73 research outputs found

    Heterogeneity in Intrahepatic Macrophage Populations and Druggable Target Expression in Patients With Steatotic Liver Disease-Related Fibrosis

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND & AIMS: Clinical trials for reducing fibrosis in steatotic liver disease (SLD) have targeted macrophages with variable results. We evaluated intrahepatic macrophages in patients with SLD to determine if activity scores or fibrosis stages influenced phenotypes and expression of druggable targets, such as CCR2 and galectin-3. METHODS: Liver biopsies from controls or patients with minimal or advanced fibrosis were subject to gene expression analysis using nCounter to determine differences in macrophage-related genes (n = 30). To investigate variability among individual patients, we compared additional biopsies by staining them with multiplex antibody panels (CD68/CD14/CD16/CD163/Mac387 or CD163/CCR2/galectin-3/Mac387) followed by spectral imaging and spatial analysis. Algorithms that utilize deep learning/artificial intelligence were applied to create cell cluster plots, phenotype profile maps, and to determine levels of protein expression (n = 34). RESULTS: Several genes known to be pro-fibrotic ( CONCLUSIONS: Patients with SLD have markedly varied macrophage- and druggable target-related gene and protein expression in their livers. Several patients had relatively high expression, while others were like controls. Overall, patients with more advanced disease had significantly higher expression of CCR2 and galectin-3 at both the gene and protein levels. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Appreciating individual differences within the hepatic microenvironment of patients with SLD may be paramount to developing effective treatments. These results may explain why such a small percentage of patients have responded to macrophage-targeting therapies and provide additional support for precision medicine-guided treatment of chronic liver diseases

    Heterogeneity in Intrahepatic Macrophage Populations and Druggable Target Expression in Patients With Steatotic Liver Disease-Related Fibrosis

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND & AIMS: Clinical trials for reducing fibrosis in steatotic liver disease (SLD) have targeted macrophages with variable results. We evaluated intrahepatic macrophages in patients with SLD to determine if activity scores or fibrosis stages influenced phenotypes and expression of druggable targets, such as CCR2 and galectin-3. METHODS: Liver biopsies from controls or patients with minimal or advanced fibrosis were subject to gene expression analysis using nCounter to determine differences in macrophage-related genes (n = 30). To investigate variability among individual patients, we compared additional biopsies by staining them with multiplex antibody panels (CD68/CD14/CD16/CD163/Mac387 or CD163/CCR2/galectin-3/Mac387) followed by spectral imaging and spatial analysis. Algorithms that utilize deep learning/artificial intelligence were applied to create cell cluster plots, phenotype profile maps, and to determine levels of protein expression (n = 34). RESULTS: Several genes known to be pro-fibrotic ( CONCLUSIONS: Patients with SLD have markedly varied macrophage- and druggable target-related gene and protein expression in their livers. Several patients had relatively high expression, while others were like controls. Overall, patients with more advanced disease had significantly higher expression of CCR2 and galectin-3 at both the gene and protein levels. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Appreciating individual differences within the hepatic microenvironment of patients with SLD may be paramount to developing effective treatments. These results may explain why such a small percentage of patients have responded to macrophage-targeting therapies and provide additional support for precision medicine-guided treatment of chronic liver diseases

    Medulloblastoma therapy generates risk of a poorly-prognostic H3 wild-type subgroup of diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma: a report from the International DIPG Registry

