ReviewCentral European journal of urology2015
Contemporary hormone therapy with LHRH agonists for prostate cancer: avoiding osteoporosis and fracture.
Review in Central European journal of urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- miRNA-21 as Reliable Serum Diagnostic Biomarker Candidate for Metastatic Progressive Prostate Cancer: Meta-analysis Approach.Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2021Pooled it
- Utilization of Prostate Cancer Quality Metrics for Research and Quality Improvement: A Structured Review.Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety · 2019Pooled it
- MicroRNA-21 and microRNA-30c as diagnostic biomarkers for prostate cancer: a meta-analysis.Cancer management and research · 2019Article
- miR-129 predicts prognosis and inhibits cell growth in human prostate carcinoma.Molecular medicine reports · 2016Article
- Repeated vertebral augmentation for new vertebral compression fractures of postvertebral augmentation patients: a nationwide cohort study--how useful is the current clinical gold standard for fracture risk?Clinical interventions in aging · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionProstate cancer is a large clinical burden across Europe. It is, in fact, the most common cancer in males, accounting for more than 92,300 deaths annually throughout the continent. Prostate cancer is androgen-sensitive; thus an androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is often used for treatment by reducing androgen to castrate levels. Several ADT agents have achieved benefits with effective palliation, but, unfortunately, severe adverse events are frequent. Contemporary ADT (Luteinising Hormone Releasing Hormone agonist - LHRHa injections) can result in side effects that include osteoporosis and fractures, compromising quality of life and survival.
methodsIn this review we analysed the associated bone toxicity consequent upon contemporary ADT and based on the literature and our own experience we present future perspectives that seek to mitigate this associated toxicity both by development of novel therapies and by better identification and prediction of fracture risk.
resultsPreliminary results indicate that parenteral oestrogen can mitigate associated osteoporotic risk and that CT scans could provide a more accurate indicator of overall bone quality and hence fracture risk.
conclusionsAs healthcare costs increase globally, cheap and effective alternatives that achieve ADT, but mitigate or avoid such bone toxicities, will be needed. More so, innovative techniques to improve both the measurement and the extent of this toxicity, by assessing bone health and prediction of fracture risk, are also required.
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.