-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2006Hormone therapy for early prostate cancer has demonstrated an improvement in clinical and pathological variables, but not always an improvement in overall survival. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Hormone therapy for early prostate cancer has demonstrated an improvement in clinical and pathological variables, but not always an improvement in overall survival. We performed a systematic review of both adjuvant and neo-adjuvant hormone therapy combined with surgery or radiotherapy in localised or locally advanced prostate cancer.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to undertake a systematic review and, if possible, a meta-analysis of neo-adjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy in localised or locally advanced prostate cancer.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched MEDLINE (1966-2006), EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, LILACS, and SIGLE for relevant randomised trials. Handsearching of appropriate publications was also undertaken.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of patients with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer, that is, stages T1-T4, any N, M0, comparing neo-adjuvant or adjuvant hormonal deprivation in combination with primary therapy (radical radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy) versus primary therapy alone were included in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were extracted from eligible studies and assessed for quality, and included information on study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes. Comparable data were pooled together for meta-analysis with intention-to treat principle.
MAIN RESULTS
Men with prostate cancer have different clinical outcomes based on their risk (T1-T2, T3-T4, PSA levels and Gleason score). However, the majority of studies included in this review did not report results by risk groups; therefore, it was not possible to perform sub-group analysis. Neo-adjuvant hormonal therapy prior to prostatectomy did not improve overall survival (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.85, P = 0.69). However, there was a significant reduction in the positive surgical margin rate (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.42, P < 0.00001) and a significant improvement in other pathological variables such as lymph node involvement, pathological staging and organ confined rates. There was a borderline significant reduction of disease recurrence rates (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.0, P = 0.05), in favour of treatment. The use of longer duration of neo-adjuvant hormones, that is either 6 or 8 months prior to prostatectomy, was associated with a significant reduction in positive surgical margins (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.80, P = 0.002). In one study, neo-adjuvant hormones prior to radiotherapy significantly improved overall survival for Gleason 2 to 6 patients; although, in two studies, there was no improvement in disease-specific survival (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.32, P = 0.97). However, there was a significant improvement in both clinical disease-free survival (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.93 to 2.40, P < 0.00001) and biochemical disease-free survival (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.56, P < 0.00001). Adjuvant androgen deprivation following prostatectomy did not significantly improve overall survival at 5 years (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.85, P = 0.2); although one study reported a significant disease-specific survival advantage with adjuvant therapy (P = 0.001). In addition, there was a significant improvement in disease-free survival at both 5 years (OR 3.73, 95%CI 2.30 to 6.03, P < 0.00001) and 10 years (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.15, P = 0.0009). Adjuvant therapy following radiotherapy resulted in a significant overall survival gain apparent at 5 (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.83, P = 0.0009) and 10 years (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.84, P = 0.003); although there was significant heterogeneity (P = 0.09 and P = 0.07, respectively). There was also a significant improvement in disease-specific survival (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.88, P = 0.00001) and disease-free survival (OR 2.53, 95% CI 2.05 to 3.12, P < 0.00001) at 5 years.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Hormone therapy combined with either prostatectomy or radiotherapy is associated with significant clinical benefits in patients with local or locally advanced prostate cancer. Significant local control may be achieved when given prior to prostatectomy or radiotherapy, which may improve patient's quality of life. When given adjuvant to these primary therapies, hormone therapy, not only provides a method for local control, but there is also evidence for a significant survival advantage. However, hormone therapy is associated with significant side effects, such as hot flushes and gynaecomastia, as well as cost implications. The decision to use hormone therapy should, therefore, be taken at a local level, between the patient, clinician and policy maker, taking into account the clinical benefits, toxicity and cost. More research is needed to guide the choice, the duration, and the schedule of hormonal deprivation therapy, and the impact of long-term hormone therapy with regard to toxicity and the patient's quality of life.
