Impact of Androgen Deprivation Therapy on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Substantial evidence indicates that men with prostate cancer are at an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, and medical and surgical androgen deprivation therapy is associated with further increased cardiovascular risk. There are conflicting reports of differences in cardiovascular safety between gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists and antagonists. The purpose of this narrative review is to compare data on the cardiovascular risks and safety outcomes associated with different hormonal treatment options in prostate cancer patients and to provide guidance on how to manage the increased risk associated with the condition. Methods: A PubMed search was conducted for papers published in the last 15 years using the following MeSH terms: “prostate neoplasms,” “gonadotropin-releasing hormone,” “androgen agonist,” “androgen antagonists,” “cardiovascular disease,” “epidemiology.” Results: Evidence regarding the risk of cardiovascular events during treatment with GnRH agonists and antagonists is conflicting. Some retrospective studies have shown that agonists are associated with a greater risk of cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, and a similar risk with agonists and combined androgen blockade. Some studies have reported that antagonists are associated with a decreased risk of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity compared with agonists. With respect to coronary heart disease, ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, or sudden cardiac death, current evidence has failed to demonstrate a significant difference between antagonists and agonists. Cardiovascular risks in patients should be mitigated by regular monitoring of blood pressure, blood glucose, and lipids, as well as counseling patients to abstain from alcohol and improve their diet and exercise. Statins, metformin, and aspirin should also be considered. Conclusions: The evidence for the increased cardiovascular risk of GnRH agonists over antagonists for androgen deprivation therapy is unclear. Differences in methodology, population sizes, risk stratification, and outcomes between studies make direct comparisons problematic. The single prospective, randomized prostate cancer trial with a primary cardiovascular end point in men with pre-existing cardiovascular disease comparing GnRH agonist to antagonist was stopped early due to an interim futility analysis. The results are inconclusive.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".