4.4 Review

Testosterone deficiency in testicular cancer survivors - a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

ANDROLOGY
卷 4, 期 3, 页码 382-388

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/andr.12177

关键词

systematic review; testicular germ cell cancer; testosterone deficiency

资金

  1. Novo Nordisk Fonden [NNF12OC1016270] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. The Danish Cancer Society [R97-A6466, R94-A5706] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Results concerning treatment of Testicular Germ Cell Cancer (TGCC) and subsequent risk of testosterone deficiency are conflicting. To systematically evaluate and estimate the risk of testosterone deficiency (TD) in TGCC-patients according to treatment to optimize follow-up and for prevention of late effects related to hypogonadism. We performed a critical review of PubMed in January 2015 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. Twelve publications were selected for inclusion in this analysis. Eleven studies evaluated the risk of TD in TGCC-patients treated with standard chemotherapy (CT) and the odds ratio for TD was 1.8 (95% CI) (1.3-2.5), (p=0.0007). Seven studies evaluated the risk of TD in TGCC-patients treated with non-conventional therapy and the odds ratio for TD was 3.1 (95% CI) (2.0-4.8), (p<0.0001). Six studies evaluated the risk of TD in TGCC-patients treated with infradiaphragmatic radiotherapy (RT), and the odds ratio for TD was 1.6 (95% CI) (1.0-2.4), (p=0.03). In all treatment groups the risk of TD was compared with TGCC-patients treated with orchiectomy alone. There was no indication of heterogeneity between studies in the three treatment groups. Strong evidence exists that standard CT, non-conventional therapy and infradiaphragmatic RT are associated with an increased risk of TD in TGCC-patients when compared with orchiectomy alone. The risk of testosterone defficiency appears to be highest in patients treated with non-conventional therapy.

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