Kunath Frank, Borgmann Hendrik, Blümle Anette, Keck Bastian, Wullich Bernd, Schmucker Christine, Sikic Danijel, Roelle Catharina, Schmidt Stefanie, Wahba Amr, Meerpohl Joerg J
Department of Urology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany UroEvidence, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Urologie, Düsseldorf/Berlin, Germany.
UroEvidence, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Urologie, Düsseldorf/Berlin, Germany Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
BMJ Open. 2015 Nov 13;5(11):e008217. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008217.
To evaluate efficacy and safety of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists compared to standard androgen suppression therapy for advanced prostate cancer.
The international review team included methodologists of the German Cochrane Centre and clinical experts.
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, trial registries and conference books for randomised controlled trials (RCT) for effectiveness data analysis, and randomised or non-randomised controlled studies (non-RCT) for safety data analysis (March 2015). Two authors independently screened identified articles, extracted data, evaluated risk of bias and rated quality of evidence according to GRADE.
13 studies (10 RCTs, 3 non-RCTs) were included. No study reported cancer-specific survival or clinical progression. There were no differences in overall mortality (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.93), treatment failure (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.17) or prostate-specific antigen progression (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.06). While there was no difference in quality of life related to urinary symptoms, improved quality of life regarding prostate symptoms, measured with the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), with the use of GnRH antagonists compared with the use of standard androgen suppression therapy (mean score difference -0.40, 95% CI -0.94 to 0.14, and -1.84, 95% CI -3.00 to -0.69, respectively) was found. Quality of evidence for all assessed outcomes was rated low according to GRADE. The risk for injection-site events was increased, but cardiovascular events may occur less often by using GnRH antagonist. Available evidence is hampered by risk of bias, selective reporting and limited follow-up.
There is currently insufficient evidence to make firm conclusive statements on the efficacy of GnRH antagonist compared to standard androgen suppression therapy for advanced prostate cancer. There is need for further high-quality research on GnRH antagonists with long-term follow-up.
CRD42012002751.
评估促性腺激素释放激素(GnRH)拮抗剂与晚期前列腺癌标准雄激素抑制疗法相比的疗效和安全性。
国际审查团队包括德国Cochrane中心的方法学家和临床专家。
我们检索了Cochrane系统评价数据库、MEDLINE、科学引文索引、EMBASE、试验注册库和会议论文集,以获取用于有效性数据分析的随机对照试验(RCT),以及用于安全性数据分析的随机或非随机对照研究(非RCT)(2015年3月)。两位作者独立筛选已识别的文章,提取数据,评估偏倚风险,并根据GRADE对证据质量进行评级。
纳入13项研究(10项RCT,3项非RCT)。没有研究报告癌症特异性生存率或临床进展情况。总死亡率(风险比1.35,95%置信区间0.63至2.93)、治疗失败率(风险比0.91,95%置信区间0.70至1.17)或前列腺特异性抗原进展情况(风险比0.83,95%置信区间0.64至1.06)均无差异。虽然与泌尿系统症状相关的生活质量没有差异,但与使用标准雄激素抑制疗法相比,使用GnRH拮抗剂在前列腺症状方面的生活质量有所改善,采用国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)测量(平均评分差异分别为-0.40,95%置信区间-0.94至0.14,以及-1.84,95%置信区间-3.00至-0.69)。根据GRADE,所有评估结局的证据质量均被评为低质量。注射部位事件的风险增加,但使用GnRH拮抗剂心血管事件可能发生得较少。现有证据受到偏倚风险、选择性报告和随访有限的影响。
目前尚无足够证据就GnRH拮抗剂与晚期前列腺癌标准雄激素抑制疗法相比的疗效做出确凿的结论性陈述。需要对GnRH拮抗剂进行进一步的高质量长期随访研究。
CRD42012002751。