Kim Edmunds1,2, Haitham Tuffaha3,4, Daniel A Galvão5, Paul Scuffham3,4, Robert U Newton5. 1. Centre for Applied Health Economics, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia. k.edmunds@griffith.edu.au. 2. Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia. k.edmunds@griffith.edu.au. 3. Centre for Applied Health Economics, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia. 4. Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia. 5. Exercise Medicine Research Institute, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia.
Abstract
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.
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 PCpatients 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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adverse effects; Androgen deprivation therapy; Incidence; Prostate cancer
Authors: Juan Morote; Antonio Gómez-Caamaño; José L Alvarez-Ossorio; Daniel Pesqueira; Angel Tabernero; Francisco Gómez Veiga; José A Lorente; Mariano Porras; Juan J Lobato; María J Ribal; Jacques Planas Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-12-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Morgan Lee; Heather S Jim; Mayer Fishman; Babu Zachariah; Randy Heysek; Matthew Biagioli; Paul B Jacobsen Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2014-06-13 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Huei-Ting Tsai; Ruth M Pfeiffer; George K Philips; Ana Barac; Alex Z Fu; David F Penson; Yingjun Zhou; Arnold L Potosky Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Giandomenico Roviello; Sandra Sigala; Romano Danesi; Marzia Del Re; Alberto Bonetta; Maria Rosa Cappelletti; Laura Zanotti; Alberto Bottini; Daniele Generali Journal: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol Date: 2016-02-27 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Christopher J D Wallis; Alyson L Mahar; Raj Satkunasivam; Sender Herschorn; Ronald T Kodama; Yuna Lee; Girish S Kulkarni; Steven A Narod; Robert K Nam Journal: Urology Date: 2016-08-05 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: A K Morgans; K-H Fan; T Koyama; P C Albertsen; M Goodman; A S Hamilton; R M Hoffman; J L Stanford; A M Stroup; D F Penson Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Hugh Elbourne; Wee Kheng Soo; Victoria O'Reilly; Anna Moran; Christopher B Steer Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-09-14 Impact factor: 3.359