ArticleBJU international2025
Preferences between three options for androgen deprivation therapy: a focus group study.
Article in BJU international, 2025. 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesAndrogen deprivation therapy (ADT) forms the mainstay of treatment for advanced prostate cancer. Traditionally administered as a luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist depot injection, newer options for ADT include transdermal oestradiol patches (tE2) or oral LHRH antagonists. This study aimed to identify whether this is an important choice for men, which treatment men would choose if offered either LHRH agonist injections, tE2 patches or oral LHRH antagonists as ADT, and to explore the factors influencing this decision. SUBJECTS, PATIENTS, AND
methodsFive focus groups were conducted. A total of 24 men from around the UK participated in discussions, of whom 10 had never had prostate cancer and 14 had early prostate cancer but had not received ADT. Focus groups were co-facilitated with patient and public involvement representatives. Transcripts were analysed using a critical realist thematic analysis approach.
resultsParticipants reported that having a choice of ADT is important and being involved in making treatment decisions can help men maintain an element of control. Most men expressed a preference to avoid ADT with LHRH agonist injections; 14 of the 24 men reported they would choose an oral LHRH antagonist, eight reported they would choose tE2 patches, and two that they would choose LHRH agonist injections. Participants reported a large number of factors that influenced their treatment choice that were grouped into: (i) side-effects of treatment, (ii) logistical aspects, and (iii) advice from trusted others. Personal preferences between different types of ADT were based on factors that participants identified as important to them, this prioritisation of factors was influenced by participants' past experiences, current health beliefs, and future expectations.
conclusionsMen wish to have choice of ADT, and many would not choose LHRH agonists injections if there were other ADT options available. This should be considered, as reimbursement committees and guideline-makers consider the role of alternative ADT strategies.
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.