Lucile Adams-Campbell

Dr. Lucile Adams-Campbell

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

24Years (2003-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
22 November 2017 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
WDWendy Demark-Wahnefried
Wendy Demark-Wahnefried
KSKathryn H. H Schmitz
Kathryn H. H Schmitz
CACatherine M. Alfano
Catherine M. Alfano
JBJennifer R. Bail
Jennifer R. Bail
PGPamela J. Goodwin
Pamela J. Goodwin
KBKaren Basen‐Engquist
Karen Basen‐Engquist
Mounting evidence suggests that weight management and physical activity (PA) improve overall health and well being, and reduce the risk of morbidity and mortality among cancer survivors. Although many opportunities exist to include weight management and PA in routine cancer care, several barriers remain. This review summarizes key topics addressed in a recent National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine workshop entitled, “Incorporating Weight Management and Physical Activity Throughout the Cancer Care Continuum.” Discussions related to body weight and PA among cancer survivors included: 1) current knowledge and gaps related to health outcomes; 2) effective intervention approaches; 3) addressing the needs of diverse populations of cancer survivors; 4) opportunities and challenges of workforce, care coordination, and technologies for program implementation; 5) models of care; and 6) program coverage. While more discoveries are still needed for the provision of optimal weight‐management and PA programs for cancer survivors, obesity and inactivity currently jeopardize their overall health and quality of life. Actionable future directions are presented for research; practice and policy changes required to assure the availability of effective, affordable, and feasible weight management; and PA services for all cancer survivors as a part of their routine cancer care. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:64‐89 . © 2017 American Cancer Society .

12 June 2020 in Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
KPKathy Pan
Kathy Pan
RCRowan T. Chlebowski
Rowan T. Chlebowski
JMJoanne Mortimer
Joanne Mortimer
MGMarc J. Gunther
Marc J. Gunther
TRThomas Rohan
Thomas Rohan
RNRebecca A Nelson
Rebecca A Nelson

1 October 2013 in Cancer Epidemiology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
FCFurha Iram Cossor
Furha Iram Cossor
LALucile Adams-Campbell
Lucile Adams-Campbell
RCRowan T. Chlebowski
Rowan T. Chlebowski
MGMarc J. Gunter
Marc J. Gunter
KJKaren Johnson
Karen Johnson
JPJessica K. Paulus
Jessica K. Paulus

24 February 2022 in Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
RWRandi M Williams
Randi M Williams
Tengfei LiTengfei Li
Tengfei Li
GLGeorge Luta
George Luta
MWMin Qi Wang
Min Qi Wang
LALucile Adams-Campbell
Lucile Adams-Campbell
KTKathryn L. Taylor
Kathryn L. Taylor

2 October 2013 in Cancer Causes & Control
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
LRLynn Rosenberg
Lynn Rosenberg
DBDeborah A. Boggs
Deborah A. Boggs
TBTraci Bethea
Traci Bethea
Lauren WiseLauren Wise
Lauren Wise
LALucile Adams-Campbell
Lucile Adams-Campbell
JPJulie R. Palmer
Julie R. Palmer

27 March 2011 in Journal of Hematology & Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
EOEric K Oermann
Eric K Oermann
SSSimeng Suy
Simeng Suy
HHHeather N Hanscom
Heather N Hanscom
JKJoy S Kim
Joy S Kim
SLSue Lei
Sue Lei
SCSean Philip Collins
Sean Philip Collins
Background: The CyberKnife is an appealing delivery system for hypofractionated stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) because of its ability to deliver highly conformal radiation therapy to moving targets. This conformity is achieved via 100s of non-coplanar radiation beams, which could potentially increase transitory testicular irradiation and result in post-therapy hypogonadism. We report on our early experience with CyberKnife SBRT for low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients and assess the rate of inducing biochemical and clinical hypogonadism.Methods: Twenty-six patients were treated with hypofractionated SBRT to a dose of 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions. All patients had histologically confirmed low- to intermediate-risk prostate adenocarcinoma (clinical stage ≤ T2b, Gleason score ≤ 7, PSA ≤ 20 ng/ml). PSA and total testosterone levels were obtained pre-treatment, 1 month post-treatment and every 3 months thereafter, for 1 year. Biochemical hypogonadism was defined as a total serum testosterone level below 8 nmol/L. Urinary and gastrointestinal toxicity was assessed using Common Toxicity Criteria v3; quality of life was assessed using the American Urological Association Symptom Score, Sexual Health Inventory for Men and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaires.Results: All 26 patients completed the treatment with a median 15 months (range, 13-19 months) follow-up. Median pre-treatment PSA was 5.75 ng/ml (range, 2.3-10.3 ng/ml), and a decrease to a median of 0.7 ng/ml (range, 0.2-1.8 ng/ml) was observed by one year post-treatment. The median pre-treatment total serum testosterone level was 13.81 nmol/L (range, 5.55 - 39.87 nmol/L). Post-treatment testosterone levels slowly decreased with the median value at one year follow-up of 10.53 nmol/L, significantly lower than the pre-treatment value (p< 0.013). The median absolute fall was 3.28 nmol/L and the median percent fall was 23.75%. There was no increase in biochemical hypogonadism at one year post-treatment. Average EPIC sexual and hormonal scores were not significantly changed by one year post-treatment.Conclusions: Hypofractionated SBRT offers the radiobiological benefit of a large fraction size and is well-tolerated by men with low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Early results are encouraging with an excellent biochemical response. The rate of new biochemical and clinical hypogonadism was low one year after treatment.