Non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy compared with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists or surgical castration monotherapy for advanced prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review.

To assess the effects of non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy compared with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists or surgical castration monotherapy for treating advanced hormone-sensitive stages of prostate cancer. We searched the Cochrane Prostatic Diseases and Urologic Cancers Group Specialized Register (PROSTATE), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science with Conference Proceedings, three trial registries and abstracts from three major conferences to 23 December 2013, together with reference lists, and contacted selected experts in the field and manufacturers. We included randomized controlled trials comparing non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy with medical or surgical castration monotherapy for men in advanced hormone-sensitive stages of prostate cancer. Two review authors independently examined full-text reports, identified relevant studies, assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias as well as quality of evidence according to the GRADE working group guidelines. We used Review Manager 5.2 for data synthesis and the fixed-effect model as primary analysis (when heterogeneity was low with I(2) < 50%); we used a random-effects model when confronted with substantial or considerable heterogeneity (when I(2) ≥50%). A total of 11 studies involving 3060 randomly assigned participants were included in the present review. Use of non-steroidal antiandrogens resulted in lower overall survival times (hazard ratio [HR] 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.48, six studies, 2712 participants) and greater clinical progression (1 year: risk ratio [RR] 1.25, 95% CI 1.08-1.45, five studies, 2067 participants; 70 weeks: RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.08-1.45, six studies, 2373 participants; 2 years: RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04-1.25, three studies, 1336 participants), as well as treatment failure (1 year: RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02-1.38, four studies, 1539 participants; 70 weeks: RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05-1.52, five studies, 1845 participants; 2 years: RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.05-1.24, two studies, 808 participants), compared with medical or surgical castration. The quality of evidence for overall survival, clinical progression and treatment failure was rated as moderate according to GRADE. Use of non-steroidal antiandrogens increased the risk for treatment discontinuation as a result of adverse events (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.13-2.94, eight studies, 1559 participants), including events such as breast pain (RR 22.97, 95% CI 14.79- 35.67, eight studies, 2670 participants) and gynaecomastia (RR 8.43, 95% CI 3.19-22.28, nine studies, 2774 participants) The risk of other adverse events, such as hot flushes (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.19-0.27, nine studies, 2774 participants) was decreased when non-steroidal antiandrogens were used. The quality of evidence for breast pain, gynaecomastia and hot flushes was rated as moderate according to GRADE. The effects of non-steroidal antiandrogens on cancer-specific survival and biochemical progression remained unclear. Non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy compared with medical or surgical castration monotherapy for advanced prostate cancer is less effective in terms of overall survival, clinical progression, treatment failure and treatment discontinuation resulting from adverse events. Evidence quality was rated as moderate according to GRADE; therefore, further research is likely to have an important impact on results for patients with advanced but non-metastatic prostate cancer treated with non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy.

