-
Andrology Mar 2022Male hypogonadism is a clinical and biochemical androgen insufficiency syndrome, becoming more prevalent with age. Exogenous testosterone is first-choice therapy, with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Male hypogonadism is a clinical and biochemical androgen insufficiency syndrome, becoming more prevalent with age. Exogenous testosterone is first-choice therapy, with several side effects, including negative feedback of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis, resulting in suppression of intratesticular testosterone production and spermatogenesis. To preserve these testicular functions while treating male hypogonadism, clomiphene citrate is used as off-label therapy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of clomiphene citrate therapy for men with hypogonadism.
METHODS
The EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane databases were searched in May 2021, for effectiveness studies of men with hypogonadism treated with clomiphene citrate. Both intervention and observational studies were included. The Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool, a validated instrument, was used to assess methodological study quality. The primary outcome measure was the evaluation of serum hormone concentration. Secondary outcomes were symptoms of hypogonadism, metabolic and lipid profile, side effects, safety aspects.
RESULTS
We included 19 studies, comprising four randomized controlled trials and 15 observational studies, resulting in 1642 patients. Seventeen studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 1279 patients. Therapy and follow-up duration varied between one and a half and 52 months. Total testosterone increased with 2.60 (95% CI 1.82-3.38) during clomiphene citrate treatment. An increase was also seen in free testosterone, luteinizing hormone, follicle stimulating hormone, sex hormone-binding globulin and estradiol. Different symptom scoring methods were used in the included studies. The most frequently used instrument was the Androgen Deficiency in Aging Males questionnaire, whose improved during treatment. Reported side effects were only prevalent in less than 10% of the study populations and no serious adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSION
Clomiphene citrate is an effective therapy for improving both biochemical as well as clinical symptoms of males suffering from hypogonadism. Clomiphene citrate has few reported side effects and good safety aspects.
Topics: Clomiphene; Follicle Stimulating Hormone; Humans; Hypogonadism; Luteinizing Hormone; Male; Testosterone
PubMed: 34933414
DOI: 10.1111/andr.13146 -
Human Reproduction Update Jan 2021Although surgery for endometriosis can improve pain and fertility, the risk of disease recurrence is high. There is little consensus regarding the benefit of medical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Although surgery for endometriosis can improve pain and fertility, the risk of disease recurrence is high. There is little consensus regarding the benefit of medical therapy in preventing recurrence of endometriosis following surgery.
OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE
We performed a review of prospective observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the risk of endometriosis recurrence in patients undergoing post-operative hormonal suppression, compared to placebo/expectant management.
SEARCH METHODS
The following databases were searched from inception to March 2020 for RCTs and prospective observational cohort studies: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and Web of Science. We included English language full-text articles of pre-menopausal women undergoing conservative surgery (conserving at least one ovary) and initiating hormonal suppression within 6 weeks post-operatively with either combined hormonal contraceptives (CHC), progestins, androgens, levonorgesterel-releasing intra-uterine system (LNG-IUS) or GnRH agonist or antagonist. We excluded from the final analysis studies with <12 months of follow-up, interventions of diagnostic laparoscopy, experimental/non-hormonal treatments or combined hormonal therapy. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies.
OUTCOMES
We included 17 studies (13 RCTs and 4 cohort studies), with 2137 patients (1189 receiving post-operative suppression and 948 controls), which evaluated various agents: CHC (6 studies, n = 869), progestin (3 studies, n = 183), LNG-IUS (2 studies, n = 94) and GnRH agonist (9 studies, n = 1237). The primary outcome was post-operative endometriosis recurrence, determined by imaging or recurrence of symptoms, at least 12 months post-operatively. The secondary outcome was change in endometriosis-related pain. Mean follow up of included studies ranged from 12 to 36 months, and outcomes were assessed at a median of 18 months. There was a significantly decreased risk of endometriosis recurrence in patients receiving post-operative hormonal suppression compared to expectant management/placebo (relative risk (RR) 0.41, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.65), 14 studies, 1766 patients, I2 = 68%, random effects model). Subgroup analysis on patients treated with CHC and LNG-IUS as well as sensitivity analyses limited to RCTs and high-quality studies showed a consistent decreased risk of endometriosis recurrence. Additionally, the patients receiving post-operative hormonal suppression had significantly lower pain scores compared to controls (SMD -0.49, 95% CI: -0.91 to -0.07, 7 studies, 652 patients, I2 = 68%).