    Full text link
    Abstract With improved survivorship in medulloblastoma, there has been an increasing incidence of late complications. To date, no studies have specifically addressed the risk of radiation-associated diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) in medulloblastoma survivors. Query of the International DIPG Registry identified six cases of DIPG with a history of medulloblastoma treated with radiotherapy. All patients underwent central radiologic review that confirmed a diagnosis of DIPG. Six additional cases were identified in reports from recent cooperative group medulloblastoma trials (total n = 12; ages 7 to 21 years). From these cases, molecular subgrouping of primary medulloblastomas with available tissue (n = 5) revealed only non-WNT, non-SHH subgroups (group 3 or 4). The estimated cumulative incidence of DIPG after post-treatment medulloblastoma ranged from 0.3–3.9%. Posterior fossa radiation exposure (including brainstem) was greater than 53.0 Gy in all cases with available details. Tumor/germline exome sequencing of three radiation-associated DIPGs revealed an H3 wild-type status and mutational signature distinct from primary DIPG with evidence of radiation-induced DNA damage. Mutations identified in the radiation-associated DIPGs had significant molecular overlap with recurrent drivers of adult glioblastoma (e.g. NRAS, EGFR, and PTEN), as opposed to epigenetic dysregulation in H3-driven primary DIPGs. Patients with radiation-associated DIPG had a significantly worse median overall survival (median 8 months; range 4–17 months) compared to patients with primary DIPG. Here, it is demonstrated that DIPG occurs as a not infrequent complication of radiation therapy in survivors of pediatric medulloblastoma and that radiation-associated DIPGs may present as a poorly-prognostic distinct molecular subgroup of H3 wild-type DIPG. Given the abysmal survival of these cases, these findings provide a compelling argument for efforts to reduce exposure of the brainstem in the treatment of medulloblastoma. Additionally, patients with radiation-associated DIPG may benefit from future therapies targeted to the molecular features of adult glioblastoma rather than primary DIPG.https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/145180/1/40478_2018_Article_570.pd

    Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer—metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022

    Get PDF
    Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence. Objective: To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: The experts voted on controversial questions where high- level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration- resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration- resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions. Results and limitations: The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Conclusions: These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Twitter summary: Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer. Take-home message: At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration- resistant prostate cancer is summarised here

    Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Report from the 2024 advanced prostate cancer consensus conference (APCCC)

    Full text link
    © in press The Authors. Published by Elsevier. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2024.09.017BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Innovations have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer (PC). Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of topics that greatly impact daily practice. The 2024 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) surveyed experts on key questions in clinical management in order to supplement evidence-based guidelines. Here we present voting results for questions from APCCC 2024. METHODS: Before the conference, a panel of 120 international PC experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 183 multiple-choice consensus questions on eight different topics. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the voting panel members ("panellists"). KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Consensus was a priori defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. The voting results show varying degrees of consensus, as discussed in this article and detailed in the Supplementary material. These findings do not include a formal literature review or meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The voting results can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers in prioritising areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised on the basis of patient and cancer characteristics, and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2024 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.Published onlin

    Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I : Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022

    Get PDF
    Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. Objective: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members (“panellists”) who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1–3. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. Results and limitations: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. Conclusions: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.publishedVersionPeer reviewe

    Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/high-risk and locally advanced disease, biochemical relapse, and side effects of hormonal treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022

    Get PDF
    © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of European Association of Urology. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2022.11.002Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. Objective: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members (“panellists”) who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1–3. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. Results and limitations: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. Conclusions: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.We gratefully acknowledge the following organisations for providing financial support for the APCCC 2022: The City of Lugano and Movember Foundation. Ros Eeles is supported by a National Institute of Health Research grant to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. We also acknowledge sponsorship from several for-profit organisations for APCCC 2022, including Advanced Accelerator Applications, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer Health Care, Debiopharm, MSD, Janssen Oncology, Myovant Sciences, Orion Pharma, Pfizer Oncology, Roche, Telix Innovations SA, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Lantheus, and Tolmar. These for-profit organisations supported the conference financially but had no input on the scientific content or the final publication.Accepted versio

    Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Part I: intermediate-/high-risk and locally advanced disease, biochemical relapse, and side effects of hormonal treatment: report of the advanced prostate cancer consensus conference 2022

    Get PDF
    Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. Objective: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members (“panellists”) who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1–3. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. Results and limitations: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. Conclusions: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions

    Efficacy of Sex Steroid Therapy without Progestin or GnRH Agonist for Gonadal Suppression in Adult Transgender Patients.

