PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of short-term versus long-term hormonotherapy (HT) plus radiotherapy (RT) or prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer. METHODS: Literatures were searched from Embase, PubMed, Web of science and Cochrane Library up to October, 2012. Quality of the study was evaluated according to the Cochrane's risk of bias of randomized controlled trial (RCT); the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation System was used to rate the level of evidence. RevMan 5.1 was used for statistical analysis. Two comparisons were of interest: RT plus short-term HT versus RT plus long-term HT and RP plus short-term HT versus RP plus long-term HT. Pooled risk ratio or standardized mean differences were calculated; HT adverse reactions were descriptively evaluated. RESULTS: Nine RCTs (total 4,743 patients) were included, 7 RCTs compared RT plus short-term HT with RT plus long-term HT, 2 RCTs compared RP plus short-term HT with RP plus long-term HT. Meta-analysis showed there was no significant difference in overall survival, disease-free survival and PSA level before RP; long-term was superior to short-term hormonotherapy in biochemical failure rate, clinical progression rate, prostate cancer-specific mortality, positive surgical margin rate and prostate volume before RP. Systematic review demonstrated adverse events caused by the increased length of HT were more common. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term HT plus RT showed a trend toward improved overall survival; long-term HT plus RP declined positive surgical margin rate and prostate volume before RP. So, long-term HT may benefit more, but it did not significantly improve the patients' overall survival, and the adverse reactions are inevitable.
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of short-term versus long-term hormonotherapy (HT) plus radiotherapy (RT) or prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer. METHODS: Literatures were searched from Embase, PubMed, Web of science and Cochrane Library up to October, 2012. Quality of the study was evaluated according to the Cochrane's risk of bias of randomized controlled trial (RCT); the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation System was used to rate the level of evidence. RevMan 5.1 was used for statistical analysis. Two comparisons were of interest: RT plus short-term HT versus RT plus long-term HT and RP plus short-term HT versus RP plus long-term HT. Pooled risk ratio or standardized mean differences were calculated; HT adverse reactions were descriptively evaluated. RESULTS: Nine RCTs (total 4,743 patients) were included, 7 RCTs compared RT plus short-term HT with RT plus long-term HT, 2 RCTs compared RP plus short-term HT with RP plus long-term HT. Meta-analysis showed there was no significant difference in overall survival, disease-free survival and PSA level before RP; long-term was superior to short-term hormonotherapy in biochemical failure rate, clinical progression rate, prostate cancer-specific mortality, positive surgical margin rate and prostate volume before RP. Systematic review demonstrated adverse events caused by the increased length of HT were more common. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term HT plus RT showed a trend toward improved overall survival; long-term HT plus RP declined positive surgical margin rate and prostate volume before RP. So, long-term HT may benefit more, but it did not significantly improve the patients' overall survival, and the adverse reactions are inevitable.
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Holger J Schünemann; Peter Tugwell; Andre Knottnerus Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-12-24 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: James W Denham; Allison Steigler; David S Lamb; David Joseph; Sandra Turner; John Matthews; Chris Atkinson; John North; David Christie; Nigel A Spry; Keen-Hun Tai; Chris Wynne; Catherine D'Este Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: M E Gleave; S L Goldenberg; J L Chin; J Warner; F Saad; L H Klotz; M Jewett; V Kassabian; M Chetner; C Dupont; S Van Rensselaer Journal: J Urol Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: J Laverdière; J L Gomez; L Cusan; E R Suburu; P Diamond; M Lemay; B Candas; A Fortin; F Labrie Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1997-01-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: John G Armstrong; Charles M Gillham; Mary T Dunne; David A Fitzpatrick; Marie A Finn; Mairín E Cannon; Judy C Taylor; Carmel M O'Shea; Steven J Buckney; Pierre G Thirion Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-08-25 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michel Bolla; Theodorus M de Reijke; Geertjan Van Tienhoven; Alphonsus C M Van den Bergh; Jorg Oddens; Philip M P Poortmans; Eliahu Gez; Paul Kil; Atif Akdas; Guy Soete; Oleg Kariakine; Elsbietha M van der Steen-Banasik; Elena Musat; Marianne Piérart; Murielle E Mauer; Laurence Collette Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-06-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anthony V D'Amico; James W Denham; Michel Bolla; Laurence Collette; David S Lamb; Keen-Hun Tai; Allison Steigler; Ming-Hui Chen Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Anthony V D'Amico; James W Denham; Juanita Crook; Ming-Hui Chen; Samuel Z Goldhaber; David S Lamb; David Joseph; Keen-Hun Tai; Shawn Malone; Charles Ludgate; Allison Steigler; Philip W Kantoff Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-06-10 Impact factor: 44.544