Locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer treated with intermittent androgen monotherapy or maximal androgen blockade: results from a randomised phase 3 study by the South European Uroncological Group

Testosterone castration levels in patients with prostate cancer: Is there a difference between GnRH agonist and GnRH antagonist? Primary results of an open-label randomized control study

PURPOSE

To compare testosterone castration levels between patients treated with the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, degarelix, and GnRH agonist.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with prostate cancer (PCa) of a single outpatient clinic were randomized (2:1) to receive degarelix (group A) or GnRH agonist (group B). The study evaluated testosterone and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, patients' age, Gleason score and the presence of metastases (nodal or bone). Testosterone and PSA levels were measured at 1st, 6th, 12th, and 18th months. Mann-Whitney test and Spearman correlation were used to investigate independent variable while standard multiple regression was performed to explore statistically significant correlations. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare testosterone levels at follow-up.

RESULTS

The study included 168 patients, 107 in group A and 61 in group B. Testosterone levels at 1st month were significantly lower in patients under GnRH antagonist than those receiving GnRH agonist (group A: 22 ng/dL vs. group B: 29 ng/dL, p=0.011). However, PSA values did not differ significantly between groups (group A: 0.130 ng/mL vs. group B: 0.067 ng/mL, p=0.261). In multivariate analysis, treatment with degarelix was an independent factor of lower testosterone levels at 1st month (p=0.013). Comparison of testosterone levels at 6, 12, and 18 months did not reveal any significant difference within each group.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with PCa who are candidates for androgen deprivation therapy, the administration of GnRH antagonist seems to achieve significantly lower testosterone levels compared to treatment with GnRH agonist at 1st month of treatment.

Prognostic Impact of Sarcopenia in Patients with Advanced Prostate Carcinoma: A Systematic Review

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common cancer in men and the fifth leading cause of death from cancer. The possibility of sarcopenia being a prognostic factor in advanced PCa patients has recently become a subject of interest. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the prognostic value of sarcopenia in advanced prostate carcinoma. A systematic review was conducted in Medline, EMBASE, and Web of Science (March, 2021). The quality of studies was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Meta-analyses for overall, cancer-specific, and progression-free survival were performed. Nine studies (n = 1659) were included. Sarcopenia was borderline associated with a shorter overall survival (HR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.44, P = 0.04, I2 = 43%) but was significantly associated with progression-free survival (HR = 1.61, 95% CI: 1.26, 2.06, P < 0.01; k = 3; n = 588). Available evidence supports sarcopenia as an important prognostic factor of progression-free survival in patients with advanced PCa. However, sarcopenia has a weak association with a shorter overall survival. The evidence on the role of sarcopenia in prostate-cancer-specific survival is insufficient and supports the need for further research. Patient summary: The literature was reviewed to determine whether the loss of muscle mass (sarcopenia) affects the survival in patients with advanced PCa. Patients with advanced PCa and sarcopenia were found to have a shorter progression-free survival (the length of time during and after treatment of a cancer that the patient lives with the disease but it does not get worse), but sarcopenia did not have much influence on the overall survival and cancer-specific survival (the length of time from either the date of diagnosis or the start of treatment to the date of death due to the cancer).

Randomized, Open-Label Phase 2 Study of Apalutamide plus Androgen Deprivation Therapy versus Apalutamide Monotherapy versus Androgen Deprivation Monotherapy in Patients with Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer

Purpose. This randomized phase 2 study sought to assess the treatment effect of a finite duration of apalutamide with and without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (BCR PC). Materials and Methods. Patients with BCR PC after primary definitive therapy and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time ≤12 months were randomized to open-label apalutamide (240 mg/d) alone, apalutamide plus ADT, or ADT alone (1 : 1:1 ratio) for 12 months followed by a 12-month observation period (NCT01790126). Mean changes from baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) at 12 months (primary endpoint) and other prespecified assessments of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), PSA nadir, time to PSA progression, time to testosterone recovery, recovered testosterone >150 ng/dL without PSA progression at 24 months, and molecular markers were evaluated. Results. In 90 enrolled patients (apalutamide plus ADT (n = 31), apalutamide (n = 29), ADT (n = 30)), FACT-P at 12 months was not significantly different between apalutamide, ADT and apalutamide, and ADT groups. Addition of apalutamide to ADT prolonged time to PSA progression but this change did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio (HR): 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.23–1.36, $P=0.196$ ); time to testosterone recovery was similar in the ADT-containing groups. In apalutamide plus ADT, apalutamide, and ADT groups, 37.9%, 37.0%, and 19.2% of patients, respectively, had testosterone >150 ng/dL at 24 months without confirmed PSA progression. Of the few biomarkers expressed in blood, EPHA3 was significantly associated with shorter time to PSA progression ( $P=0.02$ ) in the overall population. Conclusions. HRQoL was similar in patients treated with apalutamide alone, ADT alone, or their combination, although apalutamide plus ADT did not demonstrate statistically significant noninferiority in change from baseline in overall HRQoL. The aggregated efficacy and safety outcomes support further evaluation of apalutamide plus ADT in BCR PC.

