Sexual activity in men undergoing ADT for localized prostate cancer: a narrative literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) can negatively affect sexual function, and only a minority of patients report sexual activity. We reviewed the existing literature regarding the proportion of men who remained sexually active during and after ADT. The PubMed database was searched for studies published over the past 20 years. We selected and reviewed randomized clinical trials that provided sexual function data at baseline and during and after ADT. The primary outcome measure was the sexual function. Studies assessed sexual function using quality of life patient-reported outcome measures, which included sexual potency/activity evaluation. Information from 2947 patients was analyzed in this review. The median age of patients was 70 years. At baseline, a median of 49.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 49.1%-50.7%) of the patients reported being sexually active. At 6 months, 12 months, and 2 years or later of ADT treatment, a median of 10.3% (95% CI: 10.2%-10.5%), 8.9% (95% CI: 8.6%-9.2%), and 8.3% (95% CI: 8.2%-8.5%) of the patients reported being sexually active, respectively. Considering that half of the patients were sexually active at baseline, it seems probable that more than 10% of the patients who were sexually active before starting ADT remained sexually active when undergoing ADT. In conclusion, despite the common belief that ADT eliminates sexual activity, this analysis found that approximately 1 in 10 men are sexually active when on ADT, and this proportion is likely increased in men who are sexually active before starting ADT. Attention to sexual activity should not be dismissed in men on ADT.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".