Examining Differences in Pathological Outcomes and Safety for Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Either Subcapsular Orchiectomy or Medical Androgen Deprivation Therapy: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review is to investigate differences in pathological outcomes and safety between subcapsular orchiectomy and pharmacological androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer management. Methods: A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect for original articles published until February 2024 that compared tumour characteristics, biochemical markers, and adverse effects associated with these treatments. The risk of bias from each study was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and Risk of Bias-2 (ROB-2) tool. Results: Eleven studies meeting the inclusion criteria were analysed. Both subcapsular orchiectomy and pharmacological ADT effectively reduced tumour size and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. Subcapsular orchiectomy was linked to higher surgical complication rates. At the same time, due to its systemic pharmacological mechanisms, pharmacological ADT carries a greater risk of metabolic side effects, such as weight gain and insulin resistance. Conclusions: Both subcapsular orchiectomy and pharmacological ADT are viable options for prostate cancer treatment. However, their differing safety and pharmacological profiles highlight the need for personalised treatment strategies based on individual patient factors and preferences. PROSPERO registration: CRD42025634678 (17/01/2025).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".