Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT)

NCT ID: NCT00007644

Last Updated: 2020-02-24

Study Results

Results available

Outcome measurements, participant flow, baseline characteristics, and adverse events have been published for this study.

View full results

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

PHASE3

Total Enrollment

731 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

1994-11-30

Study Completion Date

2010-01-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

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.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

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.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Prostate Cancer

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Radical Prostatectomy

Surgical removal of the prostate

Group Type OTHER

Radical prostatectomy

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Surgical removal of the prostate

Watchful Waiting

Closely watching, waiting and treating symptoms if and when cancer progresses

Group Type NO_INTERVENTION

No interventions assigned to this group

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Radical prostatectomy

Surgical removal of the prostate

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

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

Exclusion Criteria

PSA \> 50 ng/ml Bone scan consistent with metastatic disease Other evidence that cancer of the prostate is not clinically localized Diagnosis of prostate cancer greater than 12 months ago Life expectancy less than 10 years Serum creatinine greater than 3 mg/dl Myocardial infarction within last 6 months Unstable angina New York Heart Association Class III or IV congestive heart failure Severe pulmonary disease Lifer failure Severe dementia Debilitating illness Malignancies, except for nonmelanomatous skin cancer, in the last 5 years
Maximum Eligible Age

75 Years

Eligible Sex

MALE

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)

FED

Sponsor Role collaborator

National Cancer Institute (NCI)

NIH

Sponsor Role collaborator

VA Office of Research and Development

FED

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Timothy J. Wilt, MD MPH

Role: STUDY_CHAIR

Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

VA Medical Center, Birmingham

Birmingham, Alabama, United States

Site Status

Central Arkansas VHS Eugene J. Towbin Healthcare Ctr, Little Rock

North Little Rock, Arkansas, United States

Site Status

VA Medical Center, Long Beach

Long Beach, California, United States

Site Status

VA Medical Center, San Francisco

San Francisco, California, United States

Site Status

VA Greater Los Angeles HCS, Sepulveda

Sepulveda, California, United States

Site Status

James A. Haley Veterans Hospital, Tampa

Tampa, Florida, United States

Site Status

VA Medical Center, Boise

Boise, Idaho, United States

Site Status

Jesse Brown VAMC (WestSide Division)

Chicago, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Richard Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis

Indianapolis, Indiana, United States

Site Status

VA Medical Center, Iowa City

Iowa City, Iowa, United States

Site Status

VA Medical Center, Lexington

Lexington, Kentucky, United States

Site Status

Overton Brooks VA Medical Center, Shreveport

Shreveport, Louisiana, United States

Site Status

VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System

Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States

Site Status

Minneapolis VA Health Care System

Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States

Site Status

VA New Jersey Health Care System, East Orange

East Orange, New Jersey, United States

Site Status

VA Stratton Medical Center, Albany

Albany, New York, United States

Site Status

New York Harbor Health Care System, Brooklyn

Brooklyn, New York, United States

Site Status

VA Western New York Healthcare System at Buffalo

Buffalo, New York, United States

Site Status

VA Medical Center, Syracuse

Syracuse, New York, United States

Site Status

VA Medical Center, Bronx

The Bronx, New York, United States

Site Status

VA Medical Center, Oklahoma City

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States

Site Status

VA Medical Center, Portland

Portland, Oregon, United States

Site Status

VA Pittsburgh Health Care System

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

VA Medical Center, Providence

Providence, Rhode Island, United States

Site Status

VA Medical Center, Memphis

Memphis, Tennessee, United States

Site Status

VA North Texas Health Care System, Dallas

Dallas, Texas, United States

Site Status

Central Texas Veterans Health Care System

Temple, Texas, United States

Site Status

VA Medical Center, Hampton

Hampton, Virginia, United States

Site Status

VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle

Seattle, Washington, United States

Site Status

VA Medical Center, Clarksburg

Clarksburg, West Virginia, United States

Site Status

Wlliam S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison

Madison, Wisconsin, United States

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Wilt T. Expectant management or early intervention for clinically localized prostate cancer? What we need are randomized trials. Clinical Care For Prostatic Diseases. 1994 Jan 6; 1:1-9.

Reference Type RESULT

Moon TD, Brawer MK, Wilt TJ. Prostate Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT): a randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with palliative expectant management for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. PIVOT Planning Committee. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1995;(19):69-71. No abstract available.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 7577210 (View on PubMed)

Wilt TJ, Brawer MK. Early intervention or expectant management for prostate cancer. The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT): a randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with expectant management for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Semin Urol. 1995 May;13(2):130-6. No abstract available.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 7638470 (View on PubMed)

Wilt TJ, Brawer MK. The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT). Oncology (Williston Park). 1997 Aug;11(8):1133-9; discussion 1139-40, 1143.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 9268976 (View on PubMed)

Wilt T. The importance of randomized treatment trials in early stage prostate cancer. New Developments in Prostate Cancer and Treatment. 1997 Feb 21; 2:29-35.

