Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/23763
Title: Intermittent versus continuous androgen deprivation therapy for advanced prostate cancer.
Austin Authors: Perera, Marlon ;Roberts, Matthew J;Klotz, Laurence;Higano, Celestia S;Papa, Nathan P;Sengupta, Shomik ;Bolton, Damien M ;Lawrentschuk, Nathan
Affiliation: Department of Surgery, Austin Health, The University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
The University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, Faculty of Medicine, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Department of Urology, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
EHCS, Monash University, Box Hill, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Urology Department, Eastern Health, Box Hill, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
Department of Surgical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Department of Urology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Division of Urology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Division of Oncology, University of Washington, Washington, WA, USA
Issue Date: 2020
metadata.dc.date: 2020-06-30
Publication information: Nature reviews. Urology 2020; 17(8): 469-481
Abstract: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is still a mainstay of treatment for advanced prostate cancer. Continuous ADT causes considerable patient morbidity including sexual dysfunction, poor mood and physical capacity, changes in body composition and health-care-related costs. Intermittent ADT has been used as an approach to ADT monotherapy to limit morbidity by enabling cyclical recovery of serum testosterone levels. To date, a number of well-performed randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses have demonstrated statistically insignificant differences in oncological outcomes between intermittent and continuous ADT monotherapy. Sexual outcomes, morbidity profiles and cost-savings favour intermittent therapy in most randomized trials, but the benefit for clinical practice is unclear. Despite the growing body of evidence, the optimal administration regime for ADT has not been clearly established and incorporation of adjunctive upfront treatments such as chemotherapy and novel anti-androgen agents has further hampered progress. Recommendations by authoritative urological and oncological societies regarding the use of intermittent ADT are limited. The potential benefits of reduced morbidity for a particular patient must be considered in light of the possible oncological outcomes. Although the oncological changes associated with intermittent ADT are controversial, intermittent ADT does seem to provide symptomatic benefit in patients compared with continuous ADT. However, careful selection of suitable patients is crucial.
URI: http://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/23763
DOI: 10.1038/s41585-020-0335-7
ORCID: 0000-0003-0552-7402
0000-0002-5145-6783
0000-0002-1138-6389
0000-0003-3357-1216
PubMed URL: 32606361
Type: Journal Article
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Show full item record

Page view(s)

16
checked on Dec 2, 2022

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.