Non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy compared with luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists or surgical castration monotherapy for advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Non-steroidal antiandrogens and castration are the main therapy options for advanced stages of prostate cancer. However, debate regarding the value of these treatment options continues. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy compared with luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists or surgical castration monotherapy for treating advanced stages of prostate cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Prostatic Diseases and Urologic Cancers Group Specialized Register (PROSTATE), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science with Conference Proceedings, three trial registries and abstracts from three major conferences to 23 December 2013, together with reference lists, and contacted selected experts in the field and manufacturers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy with medical or surgical castration monotherapy for men in advanced stages of prostate cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author screened all titles and abstracts; only citations that were clearly irrelevant were excluded at this stage. Then, two review authors independently examined full-text reports, identified relevant studies, assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted the study authors to request additional information. We used Review Manager 5 for data synthesis and used the fixed-effect model for heterogeneity less than 50%; we used the random-effects model for substantial or considerable heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven studies involving 3060 randomly assigned participants were included in this review. The quality of evidence is hampered by risk of bias. Use of non-steroidal antiandrogens decreased overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.48, six studies, 2712 participants) and increased clinical progression (one year: risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45, five studies, 2067 participants; 70 weeks: RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45, six studies, 2373 participants; two years: RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.25, three studies, 1336 participants), as well as treatment failure (one year: RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.38, four studies, 1539 participants; 70 weeks: RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.52, five studies, 1845 participants; two years: RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.24, two studies, 808 participants), compared with medical or surgical castration. The quality of evidence for overall survival, clinical progression and treatment failure was rated as moderate according to GRADE. Predefined subgroup analyses showed that use of non-steroidal antiandrogens, compared with castration, was less favourable for overall survival, clinical progression (at one year, 70 weeks, two years) and treatment failure (at one year, 70 weeks, two years) in men with metastatic disease. Use of non-steroidal antiandrogens also increased the risk for treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.94, eight studies, 1559 participants), including events such as breast pain (RR 22.97, 95% CI 14.79 to 35.67, eight studies, 2670 participants), gynaecomastia (RR 8.43, 95% CI 3.19 to 22.28, nine studies, 2774 participants) and asthenia (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.31, five studies, 2073 participants). The risk of other adverse events, such as hot flashes (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.27, nine studies, 2774 participants), haemorrhage (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.54, two studies, 546 participants), nocturia (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.69, one study, 480 participants), fatigue (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.88, one study, 51 participants), loss of sexual interest (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.83, one study, 51 participants) and urinary frequency (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.47, one study, 480 participants) was decreased when non-steroidal antiandrogens were used. The quality of evidence for breast pain, gynaecomastia and hot flashes was rated as moderate according to GRADE. The effects of non-steroidal antiandrogens on cancer-specific survival and biochemical progression remained unclear. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently available evidence suggests that use of non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy compared with medical or surgical castration monotherapy for advanced prostate cancer is less effective in terms of overall survival, clinical progression, treatment failure and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. Evidence quality was rated as moderate according to GRADE. Further research is likely to have an important impact on results for patients with advanced but non-metastatic prostate cancer treated with non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy. However, we believe that research is likely not necessary on non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy for men with metastatic prostate cancer. Only high-quality, randomised controlled trials with long-term follow-up should be conducted. If further research is planned to investigate biochemical progression, studies with standardised follow-up schedules using measurements of prostate-specific antigen based on current guidelines should be conducted.

Do journals publishing in the field of urology endorse reporting guidelines? A survey of author instructions.

INTRODUCTION: Reporting guidelines aim to ensure adequate and complete reporting of clinical studies and are an indispensable tool to translate scientific results into clinical practice. The extent to which reporting guidelines are incorporated into the author instructions of journals publishing in the field of urology remained unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed the author instructions of uro-nephrological journals indexed in 'Journal Citation Reports 2009'. Two authors independently assessed the author guidelines. We evaluated additional information including whether a journal was published by or in association with a medical association. Discrepancies were resolved by re-checking the respective author instructions and by discussion with a third author. RESULTS: The recommendations of the International Committee of Journal Editors were endorsed by 32 journals (58.2%) but were mentioned in 12 (37.5%) only to give general advice about manuscript preparation. Fourteen journals (25.5%) mentioned at least one reporting guideline, with CONSORT the most frequently cited. Journals with high impact factors were more likely to endorse CONSORT (p < 0.009). Other reporting guidelines were mentioned by <6% of the journals. CONCLUSION: All key stakeholders involved in the publication process should more frequently promote the awareness and use of reporting guidelines.

Do urology journals enforce trial registration? A cross-sectional study of published trials.

Objectives (1) To assess endorsement of trial registration in author instructions of urology-related journals and (2) to assess whether randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of urology were effectively registered. Design Cross-sectional study of author instructions and published trials. Setting Journals publishing in the field of urology. Participants First, the authors analysed author instructions of 55 urology-related journals indexed in 'Journal Citation Reports 2009' (12/2010). The authors divided these journals in two groups: those requiring and those not mentioning trial registration as a precondition for publication. Second, the authors chose the five journals with the highest impact factor (IF) from each group. Intervention MEDLINE search to identify RCTs published in these 10 journals in 2009 (01/2011); search of the clinical trials meta-search interface of WHO (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) for RCTs that lacked information about registration (01-03/2011). Two authors independently assessed the information. Outcome measures Proportion of journals providing advice about trial registration and proportion of trials registered. Results Of 55 journals analysed, 26 (47.3%) provided some editorial advice about trial registration. Journals with higher IFs were more likely to mention trial registration explicitly (p=0.015). Of 106 RCTs published in 2009, 63 were registered (59.4%) with a tendency to an increase after 2005 (83.3%, p=0.035). 71.4% (30/42) of the RCTs that were published in journals mentioning and requiring registration, and 51.6% (33/64) of the RCTs that were published in journals that did not mention trial registration explicitly were registered. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.04). Conclusions The existence of a statement about trial registration in author instructions resulted in a higher proportion of registered RCTs in those journals. Journals with higher IFs were more likely to mention trial registration.