Reference Type RESULT

Wilt TJ. Prostate cancer screening: practice what the evidence preaches. Am J Med. 1998 Jun;104(6):602-4. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(98)00127-2. No abstract available.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 9674725 (View on PubMed)

Wilt TJ. Uncertainty in prostate cancer care: the physician's role in clearing the confusion. JAMA. 2000 Jun 28;283(24):3258-60. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.24.3258. No abstract available.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 10866876 (View on PubMed)

Wilt TJ. Prostate carcinoma practice patterns: what do they tell us about the diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of patients with prostate carcinoma? Cancer. 2000 Mar 15;88(6):1277-81. No abstract available.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 10717606 (View on PubMed)

Wilt T. Editorial comment. Urology. 2001 Nov 1; 58(6):964-965.

Reference Type RESULT

Wilt TJ. Clarifying uncertainty regarding detection and treatment of early-stage prostate cancer. Semin Urol Oncol. 2002 Feb;20(1):10-7. doi: 10.1053/suro.2002.30393.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 11828353 (View on PubMed)

Wilt TJ. SPCG-4: a needed START to PIVOTal data to promote and protect evidence-based prostate cancer care. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Aug 20;100(16):1123-5. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djn259. Epub 2008 Aug 11. No abstract available.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 18695131 (View on PubMed)

Kaplan SA, McConnell JD, Roehrborn CG, Meehan AG, Lee MW, Noble WR, Kusek JW, Nyberg LM Jr; Medical Therapy of Prostatic Symptoms (MTOPS) Research Group. Combination therapy with doxazosin and finasteride for benign prostatic hyperplasia in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms and a baseline total prostate volume of 25 ml or greater. J Urol. 2006 Jan;175(1):217-20; discussion 220-1. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00041-8.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 16406915 (View on PubMed)

Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, Barry MJ, Aronson WJ, Fox S, Gingrich JR, Wei JT, Gilhooly P, Grob BM, Nsouli I, Iyer P, Cartagena R, Snider G, Roehrborn C, Sharifi R, Blank W, Pandya P, Andriole GL, Culkin D, Wheeler T; Prostate Cancer Intervention versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) Study Group. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012 Jul 19;367(3):203-13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113162.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 22808955 (View on PubMed)

Wilt TJ. Implications of the prostate intervention versus observation trial (PIVOT). Asian J Androl. 2012 Nov;14(6):815. doi: 10.1038/aja.2012.103. Epub 2012 Sep 17. No abstract available.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 22983306 (View on PubMed)

Wilt TJ. The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial: VA/NCI/AHRQ Cooperative Studies Program #407 (PIVOT): design and baseline results of a randomized controlled trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting for men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2012 Dec;2012(45):184-90. doi: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgs041.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 23271771 (View on PubMed)

Barry MJ, Andriole GL, Culkin DJ, Fox SH, Jones KM, Carlyle MH, Wilt TJ. Ascertaining cause of death among men in the prostate cancer intervention versus observation trial. Clin Trials. 2013;10(6):907-14. doi: 10.1177/1740774513498008. Epub 2013 Aug 29.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 23988464 (View on PubMed)

Wilt TJ, Scardino PT, Carlsson SV, Basch E. Prostate-specific antigen screening in prostate cancer: perspectives on the evidence. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Mar;106(3):dju010. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju010. Epub 2014 Mar 4. No abstract available.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 24594482 (View on PubMed)

Wilt TJ, Vo TN, Langsetmo L, Dahm P, Wheeler T, Aronson WJ, Cooperberg MR, Taylor BC, Brawer MK. Radical Prostatectomy or Observation for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: Extended Follow-up of the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT). Eur Urol. 2020 Jun;77(6):713-724. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.02.009. Epub 2020 Feb 21.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 32089359 (View on PubMed)

Wilt TJ, Jones KM, Barry MJ, Andriole GL, Culkin D, Wheeler T, Aronson WJ, Brawer MK. Follow-up of Prostatectomy versus Observation for Early Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017 Jul 13;377(2):132-142. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1615869.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 28700844 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

407

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

NCT00002606

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: nct_alias

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

Checkpoint Inhibitors and SBRT for MCRPC
NCT05655715 COMPLETED PHASE2