{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030807660283097418, 'fraction_numerical': 0.019983347210657785, 'mean_word_length': 4.892156862745098, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparative analysis of six months formulation of LHRH analogues for prostate cancer treatment.

SUMMARY OBJECTIVES
To perform comparative analysis of the efficacy and the safety of six months formulation of LHRH analogues indicated for prostate cancer treatment.


METHOD
Search in the PubMed database for clinical trials published between 2006 and 2009 using the following key words: "prostate cancer", "triptorelin or leuprorelin" and "66-month depot".


RESULTS
The efficacy of all 3 six months formulation of LHRH analogues currently approved is high (96-98%) for reducing testosterone levels down to below 50 ng/dl. As the patients included in the three trials are quite heterogeneous, and due to the variability in the way of presenting results, it is not possible to compare testosterone escapes and their effect on PSA levels. The incidence of adverse events (AE) reported across the three trials was high, but only 0.9% to 15.8% were severe. Only one trial reported patient withdrawal (2.5%) because of drug-related AEs.


CONCLUSION
Even though all the studies show and important variability in the analysis and data management, no significant efficacy and safety differences seem to exist.