WIDER IMPLICATIONS
Hormonal suppression should be considered for patients not seeking pregnancy immediately after endometriosis surgery in order to reduce disease recurrence and pain. Various hormonal agents have been shown to be effective, and the exact treatment choice should be individualised according to each woman's needs.
Topics: Endometriosis; Female; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Pregnancy; Progestins; Recurrence
PubMed: 33020832
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmaa033 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020The use of insulin-sensitising agents, such as metformin, in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who are undergoing ovulation induction or in vitro fertilisation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The use of insulin-sensitising agents, such as metformin, in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who are undergoing ovulation induction or in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles has been widely studied. Metformin reduces hyperinsulinaemia and suppresses the excessive ovarian production of androgens. It is suggested that as a consequence metformin could improve assisted reproductive techniques (ART) outcomes, such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), pregnancy, and live birth rates.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of metformin as a co-treatment during IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in achieving pregnancy or live birth in women with PCOS.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, the trial registries for ongoing trials, and reference lists of articles (from inception to 13 February 2020).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Types of studies: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing metformin treatment with placebo or no treatment in women with PCOS who underwent IVF or ICSI treatment.
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS
women of reproductive age with anovulation due to PCOS with or without co-existing infertility factors. Types of interventions: metformin administered before and during IVF or ICSI treatment.
PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES
live birth rate, incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected the studies, extracted the data according to the protocol, and assessed study quality. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
This updated review includes 13 RCTs involving a total of 1132 women with PCOS undergoing IVF/ICSI treatments. We stratified the analysis by type of ovarian stimulation protocol used (long gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-agonist) or short gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-antagonist)) to determine whether the type of stimulation used influenced the outcomes. We did not perform meta-analysis on the overall (both ovarian stimulation protocols combined) data for the outcomes of live birth and clinical pregnancy rates per woman because of substantial heterogeneity. In the long protocol GnRH-agonist subgroup, the pooled evidence showed that we are uncertain of the effect of metformin on live birth rate per woman when compared with placebo/no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.79; 6 RCTs; 651 women; I = 47%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance for live birth following placebo/no treatment is 28%, the chance following metformin would be between 27% and 51%. Only one study used short protocol GnRH-antagonist and reported live birth rate. Metformin may reduce live birth rate compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.79; 1 RCT; 153 women; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance for live birth following placebo/no treatment is 43%, the chance following metformin would be between 13% and 34% (short GnRH-antagonist protocol). We found that metformin may reduce the incidence of OHSS (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.72; 11 RCTs; 1091 women; I = 38%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 20% risk of OHSS without metformin, the corresponding risk using metformin would be between 6% and 14%. Using long protocol GnRH-agonist stimulation, metformin may increase clinical pregnancy rate per woman compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.63; 10 RCTs; 915 women; I = 13%; low-quality evidence). Using short protocol GnRH-antagonist, we are uncertain of the effect of metformin on clinical pregnancy rate per woman compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 9.14; 2 RCTs; 177 women; I = 87%; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of metformin on miscarriage rate per woman when compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.32; 8 RCTs; 821 women; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). Metformin may result in an increase in side effects compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 3.35, 95% CI 2.34 to 4.79; 8 RCTs; 748 women; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). The overall quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. The main limitations were inconsistency, risk of bias, and imprecision.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This updated review on metformin versus placebo/no treatment before or during IVF/ICSI treatment in women with PCOS found no conclusive evidence that metformin improves live birth rates. In a long GnRH-agonist protocol, we are uncertain whether metformin improves live birth rates, but metformin may increase the clinical pregnancy rate. In a short GnRH-antagonist protocol, metformin may reduce live birth rates, although we are uncertain about the effect of metformin on clinical pregnancy rate. Metformin may reduce the incidence of OHSS but may result in a higher incidence of side effects. We are uncertain of the effect of metformin on miscarriage rate per woman.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Bias; Confidence Intervals; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Hyperandrogenism; Hyperinsulinism; Hypoglycemic Agents; Live Birth; Metformin; Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome; Ovulation Induction; Placebos; Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic
PubMed: 33347618
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006105.pub4 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2021The purpose of this study was to summarize the existing evidence and develop a comprehensive systematic review of the impact of androgen suppression therapy (AST) on the...
