Mostra el registre parcial de l'element

dc.contributorUniversitat Ramon Llull. Facultat de Ciències de la Salut Blanquerna
dc.contributor.authorBonfill, X. (Xavier)
dc.contributor.authorArévalo Rodríguez, Ingrid
dc.contributor.authorMartínez García, Laura
dc.contributor.authorQuintana Ruiz, M. Jesús
dc.contributor.authorBuitrago, Diana
dc.contributor.authorLobos Urbina, Diego
dc.contributor.authorCordero Rigol, José Antonio
dc.date.accessioned2019-06-11T18:40:37Z
dc.date.accessioned2023-07-12T12:05:52Z
dc.date.available2019-06-11T18:40:37Z
dc.date.available2023-07-12T12:05:52Z
dc.date.created2018-02
dc.date.issued2018-08
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14342/781
dc.description.abstractPurpose: The purpose of this study was to provide evidence-based recommendations of intermittent androgen deprivation therapy (IADT) compared with continuous androgen deprivation therapy (CADT) for men with prostate cancer (PCA). Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and ECONLIT, from the database inception to December 2017. We adhered to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to assess the quality of the evidence and to formulate recommendations. Results: We included one systematic review with 15 trials as well as three additional studies that assessed IADT versus CADT, all of them focused on PCA patients in advanced stages. The findings did not show differences for critical and important outcomes, including adverse events. Trials reported the benefits of IADT in terms of selected domains of health-related quality of life, although with high heterogeneity. Evidence quality was considered moderate or low for most of the assessed outcomes. We identified a patient preference study reporting a high preference for IADT, due to issues related to quality of life, general well-being, and side effects, among others. We did not identify economic studies comparing these regimes. We formulate four recommendations: one no-recommendation, one conditional recommendation, and two good practice points. Conclusion: For men in early stages of PCA, it is not possible to make any recommendation about the preferable use of IADT or CADT due to the lack of available evidence. For men in advanced stages of the disease, an IADT should be considered as soon as clinically reasonable (weak recommendation and low certainty of the evidence). Clinicians should discuss the risks and benefits of IADT and CADT with their patients, taking into account their values and preferences.eng
dc.format.extent11 p.cat
dc.language.isoengcat
dc.publisherDove Medical Presscat
dc.relation.ispartofCancer Management and Research, 2018, vol. 10, p. 2357–2367cat
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
dc.rights© L'autor/a
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
dc.sourceRECERCAT (Dipòsit de la Recerca de Catalunya)
dc.subject.otherPròstata--Càncer--Hormonoteràpiacat
dc.subject.otherPròstata--Càncer--Tractamentcat
dc.titleIntermittent androgen deprivation therapy: recommendations to improve the management of patients with prostate cancer following the GRADE approachcat
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlecat
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioncat
dc.rights.accessLevelinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.embargo.termscapcat
dc.subject.udc616.6
dc.identifier.doihttps://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S164856cat


Fitxers en aquest element

 

Aquest element apareix en la col·lecció o col·leccions següent(s)

Mostra el registre parcial de l'element

Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
Excepte que s'indiqui una altra cosa, la llicència de l'ítem es descriu com http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Comparteix a TwitterComparteix a LinkedinComparteix a FacebookComparteix a TelegramComparteix a WhatsappImprimeix