Abstract
This Practice Point commentary discusses the study by Lu-Yao et al. in which primary androgen deprivation therapy (PADT) was compared with conservative treatment in elderly men with localized prostate cancer. Overall, PADT was associated with worse cancer-specific survival than conservative management; however, in the subgroup of patients with poorly differentiated cancer, PADT was associated with improved cancer-specific survival. Although the authors defined conservative treatment as no definitive treatment during the 180 days after diagnosis, many patients in the conservative treatment group would have subsequently received definite treatments, including surgery or radiation therapy. The results of this study, therefore, do not necessarily demonstrate inferiority of PADT to conservative treatment. Accurate evaluation of the efficacy of PADT is confounded by a number of factors, such as the type of androgen deprivation therapy used. Efforts should be made to reduce the adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy because a high proportion of patients actively choose this treatment modality as primary therapy.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Lu-Yao GL et al. (2008) Survival following primary androgen deprivation therapy among men with localized prostate cancer. JAMA 300: 173–181
Cancer Registration Committee of the Japanese Urological Association (2005) Clinicopathological statistics on registered prostate cancer patients in Japan: 2000 report from the Japanese Urological Association. Int J Urol 12: 46–61
Meng MV et al. (2003) Predictors of treatment after initial surveillance in men with prostate cancer: results from CaPSURE. J Urol 170: 2279–2283
Kitagawa Y et al. (2003) Pathological effects of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy help predict progression of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol 10: 377–382
Labrie F et al. (2002) Can combined androgen blockade provide long-term control or possible cure of localized prostate cancer? Urology 60: 115–119
Ueno S et al. (2006) Efficacy of primary hormonal therapy for patients with localized and locally advanced prostate cancer: a retrospective multicenter study. Int J Urol 13: 1494–1500
Wilt TJ et al. (2008) Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and harms of treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med 148: 435–448
Hoffman RM et al. (2003) Patient satisfaction with treatment decisions for clinically localized prostate carcinoma: results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. Cancer 97: 1653–1662
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Namiki, M., Mizokami, A. & Akaza, H. Should patients with localized prostate cancer receive primary androgen deprivation therapy?. Nat Rev Urol 5, 648–649 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro1233
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro1233
This article is cited by
-
Effectiveness and adverse effects of hormonal therapy for prostate cancer: Japanese experience and perspective
Asian Journal of Andrology (2012)