ArticleDrugs in context2024
Evaluation of the criteria for renewal of LHRH agonists in patients with prostate cancer: results of the ANAREN Study.
Article in Drugs in context, 2024. 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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Injectable extended-release formulations of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists (LHRHa) have simplified the treatment of prostate cancer with a satisfactory level of androgen castration. This study aims to determine the percentage of patients whose initial LHRHa prescription was renewed during follow-up, how many changed formulation and how their quality of life evolved. Methods: This is an observational, prospective, multicentre study of men with prostate cancer who were to receive treatment with LHRHa (triptorelin every 3 or 6 months, leuprorelin every 3 or 6 months, or goserelin every 3 months) for 24 months. The treatment used was recorded and quality of life was assessed (QLQ-PR25 questionnaire) at four follow-up visits. Results: A total of 497 men (median age 75 years) were evaluated. The median exposure to LHRHa was 24 months. The initial prescription was renewed in 95.7% at follow-up 1 and 75% at follow-up 4. The main reason for changing from a 6-month to a 3-month formulation was a preference for sequential treatment (according to the investigator) and to see the physician more frequently (according to the patient). The main reason for switching from the 3-month to 6-month formulation was simplification of treatment (according to the investigator) and for convenience (according to the patient). Findings in the QLQ-PR25 questionnaire revealed no changes in urinary or bowel symptoms, though an improvement in sexual activity was reported. Practically all investigators and patients were satisfied/very satisfied with the treatment. Conclusion: Changes in formulation were scarce and generally justified by convenience factors or personal preferences. Patients maintained a good health status, with a high rate of retention of LHRHa treatment. Clinical Trial Registration: Study number: A-ES-52014-224.A plain language summary is provided as supplementary material (available at: https://www.drugsincontext.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/dic.2024-2-2-Suppl.pdf).
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.