Differences in sex hormone recovery profile after cessation of 12-week gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist versus agonist therapy

BACKGROUND

Pharmacobiological behavior differs between gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists and GnRH agonists. However, reliable evidence clarifying the difference between them is limited.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to elucidate the difference in recovery profile between GnRH antagonist (degarelix) and GnRH agonist (leuprorelin acetate or goserelin acetate) as short-term (12 weeks) neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) prior to 125I-transperineal prostate brachytherapy (TPPB) for localized prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was initially designed as a single-center, prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial. The primary endpoint was a serum testosterone level above the castration range (>50 ng/dl) after the cessation of 12-week neoadjuvant ADT (GnRH antagonist or GnRH agonists). All patients underwent 12 weeks of neoadjuvant ADT. The recovery profiles of hormones, prostate-specific antigen, total prostate volume (TPV), bone mineral density, and quality of life scores were investigated.

RESULTS

Testosterone recovery duration after the last injection was significantly longer in the GnRH antagonist arm than in the GnRH agonist arm (median, 27.3 vs. 4.8 weeks, p < 0.001). The serum levels of luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone in the GnRH antagonist arm also remained significantly lower than those in the GnRH agonist arm between 16 and 24 weeks (p < 0.01). Meanwhile, reduction in TPV at the time of TPPB was comparable between both arms (p = 0.128). There were also no significant between-arm differences in the International Prostate Symptom Score and the International Index of Erectile Function scores.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The recovery patterns of hormonal profiles after short-term (12 weeks) neoadjuvant ADT differ between GnRH antagonists and GnRH agonists. The choice between these drugs matters and may have a clinical impact depending on the primary objective of ADT.

Continuous versus intermittent extended adjuvant letrozole for breast cancer: final results of randomized phase III SOLE (Study of Letrozole Extension) and SOLE Estrogen Substudy

BACKGROUND

Late recurrences in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancers remain an important challenge. Avoidance or delayed development of resistance represents the main objective in extended endocrine therapy (ET). In animal models, resistance was reversed with restoration of circulating estrogen levels during interruption of letrozole treatment. This phase III, randomized, open-label Study of Letrozole Extension (SOLE) studied the effect of extended intermittent letrozole treatment in comparison with continuous letrozole. In parallel, the SOLE estrogen substudy (SOLE-EST) analyzed the levels of estrogen during the interruption of treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

SOLE enrolled 4884 postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, lymph node-positive, operable breast cancer between December 2007 and October 2012 and among them, 104 patients were enrolled in SOLE-EST. They must have undergone local treatment and have completed 4-6 years of adjuvant ET. Patients were randomized between continuous letrozole (2.5 mg/day orally for 5 years) and intermittent letrozole treatment (2.5 mg/day for 9 months followed by a 3-month interruption in years 1-4 and then 2.5 mg/day during all of year 5).

RESULTS

Intention-to-treat population included 4851 women in SOLE (n = 2425 in the intermittent and n = 2426 in the continuous letrozole groups) and 103 women in SOLE-EST (n = 78 in the intermittent and n = 25 in the continuous letrozole groups). After a median follow-up of 84 months, 7-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 81.4% in the intermittent group and 81.5% in the continuous group (hazard ratio: 1.03, 95% confidence interval: 0.91-1.17). Reported adverse events were similar in both groups. Circulating estrogen recovery was demonstrated within 6 weeks after the stop of letrozole treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Extended adjuvant ET by intermittent administration of letrozole did not improve DFS compared with continuous use, despite the recovery of circulating estrogen levels. The similar DFS coupled with previously reported quality-of-life advantages suggest intermittent extended treatment is a valid option for patients who require or prefer a treatment interruption.