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to summarize the existing evidence and develop a comprehensive systematic review of the impact of androgen suppression therapy (AST) on the incidence or clinical outcomes of bladder cancer.
METHODS
We systematically searched the PubMed and Embase databases from inception to June 20, 2021 to identify all observational studies examining the incidence or clinical outcomes of bladder cancer in patients who received AST. AST is defined as the use of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).
RESULTS
A total of 18 observational studies were included. Our results showed that AST was not significantly associated with a reduced risk of BCa incidence (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.68-1.24) compared with the lack of AST. The subgroup analysis revealed that finasteride use was significantly associated with a reduction in the risk of BCa incidence (OR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.64-0.88). Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was improved among AST users compared with nonusers (HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.48-0.95), while no significant difference between AST users versus nonusers was identified for cancer-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS).
CONCLUSION
Current evidence indicates that therapy with finasteride may represent a potential strategy aimed at reducing BCa incidence. Moreover, AST has a beneficial effect on the recurrence of bladder cancer. Further well-designed randomized trials or cohort studies with better characterized study populations are needed to validate our preliminary findings.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/], identifier CRD42021261685.
PubMed: 34970495
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.784627 -
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Apr 2015Whether used for pain management or recreation, opioids have a number of adverse effects including hormonal imbalances. These imbalances have been reported to primarily... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Whether used for pain management or recreation, opioids have a number of adverse effects including hormonal imbalances. These imbalances have been reported to primarily involve testosterone and affect both males and females to the point of interfering with successful treatment and recovery. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the extent that opioids affect testosterone levels in both men and women, which may be relevant to improved treatment outcomes for opioid dependence and for pain management.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL for relevant articles and included studies that examined testosterone levels in men and women while on opioids. Data collection was completed in duplicate.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies with 2769 participants (800 opioid users and 1969 controls) fulfilled the review inclusion criteria; 10 studies were cross-sectional and seven were cohort studies. Results showed a significant difference in mean testosterone level in men with opioid use compared to controls (MD=-164.78; 95% CI: -245.47, -84.08; p<0.0001). Methadone did not affect testosterone differently than other opioids. Testosterone levels in women were not affected by opioids. Generalizability of results was limited due to high heterogeneity among studies and overall low quality of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings demonstrated that testosterone level is suppressed in men with regular opioid use regardless of opioid type. We found that opioids affect testosterone levels differently in men than women. This suggests that opioids, including methadone, may have different endocrine disruption mechanisms in men and women, which should be considered when treating opioid dependence.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Methadone; Narcotics; Opioid-Related Disorders; Sex Characteristics; Testosterone
PubMed: 25702934
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.01.038 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021Degarelix is a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist that leads to medical castration used to treat men with advanced or metastatic prostate cancer, or both. It is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Degarelix is a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist that leads to medical castration used to treat men with advanced or metastatic prostate cancer, or both. It is unclear how its effects compare to standard androgen suppression therapy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of degree compared with standard androgen suppression therapy for men with advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS until September 2020), trial registries (until October 2020), and conference proceedings (until December 2020). We identified other potentially eligible trials by reference checking, citation searching, and contacting study authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials comparing degarelix with standard androgen suppression therapy for men with advanced prostate cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies. The primary outcomes were overall survival and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, cancer-specific survival, clinical progression, other adverse events, and biochemical progression. We used a random-effects model for meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of evidence for the main outcomes according to GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 studies with a follow-up of between three and 14 months. We also identified five ongoing trials. Primary outcomes Data to evaluate overall survival were not available. Degarelix may result in little to no difference in serious adverse events compared to standard androgen suppression therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 1.05; low-certainty evidence; 2750 participants). Based on 114 serious adverse events in the standard androgen suppression group, this corresponds to 23 fewer serious adverse events per 1000 participants (43 fewer to 6 more). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and imprecision. Secondary outcomes Degarelix likely results in little to no difference in quality of life assessed with a variety of validated questionnaires (standardized mean difference 0.06 higher, 95% CI 0.05 lower to 0.18 higher; moderate-certainty evidence; 2887 participants), with higher scores reflecting better quality of life. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations. Data to evaluate cancer-specific survival were not available. The effects of degarelix on cardiovascular events are very uncertain (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.61; very low-certainty evidence; 80 participants). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations, imprecision, and indirectness as this trial was conducted in a unique group of high-risk participants with pre-existing cardiovascular morbidities. Degarelix likely results in an increase in injection site pain (RR 15.68, 95% CI 7.41 to 33.17; moderate-certainty evidence; 2670 participants). Based on 30 participants per 1000 with injection site pain with standard androgen suppression therapy, this corresponds to 440 more injection site pains per 1000 participants (192 more to 965 more). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations. We did not identify any relevant subgroup differences for different degarelix maintenance doses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We did not find trial evidence for overall survival or cancer-specific survival comparing degarelix to standard androgen suppression, but serious adverse events and quality of life may be similar between groups. The effects of degarelix on cardiovascular events are very uncertain as the only eligible study had limitations, was small with few events, and was conducted in a high-risk population. Degarelix likely results in an increase in injection site pain compared to standard androgen suppression therapy. Maximum follow-up of included studies was 14 months, which is short. There is a need for methodologically better designed and executed studies with long-term follow-up evaluating men with metastatic prostate cancer.