Topics: Androgen Antagonists; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Male; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 17054269
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006019.pub2 -
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) Oct 2023Prostate cancer ranks as the second most common malignancy in males. Prostate cancer progressing on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is castration-resistant prostate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Prostate cancer ranks as the second most common malignancy in males. Prostate cancer progressing on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPis) have been at the forefront of the treatment of CRPC. We aim to better characterize the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in metastatic CRPC patients treated with PARPis. A systemic review search was conducted using National Clinical Trial (NCT), PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Central Cochrane Registry. The improvement in overall survival was statistically significant, favoring PARPis (hazard ratio (HR) 0.855; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.752-0.974; = 0.018). The improvement in progression-free survival was also statistically significant, with results favoring PARPis (HR 0.626; 95%CI 0.566-0.692; = 0.000). In a subgroup analysis, similar results were observed where the efficacy of PARPis was evaluated in a subgroup of patients without homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene mutation, which showed improvement in PFS favoring PARPis (HR 0.747; 95%CI 0.0.637-0.877; = 0.000). Our meta-analysis of seven RCTs showed that PARPis significantly increased PFS and OS when used with or without antihormonal agents like abiraterone or enzalutamide.
Topics: Humans; Male; Androgen Antagonists; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Progression-Free Survival; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37887569
DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30100669 -
ESMO Open Oct 2022Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) historically represented the milestone for the treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Recently, combining... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Addition of androgen receptor-targeted agents to androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) historically represented the milestone for the treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Recently, combining androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTA) or docetaxel with ADT significantly improved clinical outcomes in this setting. The efficacy of the combined use of an ARTA with docetaxel and ADT (triplet), however, was unknown, and often conflicting data derived from subgroup analysis of randomized phase III trials. In order to better define the benefits and risks of the triplet in mHSPC, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of available clinical trials.
METHODS
A literature search with no data restriction using Medline/PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and American Society of Clinical Oncology/European Society for Medical Oncology (ASCO/ESMO) Meeting abstracts was carried out up to April 2022. The meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statements. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint; progression-free survival (PFS) and safety were secondary endpoints. For OS and PFS, summary hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated; for safety, risk ratio (RR) was assessed. Random- or fixed-effects models were used, depending on studies heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Five randomized clinical trials fulfilled the prespecified inclusion criteria. The triplet significantly improved OS (fixed-effect, HR = 0.74; P < 0.00001) and PFS (fixed-effect; HR = 0.50 for clinical PFS, HR = 0.49 for radiological PFS; P < 0.0001) compared with docetaxel plus ADT. We did not show heterogeneity between treatment efficacy and the disease burden, metachronous versus synchronous presentation, concomitant versus sequential strategy. Compared with docetaxel + ADT, the triplet did not increase the risk of adverse events (AEs) (RR = 1.00, P = 0.27 for any-grade AEs; RR = 1.13, P = 0.14 for severe AEs), except for severe hypertension (RR = 1.73, P = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Emerging evidence supports the combination of an ARTA plus docetaxel and ADT in mHSPC patients. Given the availability of several strategies in this setting, clinical characteristics and drug safety profile may help clinicians select the appropriate treatment for mHSPC patients who are more likely to benefit from treatment intensification.
Topics: Male; Humans; Docetaxel; Androgen Antagonists; Prostatic Neoplasms; Androgens; Receptors, Androgen; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Antineoplastic Agents
PubMed: 36152486
DOI: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2022.100575 -
The Canadian Journal of Urology Apr 2014Castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is the single common pathway to prostate cancer death. For men with symptomatic metastatic disease, docetaxel chemotherapy... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is the single common pathway to prostate cancer death. For men with symptomatic metastatic disease, docetaxel chemotherapy remains a standard of care. However, blood prostatic-specific antigen (PSA) testing allows the identification of CRPC before clinical metastases or symptoms occur, providing a long diagnostic lead time in many patients. The use of secondary hormonal manipulations (SHMs) in men not candidates for immediate chemotherapy is reviewed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PubMed was searched for randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews or clinical practice guidelines addressing SHMs in CRPC.
