Few randomized studies have compared intermittent hormone therapy (IHT) with continuous hormone therapy (CHT) for the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa). Here, we report the results of a meta-analysis of a randomized controlled trial, evaluating the effectiveness of IHT versus CHT for patients with locally advanced PCa. Types of intervention were IHT versus CHT. The primary endpoint of this study is overall mortality and the secondary endpoints are any progression of disease, quality of life (QOL) and adverse effects between two groups. Six randomized controlled trials totaling 2996 patients were included. Results are as follows: after hormone therapy, patients undergoing IHT demonstrated no significant difference from those undergoing CHT in terms of the overall mortality (OR = 1.0, 95% CI [0.86, 1.17]) and disease progression (OR = 1.16, 95% CI [0.86, 1.57]). Men treated with IHT also reported better QOL, fewer adverse effects and considerable economic benefit for the individual and the community. With no difference in overall mortality and incidence of progression, current clinical studies confirm that both therapeutic methods were safe and effective. However, our study also takes into account QOL. When these secondary measures are considered, IHT may be a better option over CHT as patients report a more affordable treatment with improved QOL and fewer adverse effects.
Keywords: Hormone therapy; meta-analysis; prostate cancer.