Topics: Disease Progression; Hormones; Humans; Male; Oligopeptides; Prostatic Neoplasms; Quality of Life
PubMed: 34350976
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012548.pub2 -
European Urology Oncology Apr 2024It remains unclear to what extent the therapy of the primary local tumor, such as radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiation therapy (RT), improves overall survival in... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
It remains unclear to what extent the therapy of the primary local tumor, such as radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiation therapy (RT), improves overall survival in patients with low-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). However, data suggest a benefit of these therapies in preventing local events secondary to local tumor progression.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy of adding local therapy (RP or RT) to systemic therapies, including androgen deprivation therapy, docetaxel, and/or androgen receptor axis-targeted agents, in preventing local events in mHSPC patients compared with systemic therapy alone (ie, without RT of the prostate or RP).
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Three databases and meeting abstracts were queried in November 2023 for studies analyzing mHSPC patients treated with local therapy. The primary outcome of interest was the prevention of overall local events (urinary tract infection, urinary tract obstruction, and gross hematuria) due to local disease progression. Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the differential outcomes according to the type of local therapy (RP or RT).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Overall, six studies, comprising two randomized controlled trials, were included for a systematic review and meta-analysis. The overall incidence of local events was significantly lower in the local treatment plus systemic therapy group than in the systemic therapy only groups (relative risk [RR]: 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28-0.88, p = 0.016). RP significantly reduced the incidence of overall local events (RR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.11-0.52) and that of local events requiring surgical intervention (RR: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.03-0.25). Although there was no statistically significant difference between the RT plus systemic therapy and systemic therapy only groups in terms of overall local events, the incidence of local events requiring surgical intervention was significantly lower in the RT plus systemic therapy group (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.49-0.99); local events requiring surgical intervention of the upper urinary tract was significantly lower in local treatment groups (RR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.37-0.98, p = 0.04). However, a subgroup analysis revealed that neither RP nor RT significantly impacted the prevention of local events requiring surgical intervention of the upper urinary tract.
CONCLUSIONS
In some patients with mHSPC, RP or RT of primary tumor seems to reduce the incidence of local progression and events requiring surgical intervention. Identifying which patients are most likely to benefit from local therapy, and at what time point (eg, after response of metastases), will be necessary to set up a study assessing the risk, benefits, and alternatives to therapy of the primary tumor in the mHSPC setting.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Our study suggests that local therapy of the prostate, such as radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy, in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer can prevent local events, such as urinary obstruction and gross hematuria.
