The paper below gives a useful summary of the history and state of the art (2022) for ADT. No mention of BAT though. A few snippets from the paper are given below.
Evolution of Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) and Its New Emerging Modalities in Prostate Cancer: An Update for Practicing Urologists, Clinicians and Medical Providers
Choi E , Buie J, Camacho J, Sharma P , de Riese WTW Received 10 November 2021Accepted for publication 16 March 2022 Published 30 March 2022 Volume 2022:14 Pages 87—108
DOI doi.org/10.2147/RRU.S303215
From Chapter4
“Unfortunately, due to the lack of adequate RCTs we still are waiting for clear answers regarding the oncological benefits of early vs delayed ADT in asymptomatic patients with recurrent or advanced prostate cancer.”
From Chapter 5 on intermittent ADT
“iADT may be considered after at least 9–12 months of ADT or until PSA nadir has been reached (in an ideal clinical scenario with PSA < 0.1 ng/mL). The “off-treatment” period varies depending on PSA monitoring and PSA rising, but also on patient’s and physician’s preference. Again, there are no well-defined recommendations or guidelines at what PSA threshold ADT should be resumed. Some clinicians restart ADT when PSA doubling time (PSADT) is less than 6 months or when serum PSA has reached a level of 6–10 ng/mL. Some clinicians and medical providers set this threshold even far above 10 ng/mL.”
From Chapter 6
“Summarizing the present and available data, it appears that the combined therapy (RT + ADT) is of greatest benefit in patients with high-risk local disease. In addition, some patients with hormone sensitive prostate cancer and low volume metastatic disease may also benefit from combination therapy.”
From Chapter 7
“All four agents (docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, and apalutamide) have been FDA-approved for the treatment of metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer and are now listed as category 1 recommendations within the NCCN guidelines.81 Treatment choice between agents for metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is a challenge, and there is currently no clear consensus on preferential initial selection or sequencing of these agents. There is, however, a moderate degree of uncertainty in the role of chemotherapy in low-volume disease patients.82 Marchioni et al systematically reviewed the literature according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria and found that no treatment was superior to docetaxel in terms of overall survival.83 However, abiraterone (HR: 0.89), enzalutamide (HR: 0.90), and apalutamide (HR: 0.90) showed nonstatistically significant lower overall mortality rates when compared to docetaxel.83Abiraterone (HR: 0.71), enzalutamide (HR: 0.61), and apalutamide (HR: 0.74) also showed statistically significant lower disease progression rates when compared to docetaxel.”
From Chapter 9
“Although ADT is an effective treatment for prostate cancer, it comes with many risks and potentially harmful side effects. Therefore, a detailed risk-benefit discussion should be provided to the patient before initiating this form of treatment.”