectomy Versus Palliative Expectant Management for the Treatment of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer
This study is ongoing, but not recruiting participants.
Study NCT00007644   Information provided by Department of Veterans Affairs
First Received: December 29, 2000   Last Updated: October 8, 2009   History of Changes

December 29, 2000
October 8, 2009
June 1994
January 2010   (final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
All Cause Mortality [ Time Frame: Annual ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
Same as current
Complete list of historical versions of study NCT00007644 on ClinicalTrials.gov Archive Site
 
 
 
Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT):A Randomized Trial Comparing Radical Prostatectomy Versus Palliative Expectant Management for the Treatment of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer
CSP #407 - Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT): A Randomized Trial Comparing Radical Prostatectomy Versus Palliative Expectant Management for the Treatment of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer

Radical prostatectomy provides potentially curative removal of the cancer. However, it subjects patients to the morbidity and mortality of the surgery and may be neither necessary nor effective. Expectant management does not offer potential cure. However, it provides palliative therapy for symptomatic or metastatic disease progression, avoids potentially excessive and morbid interventions in asymptomatic patients, and emphasizes management approaches for focus on relieving symptoms while minimizing therapeutic complications.

The primary objective of this study is to determine which of two strategies is superior for the management of clinically localized CAP: 1) radical prostatectomy with early aggressive intervention for disease persistence or recurrence, 2) expectant management with reservation of therapy for palliative treatment of symptomatic or metastatic disease progression. Outcomes include total mortality, CAP mortality, disease free and progression free survival, morbidity, quality of life, and cost effectiveness.

Primary Hypothesis: To determine whether radical prostatectomy or expectant management is more effective in reducing mortality and extending life.

Secondary Hypothesis: To determine which treatment strategy is superior in terms of prostate specific cancer mortality, quality of life, occurrence or recurrence of symptoms and need for cancer treatment.

Intervention: 1) Radical prostatectomy, plus intervention for evidence of disease persistence or recurrence, 2) Expectant management with palliative therapy reserved for symptomatic or metastatic disease progression.

Primary Outcomes: All cause mortality.

Study Abstract: Cancer of the prostate (CAP) is the most common nondermatologic and the second most frequent cause of cancer deaths in men. No cure is currently possible for disseminated disease. Cancer confined to the prostate is believed to be curable, with the most frequently recommended therapy being surgical extirpation of the tumor with radical prostatectomy. However, despite increasing cancer detection and aggressive surgical treatment, population-based mortality rates from prostate cancer have not decreased, neither nationally nor in states with high rates of radical prostatectomy. Existing evidence does not demonstrate the superiority of this procedure compared to expectant management in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Data from case series suggest that either treatment approach provides equivalent all-cause as well as prostate cancer specific mortality. The only randomized trial was limited by a small sample size but the results favored expectant management.

Radical prostatectomy provides potentially curative removal of the cancer. However, it subjects patients to the morbidity and mortality of the surgery and may be neither necessary nor effective. Expectant management does not offer potential cure. However, it provides palliative therapy for symptomatic or metastatic disease progression, avoids potentially excessive and morbid interventions in asymptomatic patients, and emphasizes management approaches for focus on relieving symptoms while minimizing therapeutic complications.

The primary objective of this study is to determine which of two strategies is superior for the management of clinically localized CAP: 1) radical prostatectomy with early aggressive intervention for disease persistence or recurrence, 2) expectant management with reservation of therapy for palliative treatment of symptomatic or metastatic disease progression. Outcomes include total mortality, CAP mortality, disease free and progression free survival, morbidity, quality of life, and cost effectiveness.

Phase III
Interventional
Treatment, Randomized, Open Label, Active Control, Parallel Assignment, Safety/Efficacy Study
Prostate Cancer
  • Procedure: Radical prostatectomy
  • Procedure: Expectant management with palliative therapy
  • Other: Radical Prostatectomy
  • No Intervention: Watchful Waiting
 

*   Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by National Clinical Trials Identifier (NCT ID) in Medline.
 
Active, not recruiting
731
January 2010
January 2010   (final data collection date for primary outcome measure)

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Patients with clinically localized CAP
  • Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer within previous 6 months
  • Age 75 years or younger

Exclusion Criteria:

Male
up to 75 Years
No
Contact information is only displayed when the study is recruiting subjects
United States
 
NCT00007644
Wilt, Timothy - Study Chair, Department of Veterans Affairs
407
Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
  • National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Study Chair: Timothy James Wilt, MD MPH Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center
Department of Veterans Affairs
October 2009

ICMJE     Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP