-
BJU International Apr 2022To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of currently available treatments for the management of metastatic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of currently available treatments for the management of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), as there has been a paradigm shift with the use of next-generation androgen receptor inhibitors (ARIs) and docetaxel.
METHODS
Multiple databases were searched for articles published before May 2020 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis extension statement for network meta-analysis. Studies comparing overall/progression-free survival (OS/PFS) and/or adverse events (AEs) in patients with mHSPC were eligible.
RESULTS
Nine studies (N = 9960) were selected, and formal network meta-analyses were conducted. Abiraterone (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.76-0.90), docetaxel (HR 0.90, 95% CrI 0.82-0.98), and enzalutamide (HR 0.85, 95% CrI 0.73-0.99) were associated with significantly better OS than androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), and abiraterone emerged as the best option. Abiraterone (HR 0.71, 95% CrI 0.67-0.76), apalutamide (HR 0.73, 95% CrI 0.65-0.81), docetaxel (HR 0.84, 95% CrI 0.78-0.90), and enzalutamide (HR 0.67, 95% CrI 0.63-0.71) were associated with significantly better PFS than ADT, and enzalutamide emerged as the best option. Abiraterone (HR 0.85, 95% CrI 0.78-0.93), apalutamide (HR 0.87, 95% CrI 0.77-0.98), and enzalutamide (HR 0.80, 95% CrI 0.73-0.88) were significantly more effective than docetaxel. Regarding AEs, apalutamide was the likely best option among the three ARIs. In patients with low-volume mHSPC, enzalutamide was the best option in terms of OS and PFS.
CONCLUSIONS
All three ARIs are effective therapies for mHSPC; apalutamide was the best tolerated. All three seemed more effective than docetaxel. These findings may facilitate individualised treatment strategies and inform future comparative trials.
Topics: Androgen Antagonists; Androgen Receptor Antagonists; Docetaxel; Hormones; Humans; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 34171173
DOI: 10.1111/bju.15507 -
International Journal of Urology :... Aug 2021The objective of this study was to review publications assessing cognitive functioning in patients with prostate cancer treated with androgen deprivation therapy. We... (Review)
Review
The objective of this study was to review publications assessing cognitive functioning in patients with prostate cancer treated with androgen deprivation therapy. We conducted a systematic review of the literature published in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO up to February 2020. A total of 31 studies were included. Half of the studies (n = 16) demonstrated that androgen deprivation therapy in patients with prostate carcinoma did not result in a negative effect on cognitive functioning, however, still a substantial proportion of the studies (n = 11) reported a negative effect on cognitive functioning. In four studies the results were inconclusive. In the three studies using additional functional magnetic resonance imaging, no significant effect on neuropsychological tests was found, but grey matter volume, brain activity, and brain connectivity were affected. Given the substantial number of studies showing a significant negative effect of androgen deprivation therapy on cognitive functioning, clinicians should be aware of this side effect. Furthermore, future research should focus on the further examination of brain characteristics using functional magnetic resonance imaging, since these techniques might be more sensitive in detecting brain abnormalities as a result of androgen deprivation therapy.