    No full text
    CONTEXT: Testosterone (T) or estradiol (E2) are administered to suppress gonadal function in female-to-male (FTM) and male-to-female (MTF) transgender patients. How often sex steroid cause adequate suppression without GnRH agonist (GnRHa) or progestin therapy has not been reported. OBJECTIVES: 1) To determine how often T and E2 therapy alone can effectively suppress gonadal function in MTF and FTM transgender patients. 2) To determine the frequency and range of serum E2 levels above the normal male range in FTM patients receiving T therapy. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Outpatient reproductive endocrinology clinic at an academic medical center. PATIENTS: 65 FTM and 33 MTF patients were included who were \u3e 18 years old and not receiving a progestin or GnRHa. INTERVENTION: FTM patients were receiving T through injections or gel. MTF patients were receiving oral or subcutaneous E2. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: In FTM patients the indicator of ovary suppression was amenorrhea. In MTF patients the indicator of testes suppression was T levels/dL. RESULTS: Median serum total T level for FTM patients was 712 ng/dL (range, 370-1164 ng/dL). On T therapy alone, 90.8% of patients achieved amenorrhea. 49.2% of patients had serum E2 levels above the normal range for women. For MTF patients, the median serum E2 level was 129.2 pg/mL (range, 75-197 pg/mL). On E2 therapy alone, 84.8% of MTF patients had adequate suppression of testicular function. CONCLUSIONS: T and E2 therapy are usually effective without progestin or GnRHa therapy to suppress gonadal function in transgender patients. Progestin and/or GnRHa therapy should only be initiated in those patients who do not have adequate gonadal suppression on optimized doses of T or E2 alone

    Testosterone (T) and estradiol (E2) therapy alone can suppress gonadal function in transgender patients.

    No full text
    Suppression of endogenous gonadal function is an important goal of transgender hormone therapy in both female-to-male (FTM) and male-to-female (MTF) patients. Current recommendations include exogenous hormone therapy in the form of testosterone (T) for FTM or estradiol (E2) for MTF, in addition to a GnRH agonist or progestin to effectively suppress endogenous gonadal activity. It has been claimed, however, that routine use of a GnRH agonist is not justified in terms of a cost-benefit analysis and there is no clear evidence that progestins add to the feminization of MTF patients. To determine how often T or E2 therapy alone is effective for gonadal suppression we performed a retrospective evaluation of adult transgender patients. Inclusion criteria were: 1) age 18-40 years for FTM and 18-50 years for MTF; 2) normal reproductive/endocrine function prior to therapy; 3) intact gonads; 4) serum levels of the administered hormone (E2 or T) within the therapeutic target range while on hormone therapy; 5) no concurrent therapy with a GnRHa or progestin at the time of reported laboratory measurements; and, 6) all T and E2 measurements performed at a specified reference laboratory (LabCorp). Sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) and body mass index (BMI) were also measured. Consistent with Endocrine Society guidelines, effective suppression of ovarian function in FTM patients was assessed by cessation of menses and a serum E2 of \u3c50 pg/mL. In MTF patients, testicular suppression was assessed by a total T within the premenopausal adult female normal range (10-55 pg/mL). Mean age was \u3c30 years for both FTM (25.5 years) and MTF (29.2 years). FTM patients (n=65) received T through subcutaneous (SC, n=60), intramuscular (IM, n=4), or gel (n=1). MTF patients (n=33) received oral (n=27) or SC (n=6) as well as spironolactone. The median serum total T level for FTM patients was 712 ng/dL (range, 370-1164 ng/dL). On T therapy alone, 90.8% of FTM patients achieved amenorrhea and 73.8% achieved serum E2 level \u3c50 pg/mL. For MTF patients, the median serum E2 level was 129.2 pg/mL (range, 75-197 pg/mL). On E2 therapy alone, 84.8% of MTF patients had adequate suppression of testicular function (T\u3c50 ng/dl). Our results indicate that most transgender patients do not need GnRH agonists or progestin treatment in addition to T or E2 therapy to suppress endogenous gonadal activity. This suggests that it is reasonable to add GnRHa or progestin therapy only to those patients in whom testicular or ovarian function is not suppressed by estrogen or testosterone therapy alone. Additional unnecessary endocrine therapies to suppress ovarian or testicular function incur a significant expense without providing a clear change in clinical outcome
    corecore