Trial reportWorld journal of urology2020
Combined androgen blockade (CAB) versus luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist monotherapy for androgen deprivation therapy.
Trial report in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeCombined androgen blockade (CAB) and luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist monotherapy are commonly used in androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). In this randomized clinical trial, we aimed to compare the two methods of ADT in terms of quality of life (QOL).
methodsEighty patients who underwent primary ADT for newly diagnosed prostate cancer were randomly assigned to CAB group (Group 1) and LHRH agonist monotherapy group (Group 2). Leuprolide and anti-androgen (bicalutamide 50 mg) were used to minimize the confounding effects caused by medication. QOL was evaluated at baseline, 3 months and 6 months post-ADT using validated EORTC QLQ-C30, PR25, and depression questionnaires. A difference of > 10 points in the EORTC domain scores was defined as 'clinically significant'.
resultsIn the baseline characteristics, there was no significant difference between the two groups. At 3 months after ADT, Group 1 had significantly lower pain scores than Group 2 (p = 0.004), while Group 1 had significantly poorer diarrhea symptom score than Group 2, without clinical significance (p = 0.047). No significant differences were observed in the C30, PR25 domains, and the depression score at 3 months. At 6 months, the QOL scores of all the groups were similar.
conclusionsThere was no difference in the patient's QOL, except that CAB group was associated with significantly better pain relief than LHRH agonist monotherapy at 3 months following ADT, which was not sustained thereafter. Our results suggest that the benefit of prolonged (≥ 3 months) CAB is questionable in terms of patients' QOL.
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.