ArticleTherapeutic advances in urology2014
Selection criteria for initiation and renewal of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist therapy in patients with prostate cancer: a French prospective observational study.
Article in Therapeutic advances in urology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A 6-month sustained-release formulation of triptorelin for locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer: a real-world experience in Asia.BMC urology · 2025Article
- Resources Utilization Assessment and Cost-Minimization Analysis of the 6-Monthly Formulation of Triptorelin in the Treatment of Prostate Cancer in China.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2024Article
- EQUINOXE study: Impact of relational cohesion and sexuality on the quality of life of patients treated with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist for prostate cancer.BJUI compass · 2022Article
- Adjuvant hormone therapy after radical prostatectomy in high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer: First multicenter, observational study in China.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2019Article
- Criteria for indication and treatment modification in a cohort of patients with prostate cancer treated with hormone therapy.Therapeutic advances in urology · 2018Article
- Effects of Initiating or Switching to a Six-Monthly Triptorelin Formulation on Prostate Cancer Patient-Healthcare Interactions and Hospital Resource Use: a Real-World, Retrospective, Non-Interventional Study.Oncology and therapy · 2018Article
- An Update on Triptorelin: Current Thinking on Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer.Advances in therapy · 2016Review
- Treatment of aggressive prostate cancer with triptorelin in real life in France: the TALISMAN study.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo define the profile of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) receiving a 3-month or 6-month formulation of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist in France and the reasons for choosing between formulations.
methodsThis prospective 1-year observational study included patients with PCa starting LHRH agonist therapy in everyday practice. Reasons for prescription and patient preference were recorded at inclusion, 3 or 6 months, and 12 months. The percentage of patients with a renewed initial prescription was recorded during follow up.
resultsA total of 1438 patients with PCa were included. Hormonotherapy was initiated more frequently with a 6-month (n = 903; 62.8%) than with a 3-month formulation (n = 535; 37.2%). The initial prescription was renewed in most patients after 3 or 6 months (86.1%) and 12 months (71%); 170 patients switched from a 3-month to a 6-month formulation during follow up. Presence of metastases influenced initial prescription (odds ratio 0.439; 95% confidence interval 1.095-1.892), with a 3-month formulation more often prescribed than a 6-month formulation to men with metastatic PCa at diagnosis (21.3% versus 15.8%, respectively). The most frequent reasons given by physicians for choosing the 6-month formulation were 'simplification of therapeutic regimen' (86.9%) or 'fewer unnecessary visits' (46.8%). Similar reasons were given for switching from a 3-month to a 6-month formulation during follow up. The most frequent reasons given by physicians to initiate therapy with a 3-month formulation were 'usual practice/habit' (55.5%) or 'closer patient management' (46.2%). 'Closer patient management' and 'reassuring effect upon patient' were the main reasons for switching from a 6-month to a 3-month formulation during follow up. Approximately 80% of patients were satisfied with the formulation they were prescribed and patients' reasons for preferring one formulation over another were similar to the physicians' reasons for prescribing these formulations.
conclusionsSlow-release formulations of LHRH agonists are useful therapies for physicians treating patients with PCa and there may be a preference for the 6-month formulation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.