4.6 Review

Incidence of the adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: a systematic literature review

期刊

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
卷 28, 期 5, 页码 2079-2093

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-019-05255-5

关键词

Prostate cancer; Androgen deprivation therapy; Adverse effects; Incidence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has broad application in the treatment of prostate cancer (PC) and is associated with numerous, debilitating adverse effects. Increasing use of ADT for PC, longer timeframe for treatment (increased uptake of PSA testing and earlier diagnosis), as well as improved survival and an ageing population, means patients can live for a considerable period of time on or after ADT, experiencing these adverse effects. A number of systematic reviews of adverse effects of ADT for PC exist; however, no single systematic review has previously examined the evidence for all adverse effects, including newer forms of ADT. Methods A systematic review of existing systematic reviews of ADT for PC was conducted (2010-February 2019), as per Cochrane guidelines, to identify the highest level of risk/incidence evidence available, supplemented by evidence drawn from individual studies where no systematic review existed. Results Incidence data was generated for 19 adverse effect subgroups, classified according to the common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE). Conclusion Incidence of adverse effects provides valuable information for future burden of disease studies. This information can better guide clinical management to reduce symptoms for patients and assist patients to make more informed decisions about their treatment, potentially improving disease outcomes. It also highlights the importance of supportive care for PC patients receiving ADT and their carers. For analysts conducting economic evaluations, the inclusion of adverse effects in PC decision analytic models can provide more comprehensive and accurate information for decision makers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据