OBJECTIVES: To compare the prevalence of and association between falls and frailty of prostate cancer survivors (PCSs) who were current, past or never users of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Mail and electronic survey. PARTICIPANTS: PCSs (N = 280; mean age 72 ± 8). MEASUREMENTS: Cancer history, falls, and frailty status (robust, prefrail, frail) using traditionally defined and obese phenotypes. RESULTS: Current (37%) or past (34%) ADT users were more than twice as likely to have fallen in the previous year as never users (15%) (P = .002). ADT users had twice as many recurrent falls (P < .001) and more fall-related injuries than unexposed men (P = .01). Current (43%) or past (40%) ADT users were more likely to be classified as prefrail or frail than never users (15%) (P < .001), and the prevalence of combined obese frailty + prefrailty was even greater in current (59%) or past (62%) ADT users than never users (25%) (P < .001). Traditional and obese frailty significantly increased the likelihood of reporting falls in the previous year (odds ratio (OR) = 2.15, 95% CI = 1.18-3.94 and OR = 2.97, 95% CI = 1.62-5.58, respectively) and was also associated with greater risk of recurrent falls (OR = 3.10, 95% CI = 1.48-6.5 and OR = 3.99, 95% CI = 1.79-8.89, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Current and past exposure to ADT is linked to higher risk of falls and frailty than no treatment. PCSs should be appropriately counseled on fall prevention strategies, and approaches to reduce frailty should be considered.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the prevalence of and association between falls and frailty of prostate cancer survivors (PCSs) who were current, past or never users of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Mail and electronic survey. PARTICIPANTS: PCSs (N = 280; mean age 72 ± 8). MEASUREMENTS: Cancer history, falls, and frailty status (robust, prefrail, frail) using traditionally defined and obese phenotypes. RESULTS: Current (37%) or past (34%) ADT users were more than twice as likely to have fallen in the previous year as never users (15%) (P = .002). ADT users had twice as many recurrent falls (P < .001) and more fall-related injuries than unexposed men (P = .01). Current (43%) or past (40%) ADT users were more likely to be classified as prefrail or frail than never users (15%) (P < .001), and the prevalence of combined obese frailty + prefrailty was even greater in current (59%) or past (62%) ADT users than never users (25%) (P < .001). Traditional and obese frailty significantly increased the likelihood of reporting falls in the previous year (odds ratio (OR) = 2.15, 95% CI = 1.18-3.94 and OR = 2.97, 95% CI = 1.62-5.58, respectively) and was also associated with greater risk of recurrent falls (OR = 3.10, 95% CI = 1.48-6.5 and OR = 3.99, 95% CI = 1.79-8.89, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Current and past exposure to ADT is linked to higher risk of falls and frailty than no treatment. PCSs should be appropriately counseled on fall prevention strategies, and approaches to reduce frailty should be considered.
Authors: Joan Vermeulen; Jacques C L Neyens; Erik van Rossum; Marieke D Spreeuwenberg; Luc P de Witte Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Nicole D A Boyé; Francesco U S Mattace-Raso; Esther M M Van Lieshout; Klaas A Hartholt; Ed F Van Beeck; Tischa J M Van der Cammen Journal: Geriatr Gerontol Int Date: 2014-04-15 Impact factor: 2.730
Authors: Howard I Scher; Karim Fizazi; Fred Saad; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Cora N Sternberg; Kurt Miller; Ronald de Wit; Peter Mulders; Kim N Chi; Neal D Shore; Andrew J Armstrong; Thomas W Flaig; Aude Fléchon; Paul Mainwaring; Mark Fleming; John D Hainsworth; Mohammad Hirmand; Bryan Selby; Lynn Seely; Johann S de Bono Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-08-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: E J Hamilton; E Gianatti; B J Strauss; J Wentworth; D Lim-Joon; D Bolton; J D Zajac; M Grossmann Journal: Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 3.478
Authors: David F Penson; Andrew J Armstrong; Raoul Concepcion; Neeraj Agarwal; Carl Olsson; Lawrence Karsh; Curtis Dunshee; Fong Wang; Kenneth Wu; Andrew Krivoshik; De Phung; Celestia S Higano Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A L Couderc; X Muracciole; E Nouguerede; D Rey; S Schneider; P Champsaur; E Lechevallier; L Lalys; P Villani Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2020 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Jaidyn Muhandiramge; John R Zalcberg; G J van Londen; Erica T Warner; Prudence R Carr; Andrew Haydon; Suzanne G Orchard Journal: Curr Oncol Rep Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 5.075
Authors: Emma J Foster; Raphae S Barlas; Joao H Bettencourt-Silva; Allan B Clark; Anthony K Metcalf; Kristian M Bowles; John F Potter; Phyo K Myint Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2018-04-03 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Kathryn H Schmitz; Catherine M Alfano; Jennifer R Bail; Pamela J Goodwin; Cynthia A Thomson; Don W Bradley; Kerry S Courneya; Christie A Befort; Crystal S Denlinger; Jennifer A Ligibel; William H Dietz; Melinda R Stolley; Melinda L Irwin; Marcas M Bamman; Caroline M Apovian; Bernardine M Pinto; Kathleen Y Wolin; Rachel M Ballard; Andrew J Dannenberg; Elizabeth G Eakin; Matt M Longjohn; Susan D Raffa; Lucile L Adams-Campbell; Joanne S Buzaglo; Sharyl J Nass; Greta M Massetti; Erin P Balogh; Elizabeth S Kraft; Anand K Parekh; Darshak M Sanghavi; G Stephen Morris; Karen Basen-Engquist Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-11-22 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: T M Wildes; S Alibhai; S Sattar; K Haase; S Kuster; M Puts; S Spoelstra; C Bradley Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-07-16 Impact factor: 3.603