The findings in this article surprised me. It seems to suggest that
the various SE's associated with ADT are, on average, only in some
rather small part, attributable to the ADT itself. In other words, if
you compared the SE's of men with PCa who are and are not using ADT,
and matched them for various other factors, (age, co-morbidities,
cancer stage, etc.), then the level of SE's in the two groups wouldn't
too different! The study uses a valid database (SEER) and involves a
large sample. Huh, curious what others think...Ron
Risk of the "Androgen Deprivation Syndrome" in Men Receiving Androgen
Deprivation for Prostate Cancer
Vahakn B. Shahinian, MD, MS; Yong-Fang Kuo, PhD; Jean L. Freeman, PhD;
James S. Goodwin, MD
Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:465-471.
Background: Androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer has been
associated with a spectrum of adverse effects, such as depression,
memory difficulties, and fatigue, termed the androgen deprivation
syndrome. Primary care physicians providing follow-up care for men with
prostate cancer will be faced with managing these effects. We therefore
sought to estimate the incidence of these effects and, by using a
control group, ascertain whether these effects were related to androgen
deprivation itself.
Methods: We assessed the risk of physician diagnoses of depression,
cognitive impairment, or constitutional symptoms in Medicare data
following androgen deprivation using a sample of 50 613 men with
incident prostate cancer and 50 476 men without cancer, from 1992
through 1997, in the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End
Results-Medicare database. Cox proportional hazards regression was
used to adjust for confounding variables.
Results: Of men surviving at least 5 years after diagnosis, 31.3% of
those receiving androgen deprivation developed at least 1 depressive,
cognitive, or constitutional diagnosis compared with 23.7% in those who
did not (P<.001). After adjustment for variables such as comorbidity,
tumor characteristics, and age, the risks associated with androgen
deprivation were substantially reduced or abolished: relative risk (RR)
for depression diagnosis, 1.08 (95% confidence interval [CI],
1.02-1.15); RR for cognitive impairment, 0.99 (95% CI, 0.94-1.04); and
RR for constitutional symptoms, 1.17 (95% CI, 1.13-1.22).
Conclusion: Depressive, cognitive, and constitutional disorders occur
more commonly in patients receiving androgen deprivation, but this
appears to be primarily because patients receiving androgen deprivation
are older and have more comorbid conditions and more advanced cancers.
I.P. Freely - 01 Mar 2006 01:47 GMT
"ron" asks> curious what others think
My primary Qs at first glance are:
1. Who's right ... PCRI/Strum and the rest of the ADT critics, or these
guys? They sure disagree with the incidence of SEs.
2. Is the issue simply T levels, which decline naturally as we age, rather
than whether it's lowered deliberately or naturally?
BTW and FWIW, this group's poll results favored Strum hands down, with
virtually every respondent, not 31.3%, encountering at least one of those
SEs (depending on what the heck a "constitutional impairment" is).
I.P.
Tom Cular - 01 Mar 2006 03:38 GMT
> "ron" asks> curious what others think
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> I.P.
They mention the adjustments made for comorbidity,
tumor characteristics, and age, they also mention Medicare end results. I
question their age adjustment, if the group age begins at 65, what if
anything was done to address those below 65 [and there are many] who may
have been on ADT of some form in combination with RT for a year or so. I
feel the authors failed to adequately address all of the variables.
Tom
Ed Friedman - 01 Mar 2006 17:04 GMT
> "ron" asks> curious what others think
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> I.P.
I.P.,
I think that your point #2 is dead on. It is ridiculous to do a study
about the effects of T, and not measure the level of T in every person,
including those on ADT. Then you can do real science and do a
statistical analysis of the correlation of T level and side effects in
order to determine how they are related.
Ed Friedman
Leonard Evens - 02 Mar 2006 15:16 GMT
> The findings in this article surprised me. It seems to suggest that
> the various SE's associated with ADT are, on average, only in some
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> appears to be primarily because patients receiving androgen deprivation
> are older and have more comorbid conditions and more advanced cancers.
The question is whether the adjustments they made to explain the
difference are valid. They certainly can't be justified purely on
statistical grounds. My feeling is that a study of this kind is just
one more straw in the wind, and we need further studies which approach
the problem differently before we should accept the conclusion.
ron - 02 Mar 2006 15:25 GMT
Leonard...Ca you elaborate a bit on what you mean by "They certainly
can't be justified purely on
statistical grounds"...Ron
Leonard Evens - 02 Mar 2006 20:10 GMT
> Leonard...Ca you elaborate a bit on what you mean by "They certainly
> can't be justified purely on
> statistical grounds"...Ron
I don't mean anything subtle. They compared two populations, one with
cancer on ADT and the other without cancer and not on ADT. They found a
fairly large difference. I haven't done the calculation, but I presume
the difference was statistically significant in the usual meaning of the
term. That is, under the standard statistical assumptions it is
unlikely to have occurred just by chance. But in this case they also
tried to account for other factors which might yield the same side
effects. To do that they had to construct a model of what is going on
and make some assumptions about how different things might affect each
other and the results. I think that requires reasoning and analysis
that goes beyond just what statistical analysis may say.
They can of course use a multidimensional factor analysis and try to
determine correlations and do it that way. But it is my impression that
such methods don't usually produce clear conclusions. For example, I
remember one study a psychologist did in our department relating student
evaluations of their instructors with grades on a common final. He did
it two years in a row and his factor analysis gave complete different
pictures of what was going on. The statistics were too much different
but the conceptual models implied in each case seemed very different.
But maybe I am wrong.
Leonard E. - 11 Mar 2006 16:33 GMT
> They can of course use a multidimensional factor analysis and try to
> determine correlations and do it that way. But it is my impression that
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> it two years in a row and his factor analysis gave complete different
> pictures of what was going on. The statistics were too much different
Should have read "were NOT too much different".
> but the conceptual models implied in each case seemed very different.
>
> But maybe I am wrong.