Intermittent androgen deprivation therapy: recommendations to improve the management of patients with prostate cancer following the GRADE approach

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorBonfill, Xavier
dc.contributor.authorArevalo-Rodriguez, Ingrid
dc.contributor.authorMartinez Garcia, Laura
dc.contributor.authorJesus Quintana, Maria
dc.contributor.authorBuitrago-Garcia, Diana
dc.contributor.authorLobos Urbina, Diego
dc.contributor.authorAntonio Cordero, Jose
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-23T21:22:27Z
dc.date.available2025-01-23T21:22:27Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.description.abstractPurpose: The purpose of this study was to provide evidence-based recommendations of intermittent androgen deprivation therapy (IADT) compared with continuous androgen deprivation therapy (CADT) for men with prostate cancer (PCA).
dc.description.abstractMethods: We conducted a comprehensive search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and ECONLIT, from the database inception to December 2017. We adhered to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to assess the quality of the evidence and to formulate recommendations.
dc.description.abstractResults: We included one systematic review with 15 trials as well as three additional studies that assessed IADT versus CADT, all of them focused on PCA patients in advanced stages. The findings did not show differences for critical and important outcomes, including adverse events. Trials reported the benefits of IADT in terms of selected domains of health-related quality of life, although with high heterogeneity. Evidence quality was considered moderate or low for most of the assessed outcomes. We identified a patient preference study reporting a high preference for IADT, due to issues related to quality of life, general well-being, and side effects, among others. We did not identify economic studies comparing these regimes. We formulate four recommendations: one no-recommendation, one conditional recommendation, and two good practice points.
dc.description.abstractConclusion: For men in early stages of PCA, it is not possible to make any recommendation about the preferable use of IADT or CADT due to the lack of available evidence. For men in advanced stages of the disease, an IADT should be considered as soon as clinically reasonable (weak recommendation and low certainty of the evidence). Clinicians should discuss the risks and benefits of IADT and CADT with their patients, taking into account their values and preferences.
dc.description.funderInstituto de Salud Carlos III through European Regional Development Fund/European Social Fund, "Investing in your future"
dc.fuente.origenWOS
dc.identifier.doi10.2147/CMAR.S164856
dc.identifier.issn1179-1322
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S164856
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.uc.cl/handle/11534/101254
dc.identifier.wosidWOS:000440638200001
dc.language.isoen
dc.pagina.final2367
dc.pagina.inicio2357
dc.revistaCancer management and research
dc.rightsacceso restringido
dc.subjecthormone deprivation therapy
dc.subjectprostate cancer
dc.subjectprostate neoplasm
dc.subjectevidence-based medicine
dc.subjectGRADE approach
dc.subject.ods03 Good Health and Well-being
dc.subject.odspa03 Salud y bienestar
dc.titleIntermittent androgen deprivation therapy: recommendations to improve the management of patients with prostate cancer following the GRADE approach
dc.typeartículo
dc.volumen10
sipa.indexWOS
sipa.trazabilidadWOS;2025-01-12
Files
Collections
Artículos de revistas