Which Way to Choose for the Treatment of Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Case Report and Literature Review

Background

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common cancer among males in the world and the majority of patients will eventually progress to the metastatic phase. How to choose an effective way for the treatment of metastatic PCa, especially in the later stage of the disease is still confusing. Herein we reported the case of a patient diagnosed with metastatic PCa and conducted a literature review on this issue.

Case Presentation

A 57-year-old man with metastatic PCa had been managed by Dr. J.P. since April 2012 when the patient was admitted to the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University by aggravating frequent urination and dysuria. The prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration was 140 ng/ml, and the diagnosis of PCa was confirmed by prostate biopsy, with Gleason score 4 + 5 = 9. Chest CT and bone scan indicated multiple metastases in the lungs and bones. Triptorelin, bicalutamide, zoledronic acid, and docetaxel were then administered, six cycles later, the metastatic tumors in the lungs disappeared and those in the bones lessened significantly, along with a remarkable reduction in PSA level (< 2 ng/ml). Intermittent androgen deprivation was subsequently conducted until August 2018, when the serum PSA level was found to be 250 ng/ml, again docetaxel 75 mg/m² was administered immediately but the patient was intolerant this time. Instead, abiraterone was administered until March 2019 because of intolerable gastrointestinal side-effects and increasing PSA level. In October 2019, the patient came to our center, a modified approach of docetaxel (day 1 40 mg/m² + day 8 35 mg/m²) was administered. Luckily, the PSA level decreased rapidly, the bone pain was greatly relieved, and no obvious side effects occurred. However, four cycles later, docetaxel failed to work anymore, the metastatic tumor in the liver progressed. We proposed several regimens as alternatives, but they were soon denied due to the high prices or unavailability or uncertain effect of the drugs. In addition, the patient’s condition deteriorated speedily and can no longer bear any aggressive treatment. Finally, the patient died of multiple organ failure in August 2020.

Conclusion

The experiences of this case provide valuable evidence and reference for the treatment choices of metastatic PCa, in some circumstances modified and advanced regimens may produce unexpected effects.

Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Patients With Prostate Cancer Increases Serum Levels of Thromboxane A2: Cardiovascular Implications

Introduction: Androgens have been described as important players in the regulation of vascular function/structure through their action on the release and effect of vasoactive factors, such as prostanoids. Patients with prostate cancer (PCa) under androgen deprivation therapies (ADTs) present increased risk of cardiovascular mortality. Since thromboxane A₂ (TXA₂) is one of the most studied prostanoids and its involvement in different cardiovascular diseases has been described, the aim of this study was to investigate: (i) the effect of ADT on the serum levels of TXA₂ in PCa patients and its possible link to the redox status and (ii) the effect of the non-hydrolyzable TXA₂ analog U-46619 on the function of the aorta of male rats.

Methods: The levels of TXA₂ and total antioxidant status in 50 healthy subjects, 54 PCa patients, and 57 PCa under ADT were evaluated. These determinations were accompanied by levels of testosterone and C-reactive protein as an inflammation marker. In aortic segments from male rats, the U46619-induced effects on: (i) the vasomotor responses to acetylcholine (ACh), to the NO donor sodium nitroprusside (SNP), to the carbon monoxide-releasing molecule-3 (CORM-3), and to noradrenaline (NA) and (ii) the expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1), and phosphorylated ERK1/2 were analyzed.

Results: The serum level of TXA₂ in patients with PCa was increased with respect to healthy subjects, which was further increased by ADT. There was no modification in the total antioxidant status among the three experimental groups. In aortic segments from male rats, the TXA₂ analog decreased the endothelium-dependent relaxation and the sensitivity of smooth muscle cells to NO, while it increased the vasoconstriction induced by NA; the expression of COX-2, HO-1, and pERK1/2 was also increased.

Conclusions: ADT increased, along with other inflammatory/oxidative markers, the serum levels of TXA₂. The fact that TXA₂ negatively impacts the vascular function of the aorta of healthy male rats suggests that inhibition of TXA₂-mediated events could be considered a potential strategy to protect the cardiovascular system.