Topics: Androgen Antagonists; Androgens; Cognition; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 34128263
DOI: 10.1111/iju.14596 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is characterised by both metabolic and reproductive disorders, and affects 5% to 15% of women of reproductive age. Different western... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is characterised by both metabolic and reproductive disorders, and affects 5% to 15% of women of reproductive age. Different western medicines have been proposed for PCOS-related subfertility, such as oral contraceptives, insulin sensitisers and laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD). Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) have also been used for subfertility caused by PCOS for decades, and are expected to become an alternative treatment for subfertile women with PCOS.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for subfertile women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and six other databases, from inception to 2 June 2020. In addition, we searched three trials registries, the reference lists of included trials and contacted experts in the field to locate trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CHM versus placebo, no treatment or conventional (western) therapies for the treatment of subfertile women with PCOS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in included studies and extracted data. We contacted primary study authors for additional information. We conducted meta-analyses. We used the odds ratios (ORs) to report dichotomous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs with 609 participants. The comparisons in the included trials were as follows: CHM versus clomiphene, CHM plus clomiphene versus clomiphene (with or without ethinyloestradiol cyproterone acetate (EE/CPA)), CHM plus follicle aspiration plus ovulation induction versus follicle aspiration plus ovulation induction alone, and CHM plus laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) versus LOD alone. The overall certainty of the evidence for most comparisons was very low. None of the included studies reported the primary outcome, live birth rate. Most studies reported the secondary outcomes, and only one study reported data on adverse events. In trials that compared CHM to clomiphene (with or without LOD in both study arms), we are uncertain of the effect of CHM on pregnancy rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 3.19; I = 28%; 3 studies, 140 participants; very low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following clomiphene is assumed to be 21.5%, the chance following CHM would vary between 14.7% and 46.7%. No study reported data on adverse events. When CHM plus clomiphene was compared to clomiphene (with or without EE/CPA), there was low certainty evidence of a higher pregnancy rate in the CHM plus clomiphene group (OR 3.06, 95% CI 2.05 to 4.55; I = 10%; 6 studies, 470 participants; low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following clomiphene is assumed to be 31.5%, the chance following CHM plus clomiphene would vary between 48.5% and 67.7%. No data were reported on adverse events. In trials that compared CHM plus follicle aspiration and ovulation induction to follicle aspiration and ovulation induction alone, we are uncertain of the effect of CHM on pregnancy rates (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.68; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following follicle aspiration and ovulation induction is assumed to be 29.2%, the chance following CHM with follicle aspiration and ovulation induction would vary between 15.9% and 70%. Reported adverse events included severe luteinised unruptured follicle syndrome (LUFS) (Peto OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.14; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence), ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (Peto OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.00 to 8.19; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence) or multiple pregnancy (Peto OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.14; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence). These results suggest that if the chances of LUFS, OHSS, and multiple pregnancy following follicle aspiration and ovulation induction are assumed to be 8.3%, 4.2%, and 8.3% respectively, the chances following CHM with follicle aspiration and ovulation induction would be 0.5% to 35.8%, 0% to 26.3% and 0.5% to 35.8% respectively. In trials that compared CHM plus LOD to LOD alone, we are uncertain if CHM improves pregnancy rates (OR 3.50, 95% CI 0.72 to 17.09; 1 study, 30 women; very low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following LOD is assumed to be 40%, the chance following CHM with LOD would vary between 32.4% and 91.9%. No data were reported on adverse events. We are uncertain of the results in the comparison groups for all outcomes. The certainty of the evidence for all other comparisons and outcomes was very low. The main limitations in the evidence were failure to report live birth or adverse events, failure to describe study methods in adequate detail and imprecision due to very low event rates and wide CIs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to support the use of CHM for subfertile women with PCOS. No data are available on live birth. We are uncertain of the effect of CHM on pregnancy rates for there is no consistent evidence to indicate that CHM influences fertility outcomes. However, we find that the addition of CHM to clomiphene may improve pregnancy rates, but there is very limited, low certainty evidence for this outcome. Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence on adverse effects to indicate whether CHM is safe. In the future, well-designed, carefully conducted RCTs are needed, with a particular focus on the live birth rate and other safety indexes.
Topics: Adult; Bias; Clomiphene; Cyproterone Acetate; Drug Combinations; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Ethinyl Estradiol; Female; Fertility Agents, Female; Humans; Infertility, Female; Laparoscopy; Ovulation Induction; Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Suction; Young Adult
PubMed: 34085287
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007535.pub4 -
British Journal of Sports Medicine Aug 2021We systemically reviewed the literature to assess how long-term testosterone suppressing gender-affirming hormone therapy influenced lean body mass (LBM), muscular area,...
How does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation.
