The impact of androgen‐deprivation therapy ( <scp>ADT</scp> ) on the risk of cardiovascular ( <scp>CV</scp> ) events in patients with non‐metastatic prostate cancer: a population‐based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine and quantify the contemporary association between androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and three separate endpoints: coronary artery disease (CAD), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and sudden cardiac death (SCD), in a large USA contemporary cohort of patients with prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 140 474 patients diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer between 1995 and 2009 within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database were abstracted. Patients treated with ADT and those not receiving ADT were matched using propensity score methodology. The 10-year CAD, AMI, and SCD rates were estimated. Competing-risks regression analyses tested the association between the type of ADT (GnRH agonists vs bilateral orchidectomy) and CAD, AMI, and SCD, after adjusting for the risk of dying during follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, the 10-year rates of CAD, AMI, and SCD were 25.9%, 15.6%, and 15.8%, respectively. After stratification according to ADT status (ADT-naïve vs GnRH agonists vs bilateral orchidectomy), the CAD rates were 25.1% vs 26.9% vs 23.2%, the AMI rates were 14.8% vs 16.6% vs 14.8%, and the SCD rates were 14.2% vs 17.7% vs 16.4%, respectively. In competing-risks multivariable regression analyses, the administration of GnRH agonists (all P < 0.001), but not bilateral orchidectomy (all P ≥ 0.7), was associated with higher risk of CAD, AMI, and SCD. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of GnRH agonists, but not orchidectomy, is still associated with a significantly increased risk of CAD, AMI, and, especially, SCD in patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer. Alternative forms of ADT should be considered in patients at higher risk of CV events.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".