Intermittent androgen deprivation therapy : Recommendations to improve the management of patients with prostate cancer following the GRADE approach
Bonfill, Xavier (Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica Sant Pau)
Arevalo-Rodriguez, Ingrid (Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal (Madrid))
Martínez García, Laura (Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica Sant Pau)
Quintana Ruiz, Maria Jesús (Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica Sant Pau)
Buitrago-Garcia, Diana (Universidad Tecnológica Equinoccial)
Lobos Urbina, D. (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile)
Cordero, José Antonio (Universitat Ramon Llull)
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

Date:	2018
Abstract:	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). 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. 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. 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.
Grants:	Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad PI15/00886
Rights:	Aquest document està subjecte a una llicència d'ús Creative Commons. Es permet la reproducció total o parcial, la distribució, la comunicació pública de l'obra i la creació d'obres derivades, sempre que no sigui amb finalitats comercials, i sempre que es reconegui l'autoria de l'obra original.
Language:	Anglès
Document:	Article ; recerca ; Versió publicada
Subject:	Evidence-based medicine ; GRADE approach ; Hormone deprivation therapy ; Prostate cancer ; Prostate neoplasm
Published in:	Cancer Management and Research, Vol. 10 (2018) , p. 2357-2367, ISSN 1179-1322

DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S164856
PMID: 30122985

11 p, 1.5 MB

The record appears in these collections:
Research literature > UAB research groups literature > Research Centres and Groups (research output) > Health sciences and biosciences > Institut de Recerca Sant Pau
Articles > Research articles
Articles > Published articles