Treatment of Prostate Cancer With Intermittent Versus Continuous Androgen Deprivation: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Uncertainty exists regarding benefits of intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) compared with continuous androgen deprivation (CAD) for treatment of prostate cancer. On the basis of a systematic review of evidence, our aim was to formulate a recommendation for either IAD or CAD to treat relapsing, locally advanced, or metastatic prostate cancer. METHODS: We searched literature published up to September 2012 from MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and major conference proceedings. We included randomized controlled trials comparing IAD and CAD if they reported overall survival (OS) or biochemical/radiologic time to disease progression. RESULTS: Nine studies with 5,508 patients met our criteria. There were no significant differences in time-to-event outcomes between the groups in any studies. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.94 to 1.11) for IAD compared with CAD, and the HR for progression-free survival was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.76 to 1.20). More prostate cancer-related deaths with IAD tended to be balanced by more deaths not related to prostate cancer with CAD. Superiority of IAD for sexual function, physical activity, and general well-being was observed in some trials. Median cost savings with IAD was estimated to be 48%. CONCLUSION: There is fair evidence to recommend use of IAD instead of CAD for the treatment of men with relapsing, locally advanced, or metastatic prostate cancer who achieve a good initial response to androgen deprivation. This recommendation is based on evidence against superiority of either strategy for time-to-event outcomes and substantial decrease with IAD in exposure to androgen deprivation, resulting in less cost, inconvenience, and potential toxicity.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".