Search

Advanced prostate cancer does not respond to traditional androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) at some point in the treatment. The development of new hormonal agents demonstrated clear efficacy and changed the treatment scenario.To evaluate the use of new antiandrogens alone versus their use in combination with maintenance ADT in patients with advanced castration-resistant prostate cancer.A literature systematic review of randomized clinical trials, cohorts, and real-life studies including patients who received the new antiandrogens with or without ADT due to histologic confirmed advanced castration-resistant prostate adenocarcinoma was carried out.2181 articles were identified and three studies were included with a total of 246 patients. Two studies were randomized clinical trials, and the third was a retrospective study, which showed similar results for both arms, in relation to PSA response, radiological progression-free survival, and testosterone levels, in addition to cost analysis with savings avoided in the ADT maintenance-free arm. Despite the positive data, it is still not possible to categorically state whether there is a statistical benefit in suspending the ADT during the use of new antiandrogens, due to the heterogeneity of the studies.The literature is limited on the issue. Available data are still immature with no clear benefit of the use of newer antiandrogens alone in the setting of advanced castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Background Healthcare costs are rising, and a substantial proportion of medical care is of little value. De-implementation of low-value practices is important for improving overall health outcomes and reducing costs. We aimed to identify and synthesize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on de-implementation interventions and to provide guidance to improve future research. Methods MEDLINE and Scopus up to May 24, 2021, for individual and cluster RCTs comparing de-implementation interventions to usual care, another intervention, or placebo. We applied independent duplicate assessment of eligibility, study characteristics, outcomes, intervention categories, implementation theories, and risk of bias. Results Of the 227 eligible trials, 145 (64%) were cluster randomized trials (median 24 clusters; median follow-up time 305 days), and 82 (36%) were individually randomized trials (median follow-up time 274 days). Of the trials, 118 (52%) were published after 2010, 149 (66%) were conducted in a primary care setting, 163 (72%) aimed to reduce the use of drug treatment, 194 (85%) measured the total volume of care, and 64 (28%) low-value care use as outcomes. Of the trials, 48 (21%) described a theoretical basis for the intervention, and 40 (18%) had the study tailored by context-specific factors. Of the de-implementation interventions, 193 (85%) were targeted at physicians, 115 (51%) tested educational sessions, and 152 (67%) multicomponent interventions. Missing data led to high risk of bias in 137 (60%) trials, followed by baseline imbalances in 99 (44%), and deficiencies in allocation concealment in 56 (25%). Conclusions De-implementation trials were mainly conducted in primary care and typically aimed to reduce low-value drug treatments. Limitations of current de-implementation research may have led to unreliable effect estimates and decreased clinical applicability of studied de-implementation strategies. We identified potential research gaps, including de-implementation in secondary and tertiary care settings, and interventions targeted at other than physicians. Future trials could be improved by favoring simpler intervention designs, better control of potential confounders, larger number of clusters in cluster trials, considering context-specific factors when planning the intervention (tailoring), and using a theoretical basis in intervention design. Registration OSF Open Science Framework hk4b2