Dr. Mandrola calls the 37% reduction in all-cause mortality "implausible," which seems a reasonable view. Given the fact of <100% compliance among the exercise group, the implication would be that greater compliance would make the all-cause mortality reduction figure even more stark, and even more implausible. Another comparable study is warranted, but the practicality of doing such a study makes it unlikely.
Really only a pilot with weak conclusions beyond exercise helps for men on ADT to treat prostate cancer! Most can agree on that. I've promoted exercise for cancer since 2007, and AnCan/ Medafit is a big proponent.
Interestingly the criticisms voiced by Dr. Mandrola largely apply to this study, and that's what makes me comment. Is there something intrinsic to exercise trials?
Dr. Mandrola calls the 37% reduction in all-cause mortality "implausible," which seems a reasonable view. Given the fact of <100% compliance among the exercise group, the implication would be that greater compliance would make the all-cause mortality reduction figure even more stark, and even more implausible. Another comparable study is warranted, but the practicality of doing such a study makes it unlikely.
The following study was highlighted on UroToday.
https://www.urotoday.com/recent-abstracts/urologic-oncology/prostate-cancer/161158-is-exercise-during-androgen-deprivation-therapy-effective-and-safe-a-randomized-controlled-trial.html
Really only a pilot with weak conclusions beyond exercise helps for men on ADT to treat prostate cancer! Most can agree on that. I've promoted exercise for cancer since 2007, and AnCan/ Medafit is a big proponent.
Interestingly the criticisms voiced by Dr. Mandrola largely apply to this study, and that's what makes me comment. Is there something intrinsic to exercise trials?
Onward & upwards, rd
Well said!