Initial Management of Noncastrate Advanced, Recurrent, or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

Update all preceding ASCO guidelines on initial hormonal management of noncastrate advanced, recurrent, or metastatic prostate cancer.

METHODS

The Expert Panel based recommendations on a systematic literature review. Recommendations were approved by the Expert Panel and the ASCO Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee.

RESULTS

Four clinical practice guidelines, one clinical practice guidelines endorsement, 19 systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses, 47 phase III randomized controlled trials, nine cohort studies, and two review papers informed the guideline update.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, or apalutamide, each when administered with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), represent four separate standards of care for noncastrate metastatic prostate cancer. Currently, the use of any of these agents in any particular combination or series cannot be recommended. ADT plus docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, or apalutamide should be offered to men with metastatic noncastrate prostate cancer, including those who received prior therapies, but have not yet progressed. The combination of ADT plus abiraterone and prednisolone should be considered for men with noncastrate locally advanced nonmetastatic prostate cancer who have undergone radiotherapy, rather than castration monotherapy. Immediate ADT may be offered to men who initially present with noncastrate locally advanced nonmetastatic disease who have not undergone previous local treatment and are unwilling or unable to undergo radiotherapy. Intermittent ADT may be offered to men with high-risk biochemically recurrent nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Active surveillance may be offered to men with low-risk biochemically recurrent nonmetastatic prostate cancer. The panel does not support use of either micronized abiraterone acetate or the 250 mg dose of abiraterone with a low-fat breakfast in the noncastrate setting at this time.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines.

Management of Prostate Cancer with Systemic Therapy: A Prostate Cancer Unit Perspective

The scenario of systemic therapy for prostate cancer is rapidly evolving, with new drugs and new treatment options. To update the background knowledge of shared uro-oncologic practice, we reviewed current statements and landmarks in systemic therapy. A number of new agents are under investigation in non-metastatic and metastatic disease. Similarly, new target imaging technologies are under development to improve the detection rate of true non-metastatic and true metastatic patient. Five new drugs have shown to be effective on progression-free and overall survival in metastatìc prostate cancer. However, the optimal sequencing of these treatments requires further investigation. The tolerability and side effects of the new drugs are also crucial issues to be discussed, as well as their activity against the disease. The uro-oncologic team has to stay updated about new medical therapies in order to be confident in debating with other professionals involved in prostate cancer decision making. Different points of view and nuances should be shared during multidisciplinary group discussions to achieve a balanced decision in disease management.

Population-based Assessment of Intermittent Androgen Deprivation Therapy Utilization for Relapsed, Nonmetastatic, Hormone-sensitive Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate

OBJECTIVES

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the standard of care for men with nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (nmHSPC) after treatment failure. Although intermittent ADT (iADT) is noninferior to continuous ADT for prostate cancer outcomes, with superior quality of life and cost-to-benefit ratio, little is known regarding its real-world utilization. The authors aimed to determine the utilization of iADT in a Canadian Provincial Cancer Program for relapsed nmHSPC and identified risk factors associated with the nonreceipt of iADT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective population-based cohort study used linked administrative databases to identify all patients with relapsed nmHSPC from 2012 to 2016 and quantified ADT prescription history. Patients were defined as iADT eligible if prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was <4 ng/mL and trending downwards on ≥2 sequential PSAs after ≥6 months of ADT. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to determine factors associated with nonreceipt of iADT.

RESULTS

A total of 601 men with relapsed, nmHSPC were included with a median age at relapse of 73 (range, 46 to 96), pre-ADT PSA of 12.2 ng/mL, and a median pre-ADT PSA doubling time of 7.8 months. 80.9% of the cohort were eligible to receive iADT and 74.4% were treated with iADT. On multivariable analysis, patients originally treated with surgery (odds ratio [OR], 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.46) or having a Gleason Score ≥8 (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.12-0.78) had decreased odds of receipt of iADT. Patients with longer PSA doubling times were more likely to receive iADT (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.17-6.31).

CONCLUSIONS

The utilization of iADT was relatively common for men in Manitoba during the study period, however, the uptake of iADT can be improved among identified subgroups.