RESULTS
A recent systematic review and practice guideline was identified, and used as the evidence base for this review along with reports from randomized trials over the past year.
CONCLUSIONS
The goals of therapy with SHMs should be discussed with patients and their preferences considered. In men without clinical evidence of metastases, gonadal androgen suppression should be maintained and generally patients should be observed. There is no clear evidence that SHMs are of benefit in these patients. Abiraterone plus prednisone is of proven benefit in men with CRPC metastases who are without significant symptoms prior to chemotherapy. Based on emerging data, enzalutamide may be of similar benefit. Use of other SHMs should be based on patient preference and consideration of possible adverse effects; with the exception of low dose prednisone, there is little evidence of benefit supporting their use. For patients accepting these uncertainties, a trial of nonsteroidal antiandrogen may be considered as an adjunct to observation, followed by low dose corticosteroid with immediate or delayed addition of abiraterone (in men with metastases) as a reasonable next step.
Topics: Androgen Antagonists; Androstenes; Androstenols; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Benzamides; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Male; Nitriles; Phenylthiohydantoin; Prednisone; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24775722
DOI: No ID Found -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Oct 2023The aim of this NMA is to comprehensively analyze evidence of oral GnRH antagonist in the treatment of moderate-to-severe endometriosis-associated pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The aim of this NMA is to comprehensively analyze evidence of oral GnRH antagonist in the treatment of moderate-to-severe endometriosis-associated pain.
METHODS
Literature searching was performed to select eligible studies published prior to April 2022 in PubMed, Cochrane, Embase and Web of Science. Randomized controlled trials involving patients who suffered from moderate-to-severe endometriosis-associated pain and treated with oral nonpeptide GnRH antagonists or placebo were included.
RESULTS
Elagolix 400 mg and ASP1707 15 mg were most efficient in reducing pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea and dyspareunia. Relugolix 40 mg was best in reducing the analgesics use. The rates of any TEAEs and TEAEs-related discontinuation were highest in relugolix 40 mg and elagolix 250 mg, respectively, while rates of hot flush and headache were highest in relugolix 40 mg and elagolix 150 mg. Significantly decreased spinal BMD was observed in elagolix 250 mg.
CONCLUSION
Oral GnRH antagonists were effective in endometriosis-associated pain in 12w, and most of the efficiency and safety outcomes were expressed in a dose-dependent manner, but linzagolix 75 mg was an exception.
Topics: Female; Humans; Endometriosis; Network Meta-Analysis; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Hormone Antagonists; Pelvic Pain
PubMed: 36656435
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-022-06862-0 -
Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) Mar 2022Since the onset of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, various potential targeted therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection have been... (Review)
Review
Since the onset of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, various potential targeted therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection have been proposed. The protective effects of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) against tissue fibrosis, pulmonary and systemic vasoconstriction, and inflammation have been implicated in potentially attenuating the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection by inhibiting the deleterious effects of aldosterone. Furthermore, spironolactone, a type of MRA, has been suggested to have a beneficial effect on SARS-CoV-2 outcomes through its dual action as an MRA and antiandrogen, resulting in reduced transmembrane protease receptor serine type 2 (TMPRSS2)-related viral entry to host cells. In this study, we sought to investigate the association between MRA antagonist therapy and mortality in SARS-CoV-2 patients via systematic review and meta-analysis. The systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for studies that reported the incidence of mortality in patients on MRA with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the outcome were obtained using the random-effects model. Five studies with a total of 1,388,178 subjects (80,903 subjects receiving MRA therapy) met the inclusion criteria. We included studies with all types of MRA therapy including spironolactone and canrenone and found no association between MRA therapy and mortality in SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR = 0.387, 95% CI: 0.134-1.117, = 0.079).
PubMed: 35455823
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10040645 -
European Urology Jul 2022Several recent randomised trials have evaluated the role of combination systemic treatment using androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus chemotherapy or an androgen... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
Several recent randomised trials have evaluated the role of combination systemic treatment using androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus chemotherapy or an androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSI) in patients with high-risk and/or unfavourable nonmetastatic prostate cancer (nmPC).