OBJECTIVES
We systemically reviewed the literature to assess how long-term testosterone suppressing gender-affirming hormone therapy influenced lean body mass (LBM), muscular area, muscular strength and haemoglobin (Hgb)/haematocrit (HCT).
DESIGN
Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
Four databases (BioMed Central, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) were searched in April 2020 for papers from 1999 to 2020.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Eligible studies were those that measured at least one of the variables of interest, included transwomen and were written in English.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies were identified and reviewed. Transwomen experienced significant decreases in all parameters measured, with different time courses noted. After 4 months of hormone therapy, transwomen have Hgb/HCT levels equivalent to those of cisgender women. After 12 months of hormone therapy, significant decreases in measures of strength, LBM and muscle area are observed. The effects of longer duration therapy (36 months) in eliciting further decrements in these measures are unclear due to paucity of data. Notwithstanding, values for strength, LBM and muscle area in transwomen remain above those of cisgender women, even after 36 months of hormone therapy.
CONCLUSION
In transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy.
Topics: Adipose Tissue; Androgen Antagonists; Athletic Performance; Body Composition; Cyproterone Acetate; Estradiol; Female; Hematocrit; Hemoglobin A; Humans; Male; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Sports; Testosterone; Time Factors; Transgender Persons; Transsexualism
PubMed: 33648944
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-103106 -
Asian Journal of Andrology 2021This study aimed to identify the pathological outcomes and survival benefits of neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) combined with radical prostatectomy (RP) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This study aimed to identify the pathological outcomes and survival benefits of neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) combined with radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) administered to patients with high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa). We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies comparing NHT plus RP or RT with RP or RT alone, administered to patients with HRPCa. We used a random-effects model to compute risk estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and quantified heterogeneity using the I "2" statistic. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to identify potential sources of heterogeneity. We selected 16 studies. NHT before RP significantly decreased lymph node involvement (risk ratio [RR] = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.56-0.87) and increased the rates of pathological downstaging (RR = 2.62, 95% CI: 1.22-5.61) and organ-confinement (RR = 2.24, 95% CI: 1.54-3.25), but did not improve overall survival and biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS). The administration of NHT before RT to patients with HRPCa was associated with significant benefits for cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.39-0.68), disease-free survival (HR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.44-0.60), and bPFS (HR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.46-0.64). Short-term NHT combined with RT administered to patients with HRPCa conferred significant improvements. Although the advantage of local control was observed when NHT was administered before RP, there was no significant survival benefit associated with HRPCa. Therefore, short-term NHT combined with RT is recommended for implementation in standard clinical practice but not for patients who undergo RP.
Topics: Androgen Antagonists; Hormone Replacement Therapy; Humans; Male; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 33586699
DOI: 10.4103/aja.aja_96_20 -
JAMA Oncology Mar 2021Multiple systemic treatments are available for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), with unclear comparative effectiveness and safety and widely... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Multiple systemic treatments are available for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), with unclear comparative effectiveness and safety and widely varied costs.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effectiveness and safety determined in randomized clinical trials of systemic treatments for mCSPC.
DATA SOURCES
Bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central), regulatory documents (US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency), and trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and European Union clinical trials register) were searched from inception through November 5, 2019.
STUDY SELECTION, DATA EXTRACTION, AND SYNTHESIS
Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials evaluating the addition of docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, apalutamide, or enzalutamide to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for treatment of mCSPC. Two investigators independently performed screening. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus. A Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess trial quality. Relative effects of competing treatments were assessed by bayesian network meta-analysis and survival models. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline was used.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Overall survival, radiographic progression-free survival, and serious adverse events (SAEs).
