MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing of patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer as screening for vigorous exercise medicine prescription.

2023· article· en· W4385547932 on OpenAlexaff
Robert U. Newton, Nicolas H. Hart, Stacey A. Kenfield, Daniel A. Galvão, Kerry S. Courneya, Charles M Ryan, June M. Chan, James W.F. Catto, Kerri M. Winters‐Stone, Mieke Van Hemelrijck, Harriet Wylie, Moritz Schumann, Tina L. Skinner, Stephan Praet, Fred Saad

Bibliographic record

VenueJCO Global Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Effects of Exercise
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversity of Alberta
FundersMovember Foundation
KeywordsMedicineCardiorespiratory fitnessProstate cancerPhysical therapyInternal medicineAdverse effectDiseaseCancerMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

80 Background: Exercise is recommended for patients with prostate cancer to manage treatment adverse effects, improve quality of life and potentially influence cancer-specific outcomes. Men with advanced prostate cancer and metastatic disease may be at increased risk of cardiac events due to their cancer treatment and comorbidities. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) for assessing cardiorespiratory capacity and risk screening of patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) prior to engaging in a vigorous program of exercise medicine. Methods: Experimental design was a cross-sectional analysis of screening CPET’s from a Phase III Randomised Controlled Trial (INTERVAL-GAP4) within the clinical setting involving men with mCRPC. Testing incorporated medically supervised, symptom limited, CPET with electrocardiogram (ECG) performed on a cycle ergometer until volitional exhaustion or maximal oxygen uptake peak (V0 2.PEAK ) attained. Outcome Measurements included safety (incidence and severity of adverse events), feasibility (completion of CPET) and efficacy (performance outcomes, screen-fails, and cardiac pathology). Descriptive statistics were calculated as mean and standard deviation. Results: 104 men (age 71.5 ± 8.4 years) with mCRPC completed a medically supervised CPET. Of these, 96 patients (92.3%) met the criterion for V0 2.PEAK attainment and were randomised to the INTERVAL-GAP4 trial, with 8 (7.7%) CPET screen-fails. Four positive cardiac abnormalities (3.8%) were observed, with these patients referred to a cardiologist for further assessment. Referred patients were all cleared to participate in vigorous exercise with no clinically significant cardiovascular disease or were determined to have newly diagnosed and subsequently controlled cardiovascular disease. Average V0 2.PEAK was 1.72 ± 0.51 L.min -1 absolute and 18.96 ± 5.30 mL.kg -1 .min -1 relative which is in the 10-15 th percentile for healthy men of this age. Maximal heart rate achieved was 141 ± 20 bpm at a maximal workload of 128 ± 40 W. There were no cardiac events or any other exercise-related adverse events during the testing. Conclusions: Maximal CPET is safe for men with advanced prostate cancer. CPET with ECG is also an effective cardiac stress screening tool prior to engaging in a vigorous exercise medicine program to detect underlying cardiovascular health issues. Further, results from CPET can be used to inform appropriate exercise prescription individualised to the patient. Clinical trial information: NCT02730338 .

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJCO Global OncologySame topicCardiovascular Effects of ExerciseFrench-language works237,207