OBJECTIVE
To assess the outcomes associated with adding combination systemic treatment to primary definitive local therapy in patients with high-risk and/or unfavourable nmPC.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We queried the PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases and conference abstracts to identify prospective randomised trials examining the value of adding chemotherapy or an ARSI to ADT and primary local therapy with curative intent for nmPC. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), and failure-free survival (FFS). Secondary endpoints included adverse events (AEs) and pathologic outcomes.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
We identified 15 randomised studies, of which nine evaluated chemohormonal and six investigated ARSI-based treatment strategies. In both radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiation therapy (RT) settings, addition of docetaxel to ADT was associated with significantly better CSS (pooled hazard ratio [HR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.95; p = 0.025), MFS (pooled HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71-0.95; p = 0.008), and FFS (pooled HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62-0.79; p < 0.001); the difference did not meet the conventional level of statistical significance for OS (pooled HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73-1.01; p = 0.072). For patients treated with RT alone, docetaxel-based combination treatment did not meet the significance threshold set for OS (p = 0.3), CSS (p = 0.072), or MFS (p = 0.079), but the difference for FFS was statistically significant (pooled HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63-0.84; p < 0.001). On network meta-analyses including RT studies, ARSI + ADT outperformed docetaxel + ADT for survival endpoints and had a more favourable AE profile.
CONCLUSIONS
Intensification of systemic therapy with docetaxel or an ARSI in addition to ADT improves oncologic endpoints in high-risk and/or unfavourable nmPC treated with local definitive therapy. The highest efficacy was achieved with ARSI + ADT, specifically in patients treated with RT.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Our findings highlight that selected patients with high-risk nonmetastatic prostate cancer benefit from intensification of systemic therapy beyond hormonal treatment.
Topics: Androgen Antagonists; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Docetaxel; Humans; Male; Prospective Studies; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 35465985
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.03.031 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jun 2019This study seeks to evaluate the long-term effects of pharmacologic therapy on the bone markers and bone mineral density of transgender patients and to provide a basis... (Review)
Review
This study seeks to evaluate the long-term effects of pharmacologic therapy on the bone markers and bone mineral density of transgender patients and to provide a basis for understanding its potential implications on therapies involving implant procedures. Following the referred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and well-defined PICOT (Problem/Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Time) questionnaires, a literature search was completed for articles in English language, with more than a 3 year follow-up reporting the long-term effects of the cross-sex pharmacotherapy on the bones of adult transgender patients. Transgender demographics, time under treatment, and treatment received were recorded. In addition, bone marker levels (calcium, phosphate, alkaline phosphatase, and osteocalcin), bone mineral density (BMD), and bone turnover markers (Serum Procollagen type I N-Terminal pro-peptide (PINP), and Serum Collagen type I crosslinked C-telopeptide (CTX)) before and after the treatment were also recorded. The considerable variability between studies did not allow a meta-analysis. All the studies were completed in European countries. Transwomen (921 men to female) were more frequent than transmen (719 female to male). Transwomen's treatments were based in antiandrogens, estrogens, new drugs, and sex reassignment surgery, meanwhile transmen's surgeries were based in the administration of several forms of testosterone and sex reassignment. Calcium, phosphate, alkaline phosphatase, and osteocalcin levels remained stable. PINP increased in transwomen and transmen meanwhile, CTX showed contradictory values in transwomen and transmen. Finally, reduced BMD was observed in transwomen patients receiving long-term cross-sex pharmacotherapy. Considering the limitations of this systematic review, it was concluded that long-term cross-sex pharmacotherapy for transwomen and transmen transgender patients does not alter the calcium, phosphate, alkaline phosphatase, and osteocalcin levels, and will slightly increase the bone formation in both transwomen and transmen patients. Furthermore, long-term pharmacotherapy reduces the BMD in transwomen patients.