RESULTS
Seven trials with 7287 patients comparing 6 treatments (abiraterone acetate, apalutamide, docetaxel, enzalutamide, standard nonsteroidal antiandrogen, and placebo/no treatment) were identified. Ordered from the most to the least effective determined by results of clinical trials, treatments associated with improved overall survival when added to ADT included abiraterone acetate (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% credible interval [CI], 0.54-0.70), apalutamide (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51-0.89), and docetaxel (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.89); treatments associated with improved radiographic progression-free survival when added to ADT included enzalutamide (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30-0.50), apalutamide (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.39-0.60), abiraterone acetate (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.45-0.58), and docetaxel (HR, 0.67; 95% CI 0.60-0.74). Docetaxel was associated with substantially increased SAEs (odds ratio, 23.72; 95% CI, 13.37-45.15), abiraterone acetate with slightly increased SAEs (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.83), and other treatments with no significant increase in SAEs. Risk of bias was noted for 4 trials with open-label design, 3 trials with missing data, and 2 trials with potential unprespecified analyses.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this network meta-analysis, as add-on treatments to ADT, abiraterone acetate and apalutamide may provide the largest overall survival benefits with relatively low SAE risks. Although enzalutamide may improve radiographic progression-free survival to the greatest extent, longer follow-up is needed to examine the overall survival benefits associated with enzalutamide.
Topics: Androgen Antagonists; Bayes Theorem; Castration; Humans; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33443584
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.6973 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020Systemic androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), also referred to as hormone therapy,ÃÂ has long been the primary treatment for metastatic prostate cancer. Additional... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Systemic androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), also referred to as hormone therapy,ÃÂ has long been the primary treatment for metastatic prostate cancer. Additional agents have been reserved for the castrate-resistant disease stage when ADT start becoming less effective. Abiraterone is an agent with an established role in that disease stage, which has only recently been evaluated in the hormone-sensitive setting.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of early abiraterone acetate, in combination with systemic ADT, for newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases, two trials registries, grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to 15 May 2020. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized trials, in which men diagnosed with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer were administered abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with ADT or ADTÃÂ alone.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model. We rated the quality of evidence according to the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
The search identified two randomized controlled trials (RCT), with 2201 men, who were assigned to receive either abiraterone acetate 1000 mg once daily and low dose prednisone (5mg) in addition to ADT, or ADT alone. In the LATITUDE trial, the median age and range of men in the intervention group was 68 (38 to 89) years, and 67 (33 to 92) years in the control group. Nearly all of the men in thisÃÂ study (97.6%) had prostate cancer with a Gleason score of at least 8 (ISUP grade group 4). Primary outcomes The addition of abiraterone acetate to ADT reduces the probability of death from any cause compared to ADT alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56 to 0.73; 2 RCTs, 2201 men; high certainty of evidence); this corresponds to 163 fewer deaths per 1000 men with hormone-sensitive metastaticÃÂ prostate cancerÃÂ (210 fewer to 115 fewer) at five years. Abiraterone acetate in addition to ADT probably results in little to no differenceÃÂ in quality of life compared to ADT alone, measured with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-prostate total score (FACT-P; range 0 to 156; higher values indicates better quality of life),ÃÂ at 12 months (mean difference [MD] 2.90 points, 95% CI 0.11 to 5.60; 1 RCT, 838 men; moderate certainty of evidence). Secondary outcomes Abiraterone plus ADT increases the risk of grades III to V adverse events compared to ADT alone (risk ratio [RR] 1.34, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.47; 1 RCT, 1199 men; high certainty of evidence); this corresponds to 162 more grade III to VÃÂ events per 1000 men with hormone-sensitive metastaticÃÂ prostate cancerÃÂ (105 more to 224 more) at a median follow-up of 30ÃÂ months. Abiraterone acetate in addition to ADT probably reduces the probability of death due to prostate cancer compared to ADT alone (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.68; 2 RCTs, 2201 men; moderate certainty of evidence). This corresponds to 120 fewer death from prostate cancer per 1000 men with hormone-sensitive metastaticÃÂ prostate cancerÃÂ (95% CI 145 fewer to 90 fewer) afterÃÂ a median follow-up of 30 months. The addition of abiraterone acetate to ADT probably decreases the probability of disease progression compared to ADT alone (HR 0.35, 95%CI 0.26 to 0.49; 2 RCTs, 2097 men; moderate certainty of evidence). This corresponds to 369 fewer incidences of disease progression per 1000 men with hormone-sensitive metastaticÃÂ prostate cancerÃÂ (456 fewer to 256 fewer)ÃÂ after a median follow-up of 30 months. The addition of abiraterone acetate to ADT probably increases the risk of discontinuing treatment due to adverse events compared to ADT alone (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.92; 1 RCT, 1199 men; moderate certainty of evidence). This corresponds to 51 more men (95% CI 17 more to 93 more) discontinuing treatment because of adverse events per 1000 men treated with abiraterone acetate and ADT compared to ADT alone afterÃÂ a median follow-up of 30 months.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The addition of abiraterone acetate to androgen deprivation therapy improves overall survival but probably not quality of life. ItÃÂ probably also extends disease-specific survival, and delays disease progression compared to androgen deprivation therapy alone. However, the risk of grades III to V adverse events is increased, and probably, so is the risk of discontinuing treatment due to adverse events.
