Intermittent androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: translating randomized controlled trials into clinical practice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Intermittent androgen deprivation therapy (IADT) for prostate cancer involves cycles of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with a period between cycles where testosterone is allowed to rise above castrate levels. A number of recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared survival and health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) between IADT and continuous ADT (CADT). This review seeks to critically analyze these published trials for their relevance to clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Published trials were retrieved from a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases using relevant keywords. Recent systematic reviews published on this topic were hand-searched for additional applicable references. The evidence was then synthesized for this review. RESULTS: A number of phase III trials have been recently published. IADT was found to be non-inferior in the primary setting for non-metastatic prostate cancer as well as in treatment of biochemical recurrence following radiotherapy. However, these studies overrepresented low risk patients in whom consideration may be given to deferred ADT rather than early treatment with IADT. In the metastatic prostate cancer setting, IADT was not found to be non-inferior to CADT. In most trials, castration related symptoms improved with IADT and overall HRQOL results were mixed. Little data are available on the effect of IADT on long term complications of ADT. CONCLUSIONS: IADT remains a treatment with uncertain outcomes in metastatic prostate cancer and uncertain value over deferring ADT entirely in other prostate cancer clinical states.
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 | 0.175 | 0.418 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".