PubMed: 31159456
DOI: 10.3390/jcm8060784 -
PloS One 2016Prostate cancer is the most common nonskin cancer and second most common cause of cancer mortality in older men in the United States (USA) and Western Europe.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy and Safety of Combined Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) and Docetaxel Compared with ADT Alone for Metastatic Hormone-Naive Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Prostate cancer is the most common nonskin cancer and second most common cause of cancer mortality in older men in the United States (USA) and Western Europe. Androgen-deprivation therapy alone (ADT) remains the first line of treatment in most cases, for metastatic disease. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compared the efficacy and adverse events profile of a chemohormonal therapy (ADT ± docetaxel) for metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer (mHNPC).
METHODS
Several databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Data extracted from the studies were combined by using the hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).
RESULTS
The final analysis included 3 trials comprising 2,264 patients (mHNPC). Patients who received the chemohormonal therapy had a longer clinical progression-free survival interval (HR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.75; p<0.00001), and no heterogeneity (Chi2 = 0.64; df = 1 [p = 0.42]; I2 = 0%). The biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) also was higher in patients treated with ADT plus docetaxel (HR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.69; p<0.00001), also with no heterogeneity noted (Chi2 = 0.48; df = 2 [p = 0.79]; I2 = 0%). Finally, the combination of ADT with docetaxel showed a superior overall survival (OS) compared with ADT alone (HR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.84; p<0.0001), with moderate heterogeneity (Chi2 = 3.84; df = 2 [p = 0.15]; I2 = 48%). A random-effects model analysis was performed, and the results remained favorable to the use of ADT plus docetaxel (HR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.89; p = 0.002). In the final combined analysis of the high-volume disease patients, the use of the combination therapy also favored an increased overall survival (HR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.83; p = 0.0003). Regarding adverse events and severe toxicity (grade ≥3), the group receiving the combined therapy had higher rates of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and fatigue.
CONCLUSION
The combination of ADT with docetaxel improved the clinical progression-free survival, bPFS and OS of patients with mHNPC. A superior OS was seen especially for patients with metastatic and high-volume disease. This contemporary combination therapy may now be offered as a first-line treatment for selected patients.
Topics: Aged; Androgen Antagonists; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Docetaxel; Humans; Lymphatic Metastasis; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Safety; Prostatic Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Analysis; Taxoids; Treatment Outcome; Tubulin Modulators
PubMed: 27308831
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157660 -
BMC Medicine Nov 2023Sex difference exists in the prevalence of dementia and cognitive decline. The impacts of sex-specific reproductive risk factors across the lifespan on the risk of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Sex difference exists in the prevalence of dementia and cognitive decline. The impacts of sex-specific reproductive risk factors across the lifespan on the risk of dementia or cognitive decline are still unclear. Herein, we conducted this systemic review and meta-analysis to finely depict the longitudinal associations between sex-specific reproductive factors and dementia or cognitive decline.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2023. Studies focused on the associations of female- and male-specific reproductive factors with dementia or cognitive decline were included. Multivariable-adjusted effects were pooled via the random effect models. Evidence credibility was scored by the GRADE system. The study protocol was pre-registered in PROSPERO and the registration number is CRD42021278732.
RESULTS
A total of 94 studies were identified for evidence synthesis, comprising 9,839,964 females and 3,436,520 males. Among the identified studies, 63 of them were included in the meta-analysis. According to the results, seven female-specific reproductive factors including late menarche (risk increase by 15%), nulliparous (11%), grand parity (32%), bilateral oophorectomy (8%), short reproductive period (14%), early menopause (22%), increased estradiol level (46%), and two male-specific reproductive factors, androgen deprivation therapy (18%), and serum sex hormone-binding globulin (22%) were associated with an elevated risk of dementia or cognitive decline.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings potentially reflect sex hormone-driven discrepancy in the occurrence of dementia and could help build sex-based precise strategies for preventing dementia.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Male; Humans; Dementia; Longevity; Androgen Antagonists; Prostatic Neoplasms; Cognitive Dysfunction; Risk Factors; Parity
PubMed: 37996855
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-023-03159-0