Neoadjuvant hormonal ablative therapy before radical prostatectomy: a review. Is it indicated?
Abstract
PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant hormonal ablation therapy has been used to decrease the rate of positive surgical margins in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. We reviewed the available literature to determine whether this therapy is indicated and beneficial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a MEDLINE key word search and assessed randomized prospective articles. Data were analyzed for the rate of positive surgical margins, seminal vesicle invasion and lymph node metastasis as well as surgical characteristics, including operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, rate of complications and difficulty of surgical dissection. In addition, these data were evaluated for prostate specific antigen-free survival. RESULTS: Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy decreased the rate of positive margins in 6 of the 7 randomized prospective studies. In none of 4 randomized prospective series was there an improved rate of seminal vesicle invasion with neoadjuvant hormonal therapy. Of 4 studies 3 showed no improvement in the rate of lymph node metastasis after neoadjuvant hormonal therapy compared with that in controls. Similarly there was no improvement in prostate specific antigen-free survival and no significant difference in operative time, operative blood loss, transfusion or hospital stay in patients treated with neoadjuvant hormonal therapy and controls. In addition, in 2 of 3 studies there was no difference in the complication rate. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of the available literature revealed no significant improvement in outcome to support the routine administration of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy before prostatectomy.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In older hematological malignancy patients, lymphopenia and neutropenia can arise from both disease and treatment.
“In older patients with hematological malignancies, the risk of disease and treatment-related lymphopenia and neutropenia should also be considered and integrated in decision-making [88].”
Lymphopenia worsens COVID-19 outcomes.
“Likewise, the need for anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies should be critically evaluated in view of the adverse impact of lymphopenia on COVID-19 outcomes [88].”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 55 · Cited by 68
- Authors
- SCOLIERI, M. J., ALTMAN, A., & RESNICK, M. I.
- Affiliations
- Case Western Reserve University (US)
- ORCID
- ALTMAN, ANDREW
- Venue
- Journal of Urology
- Published
- 2000-11
- Volume
- 164
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1465-1472
- ISSN
- 0022-5347 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-3792
- OpenAlex
- W2004824277
- Cited by
- 68
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 5.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Urology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Prostate Cancer Treatment and Research
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
- Keywords
- neoadjuvant endocrine therapy, androgen deprivation therapy, radical prostatectomy, prostate cancer, positive surgical margins, seminal vesicle invasion, lymph node metastasis, surgical complications, operative time
- MeSH terms
- Androgen Antagonists, Costs and Cost Analysis, Humans, Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone, Lymphatic Metastasis, Male, Preoperative Care, Prostatectomy, Prostatic Neoplasms, Seminal Vesicles, Treatment Outcome, Chemotherapy, Adjuvant, Prostate-Specific Antigen, Disease-Free Survival, Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review