4.4 Article

Androgen deprivation therapy did not increase the risk of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease in patients with prostate cancer

期刊

ANDROLOGY
卷 4, 期 3, 页码 481-485

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/andr.12187

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; androgen deprivation therapy; prostate cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been the standard treatment for advanced prostate cancer for many decades. Although potential adverse effects of ADT have been reported, there are no empirical studies investigating the association between ADT and Alzheimer's disease. Therefore, this retrospective cohort study explored the relationship between the use of ADT and the subsequent risk of Alzheimer's disease in men with prostate cancer using a population-based database. We retrieved data from the Taiwan Longitudinal Health Insurance Database 2000. The study included 1335 patients with prostate cancer and 4005 age-matched comparison patients without prostate malignancy. We then individually tracked each patient (n=5340) for a 5-year period to discriminate those who subsequently received a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. The Cox proportional hazard regression showed that the hazard ratio (HR) for Alzheimer's disease during the 5-year follow-up period for prostate cancer patients was 1.71 (95% confidence interval (CI)=0.90 similar to 3.25) over that of comparison patients. We further analyzed the hazard ratio for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease between prostate cancer patients who did and those who did not receive ADT, but we failed to observe a significant difference in the hazard ratio for both diseases during the 5-year follow-up period (adjusted HR=1.76, 95% CI=0.55 similar to 5.62, and HR=1.13, 95% CI=0.58 similar to 2.20, respectively). In conclusion, this study demonstrated that the use of androgen deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer was not associated with a higher risk of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease during the follow-up period.

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

4.4
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