PubMed: 38575408
DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.03.007 -
Evidence Report/technology Assessment... May 1999With 184,500 new cases and 39,200 deaths anticipated in 1998, prostate cancer is second only to lung cancer in cancer mortality for men. This report is a systematic... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
With 184,500 new cases and 39,200 deaths anticipated in 1998, prostate cancer is second only to lung cancer in cancer mortality for men. This report is a systematic review of the evidence from randomized controlled trials on the relative effectiveness of alternative strategies for androgen suppression as treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Three key issues are addressed: (1) the relative effectiveness of the available methods for monotherapy (orchiectomy, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone [LHRH] agonists, and antiandrogens), (2) the effectiveness of combined androgen blockade compared to monotherapy, and (3) the effectiveness of immediate androgen suppression compared to androgen suppression deferred until clinical progression. Outcomes of interest are overall, cancer-specific, and progression-free survival; time to treatment failure; adverse effects; and quality of life. Two supplementary analyses were conducted for each key question: (1) meta-analysis of overall survival at 2 years (questions 1 and 2) and 5 years (questions 2 and 3), and (2) cost-effectiveness analysis.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, and EMBASE databases were searched from 1966 to March 1998, and Current Contents to August 24, 1998, for the terms: leuprolide (Lupron); goserelin (Zoladex); buserelin (Suprefact); flutamide (Eulexin); nilutamide (Anandron, Nilandron); bicalutamide (Casodex); cyproterone acetate (Androcur); diethylstilbestrol (DES); and orchiectomy (castration, orchidectomy). The search was then limited to human studies indexed under the MeSH term "prostatic neoplasms" and by the UK Cochrane Center search strategy for randomized controlled trials. Total yield was 1,477 references.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We Reports of efficacy outcomes were limited to randomized controlled trials. Phase II studies that reported on withdrawals from therapy and all studies reporting on quality of life were also included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The systematic review used a prospectively designed protocol conducted by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved by consensus. The meta-analysis combined data on overall survival using a random effects model. The cost-effectiveness analysis used a decision analysis model of advanced prostate cancer with health states and transitions derived from the literature and estimates of effectiveness derived from the meta-analysis. The cost-effectiveness analysis is conducted from a societal perspective, consistent with the guidelines of the U.S. Public Health Service Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.
MAIN RESULTS
Survival after treatment with an LHRH agonist is equivalent to survival after orchiectomy. The available LHRH agonists are equally effective, and no LHRH agonist is superior to the other when adverse effects are considered. Survival may be somewhat lower with use of a nonsteroidal antiandrogen. There is no statistically significant difference in survival at 2 years between patients treated with combined androgen blockade or monotherapy. Meta-analysis of the limited data available shows a statistically significant difference in survival at 5 years that favors combined androgen blockade. However, the magnitude of this difference is of questionable clinical significance. For the subgroup of patients with good prognosis, there is no statistically significant difference in survival. Adverse effects leading to withdrawal from therapy occurred more often with combined androgen blockade. No evidence is yet available from randomized controlled trials of androgen suppression initiated at prostate-specific antigen (PSA) rise after definitive therapy for clinically localized disease. For patients who are newly diagnosed with locally advanced or asymptomatic metastatic disease, the evidence is insufficient to determine whether primary androgen suppression initiated at diagnosis improves outcomes. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)
Topics: Androgen Antagonists; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Evidence-Based Medicine; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Goserelin; Humans; Leuprolide; Male; Orchiectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 11098244
DOI: No ID Found -
Urologia Nov 2023Most genitourinary tract cancers have a negative impact on male fertility. Although testicular cancers have the worst impact, other tumors such as prostate, bladder, and... (Review)
Review
Most genitourinary tract cancers have a negative impact on male fertility. Although testicular cancers have the worst impact, other tumors such as prostate, bladder, and penis are diagnosed early and treated in relatively younger patients in which couple fertility can be an important concern. The purpose of this review is to highlight both the pathogenetic mechanisms of damage to male fertility in the context of the main urological cancers and the methods of preserving male fertility in an oncological setting, in light of the most recent scientific evidence. A systematic review of available literature was carried out on the main scientific search engines, such as PubMed, Clinicaltrials.Gov, and Google scholar. Three hundred twenty-five relevant articles on this subject were identified, 98 of which were selected being the most relevant to the purpose of this review. There is a strong evidence in literature that all of the genitourinary oncological therapies have a deep negative impact on male fertility: orchiectomy, partial orchiectomy, retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy (RPLND), radical cystectomy, prostatectomy, penectomy, as well as radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and hormonal androgen suppression. Preservation of fertility is possible and includes cryopreservation, hormonal manipulation with GnRH analogs before chemotherapy, androgen replacement. Germ cell auto transplantation is an intriguing strategy with future perspectives. Careful evaluation of male fertility must be a key point before treating genitourinary tumors, taking into account patients' age and couples' perspectives. Informed consent should provide adequate information to the patient about the current state of his fertility and about the balance between risks and benefits in oncological terms. Standard approaches to genitourinary tumors should include a multidisciplinary team with urologists, oncologists, radiotherapists, psycho-sexologists, andrologists, gynecologists, and reproductive endocrinologists.
Topics: Humans; Male; Fertility Preservation; Androgens; Infertility, Male; Testicular Neoplasms; Urologic Neoplasms
PubMed: 37491831
DOI: 10.1177/03915603221146147