ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2024
Patient preference on once-daily oral versus injectable androgen deprivation therapy for Asian patients with advanced prostate cancer.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improvement and maintenance of clinical outcome assessments in atopic dermatitis with amlitelimab.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2025Trial
- Epidemiology and Treatment Patterns of Stage III Resectable Melanoma Treated with Adjuvant Therapy: A Real-World Study Using the SNDS Database in France.Dermatology and therapy · 2026Article
- Oral capsule administration of biomacromolecules that achieves bioavailability and pharmacokinetics comparable to subcutaneous injection in dogs - the BIONDDDrug delivery and translational research · 2026Article
- Shared decision-making in prostate cancer treatment: selecting an androgen deprivation therapy option.Future oncology (London, England) · 2026Review
- Rocket-Like Microneedle Patch for Sustained Hormone Therapy in Prostate Cancer.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2025Article
- Oral Peptide Therapeutics as an Emerging Treatment Modality in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Narrative Review.Advances in therapy · 2025Review
- Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment in Prostate Cancer.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe study aimed at investigating prostate cancer patients' choice of androgen deprivation treatment (ADT) and possible factors that would affect their preferences of ADT.
methodsThis was a single-centre cross-sectional study investigating the usage and preferences of ADT. Consecutives prostate cancer patients who were receiving injectable luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist or antagonist were recruited from the prostate cancer clinic in a tertiary academic hospital. Patients who received bilateral orchidectomy or those who could not consent to the study were excluded. Disease characteristics, treatment information and patient background were documented. The survey collected information related to their change in ADT regimen, preferences on drug usage (routes and frequency of administration) and their reasons. A hypothetical set of three drug formularies was designed. Questions regarding patient preference and the contributing reasons raised in the format of questionnaire.
results100 patients completed the survey. Most patients started with more frequent injections (3-monthly, 54%; 1-monthly, 38%) and switched to 6-monthly injections (89%) at the time of the survey. Primary reasons for the change were healthcare opinion (72%) and less frequent treatment (51%). Three options of ADT (oral daily, 1-monthly and 6-monthly injection) with the same efficacies and side effect profile were offered: 61% preferred 6-monthly injection, 1% preferred 1-monthly injection and 38% preferred oral regimen. When patients were informed of lower cardiovascular side effects in 1-monthly injection or daily oral drug, patients' preference was 56% (6-monthly), 6% (1-monthly), and 39% (oral). Patients with polypharmacy (more than 5 regular medications) were more inclined to choose injections (p = 0.025). Patient age, educational background, employment status, marriage status and disease status were not found to be statistically significant contributing factors to patient preference.
conclusion6-monthly ADT injection was the preferred ADT despite greater cardiovascular risks. Among 1-monthly or daily oral LHRH antagonist, more patients prefer oral option. Convenience factor was highly valued.
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.