Topics: Abiraterone Acetate; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Androgen Antagonists; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Disease Progression; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Grading; Prostatic Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 33314020
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013245.pub2 -
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official... Jan 2021There remains a lack of clarity regarding the influence of sequencing of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiotherapy (RT) on outcomes in prostate cancer (PCa).... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
There remains a lack of clarity regarding the influence of sequencing of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiotherapy (RT) on outcomes in prostate cancer (PCa). Herein, we evaluate the optimal sequencing of ADT with prostate-directed RT in localized PCa.
METHODS
MEDLINE (1966-2018), Embase (1982-2018), ClinicalTrials.gov, and conference proceedings (1990-2018) were searched to identify randomized trials evaluating the sequencing, but not duration, of ADT with RT. Two randomized phase III trials were identified, and individual patient data were obtained: Ottawa 0101 and NRG Oncology's Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413. Ottawa 0101 randomly assigned patients to neoadjuvant or concurrent versus concurrent or adjuvant short-term ADT. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413, a 2 × 2 factorial trial, included a random assignment of neoadjuvant or concurrent versus adjuvant short-term ADT. The neoadjuvant or concurrent ADT arms of both trials were combined into the neoadjuvant group, and the arms receiving adjuvant ADT were combined into the adjuvant group. The primary end point of this meta-analysis was progression-free survival (PFS).
RESULTS
The median follow-up was 14.9 years. Overall, 1,065 patients were included (531 neoadjuvant and 534 adjuvant). PFS was significantly improved in the adjuvant group (15-year PFS, 29% 36%, hazard ratio [HR], 1.25 [95% CI, 1.07 to 1.47], = .01). Biochemical failure (subdistribution HR [sHR], 1.37 [95% CI, 1.12 to 1.68], = .002), distant metastasis (sHR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.95], = .04), and metastasis-free survival (HR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.37], = .050) were all significantly improved in the adjuvant group. There were no differences in late grade ≥ 3 gastrointestinal (2% 3%, = .33) or genitourinary toxicity (5% 5%, = .76) between groups.
CONCLUSION
The sequencing of ADT with prostate-directed RT has significant association with long-term PFS and MFS in localized PCa. Our findings favor use of an adjuvant over a neoadjuvant approach, without any increase in long-term toxicity.
Topics: Androgen Antagonists; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Humans; Male; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Neoplasm Metastasis; Prostatic Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33275486
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.20.02438 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Gender dysphoria is described as a mismatch between an individual's experienced or expressed gender and their assigned gender, based on primary or secondary sexual...
