Randomized Controlled Trial of Resistance or Aerobic Exercise in Men Receiving Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PCa) may cause unfavorable changes in fatigue, quality of life (QOL), and physical fitness. We report results from the Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy and Exercise Versus Normal Treatment study examining the effects of 24 weeks of resistance or aerobic training versus usual care on fatigue, QOL, physical fitness, body composition, prostate-specific antigen, testosterone, hemoglobin, and lipid levels in men with PCa receiving radiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2003 and 2006, we conducted a randomized controlled trial in Ottawa, Canada, where 121 PCa patients initiating radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy were randomly assigned to usual care (n = 41), resistance (n = 40), or aerobic exercise (n = 40) for 24 weeks. Our primary end point was fatigue assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue scale. RESULTS: The follow-up assessment rate for our primary end point of fatigue was 92.6%. Median adherence to prescribed exercise was 85.5%. Mixed-model repeated measures analyses indicated both resistance (P =.010) and aerobic exercise (P = .004) mitigated fatigue over the short term. Resistance exercise also produced longer-term improvements (P = .002). Compared with usual care, resistance training improved QOL (P = .015), aerobic fitness (P = .041), upper- (P < .001) and lower-body (P < .001) strength, and triglycerides (P = .036), while preventing an increase in body fat (P = .049). Aerobic training also improved fitness (P = .052). One serious adverse event occurred in the group that performed aerobic exercise. CONCLUSION: In the short term, both resistance and aerobic exercise mitigated fatigue in men with PCa receiving radiotherapy. Resistance exercise generated longer-term improvements and additional benefits for QOL, strength, triglycerides, and body fat.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".