ArticleBMJ open2021
Retrospective cohort study of androgen deprivation therapy and the risk of diabetes in men with prostate cancer in Lithuania.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes and the influence of risk factors among men with prostate cancer in the Danish Diet, Cancer, and Health study.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Article
- Influence of diabetes mellitus and anti-diabetic drugs on pathophysiology and prognosis for primary prostate cancer.International urology and nephrology · 2026Review
- Association between Androgen Deprivation Therapy and the Risk of Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases in Men with Prostate Cancer: Nationwide Cohort Study in Lithuania.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Evolution of Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) and Its New Emerging Modalities in Prostate Cancer: An Update for Practicing Urologists, Clinicians and Medical Providers.Research and reports in urology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine the risk of type 2 diabetes in patients with prostate cancer and its association with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). DESIGN AND
participantsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with prostate cancer in the Lithuanian male population between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2012 who were identified through the Lithuanian Cancer registry. All prostate cancer cases were linked to the National Health Insurance Fund database to obtain information regarding the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and information on prescriptions of antiandrogens and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists. Patients with prostate cancer were followed up until the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, or 31 December 2017, or date of death, whichever came first. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the risk of type 2 diabetes in patients with prostate cancer with or without ADT exposure.
results27 580 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer, out of whom 14 502 (52.6%) did not receive ADT and 13 078 (47.4%) were treated with ADT. The incidence of type 2 diabetes for all patients with prostate cancer was 7.4/1000 person-years, for men on GnRH agonists 9.0/1000 person-years and 5.8/1000 person-years for men on antiandrogens. There was an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes comparing ADT users and non-users (HR=1.49, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.66).
conclusionThis study showed an increased risk of diabetes in patients with prostate cancer treated with ADT in comparison to ADT-free patient cohort. GnRH agonist users showed higher susceptibility, while the group on antiandrogen monotherapy showed no such increase.
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.