BACKGROUND
Gender dysphoria is described as a mismatch between an individual's experienced or expressed gender and their assigned gender, based on primary or secondary sexual characteristics. Gender dysphoria can be associated with clinically significant psychological distress and may result in a desire to change sexual characteristics. The process of adapting a person's sexual characteristics to their desired sex is called 'transition.' Current guidelines suggest hormonal and, if needed, surgical intervention to aid transition in transgender women, i.e. persons who aim to transition from male to female. In adults, hormone therapy aims to reverse the body's male attributes and to support the development of female attributes. It usually includes estradiol, antiandrogens, or a combination of both. Many individuals first receive hormone therapy alone, without surgical interventions. However, this is not always sufficient to change such attributes as facial bone structure, breasts, and genitalia, as desired. For these transgender women, surgery may then be used to support transition.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of hormone therapy with antiandrogens, estradiol, or both, compared to each other or placebo, in transgender women in transition.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, Biosis Preview, PsycINFO, and PSYNDEX. We carried out our final searches on 19 December 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We aimed to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cohort studies that enrolled transgender women, age 16 years and over, in transition from male to female. Eligible studies investigated antiandrogen and estradiol hormone therapies alone or in combination, in comparison to another form of the active intervention, or placebo control.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane to establish study eligibility.
MAIN RESULTS
Our database searches identified 1057 references, and after removing duplicates we screened 787 of these. We checked 13 studies for eligibility at the full text screening stage. We excluded 12 studies and identified one as an ongoing study. We did not identify any completed studies that met our inclusion criteria. The single ongoing study is an RCT conducted in Thailand, comparing estradiol valerate plus cyproterone treatment with estradiol valerate plus spironolactone treatment. The primary outcome will be testosterone level at three month follow-up.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy or safety of hormonal treatment approaches for transgender women in transition. This lack of studies shows a gap between current clinical practice and clinical research. Robust RCTs and controlled cohort studies are needed to assess the benefits and harms of hormone therapy (used alone or in combination) for transgender women in transition. Studies should specifically focus on short-, medium-, and long-term adverse effects, quality of life, and participant satisfaction with the change in male to female body characteristics of antiandrogen and estradiol therapy alone, and in combination. They should also focus on the relative effects of these hormones when administered orally, transdermally, and intramuscularly. We will include non-controlled cohort studies in the next iteration of this review, as our review has shown that such studies provide the highest quality evidence currently available in the field. We will take into account methodological limitations when doing so.
Topics: Androgen Antagonists; Drug Therapy, Combination; Estradiol; Estrogens; Female; Humans; Male; Placebos; Sex Reassignment Procedures; Transgender Persons
PubMed: 33251587
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013138.pub2 -
Minerva Urology and Nephrology Jun 2021The aim of this review is to compare the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) following gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist and GnRH antagonist therapy for... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this review is to compare the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) following gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist and GnRH antagonist therapy for patient with prostate cancer (PCa).
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We searched PubMed, Web of science, Opengery, Cochrane library databases and international congress reports for studies published before December 2019. This meta-analysis was conducted using Stata v. 12.0. Relative ratios (RRs) and their credible intervals (CI) were applied for the cardiovascular safety evaluation of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) medical interventions, including GnRH agonist and GnRH antagonist therapy. In addition, fixed-effect or random-effect models were applied in the statistical analyses according to the heterogeneity.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Six articles including 32,997 participants were analyzed with a random effects model. The results of meta-analysis showed that compared with GnRH agonist, the incidents of CVD was equal to GnRH antagonist therapy for patient with PCa (RR=0.98, 95% CI: 0.94-1.02). When considering, under sub-group analysis with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs), no statistical differences in risk of CVD were found in two sub-group analyses. No evidence of publication bias was found in our meta-analysis by a funnel plot (Pr> | z |=0.26).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis indicates that compared treatment with GnRH antagonist, risks of CVD in PCa patients was the same as GnRH agonist. Further RCTs are strongly required to provide more definitive evidence.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Cardiovascular Diseases; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Male; Models, Statistical; Prostatic Neoplasms; Risk
PubMed: 33242948
DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6051.20.03756-X