Rationale for Involved Field Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy-Enhanced Intermittent Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Hormone-Sensitive Nodal Oligo-Recurrent Prostate Cancer Following Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy

Lymph node recurrent prostate cancer is a common clinical scenario that is likely to increase significantly with the widespread adoption of novel positron emission tomography (PET) agents. Despite increasing evidence that localized therapy is disease modifying, most men with lymph node recurrent prostate cancer receive only systemic therapy with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). For men who receive localized therapy the intent is often to delay receipt of systemic therapy. Little evidence exists on the optimal combination of local and systemic therapy in this patient population. In this hypothesis generating review, we will outline the rationale and propose a framework for combining involved field SBRT with risk adapted intermittent ADT for hormone sensitive nodal recurrent prostate cancer. In patients with a limited number of nodal metastases, involved field stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) may have a role in eliminating castrate-resistant clones and possibly prolonging the response to intermittent ADT. We hypothesize that in a small percentage of patients, such a treatment approach may lead to long term remission or cure.

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II-2020 Update: Treatment of Relapsing and Metastatic Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The working panel performed a literature review of the new data (2016-2019). The guidelines were updated, and the levels of evidence and/or grades of recommendation were added based on a systematic review of the literature.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography scanning has developed an increasingly important role in men with biochemical recurrence after local therapy. Early salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy appears as effective as adjuvant radiotherapy and, in a subset of patients, should be combined with androgen deprivation. New treatments have become available for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (PCa), nonmetastatic CRPC, and metastatic CRPC, along with a role for local radiotherapy in men with low-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa. Also included is information on quality of life outcomes in men with PCa.

CONCLUSIONS

The knowledge in the field of advanced and metastatic PCa and CRPC is changing rapidly. The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines are first endorsed by the EANM and reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. A full version is available from the EAU office or online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/).

PATIENT SUMMARY

This article summarises the guidelines for the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. These guidelines are evidence based and guide the clinician in the discussion with the patient on the treatment decisions to be taken. These guidelines are updated every year; this summary spans the 2017-2020 period of new evidence.

Intermittent versus continuous androgen deprivation therapy for advanced prostate cancer

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is still a mainstay of treatment for advanced prostate cancer. Continuous ADT causes considerable patient morbidity including sexual dysfunction, poor mood and physical capacity, changes in body composition and health-care-related costs. Intermittent ADT has been used as an approach to ADT monotherapy to limit morbidity by enabling cyclical recovery of serum testosterone levels. To date, a number of well-performed randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses have demonstrated statistically insignificant differences in oncological outcomes between intermittent and continuous ADT monotherapy. Sexual outcomes, morbidity profiles and cost-savings favour intermittent therapy in most randomized trials, but the benefit for clinical practice is unclear. Despite the growing body of evidence, the optimal administration regime for ADT has not been clearly established and incorporation of adjunctive upfront treatments such as chemotherapy and novel anti-androgen agents has further hampered progress. Recommendations by authoritative urological and oncological societies regarding the use of intermittent ADT are limited. The potential benefits of reduced morbidity for a particular patient must be considered in light of the possible oncological outcomes. Although the oncological changes associated with intermittent ADT are controversial, intermittent ADT does seem to provide symptomatic benefit in patients compared with continuous ADT. However, careful selection of suitable patients is crucial.

Using medical claims database to develop a population disease progression model for leuprorelin-treated subjects with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a widely used treatment for patients with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (PCa). However, duration of treatment response varies, and most patients eventually experience disease progression despite treatment. Leuprorelin is a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist, a commonly used form of ADT. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a biomarker for monitoring disease progression and predicting treatment response and survival in PCa. However, time-dependent profile of tumor regression and growth in patients with hormone-sensitive PCa on ADT has never been fully characterized. In this analysis, nationwide medical claims database provided by Humana from 2007 to 2011 was used to construct a population-based disease progression model for patients with hormone-sensitive PCa on leuprorelin. Data were analyzed by nonlinear mixed effects modeling utilizing Monte Carlo Parametric Expectation Maximization (MCPEM) method in NONMEM. Covariate selection was performed using a modified Wald’s approximation method with backward elimination (WAM-BE) proposed by our group. 1113 PSA observations from 264 subjects with malignant PCa were used for model development. PSA kinetics were well described by the final covariate model. Model parameters were well estimated, but large between-patient variability was observed. Hemoglobin significantly affected proportion of drug-resistant cells in the original tumor, while baseline PSA and antiandrogen use significantly affected treatment effect on drug-sensitive PCa cells (Ds). Population estimate of Ds was 3.78 x 10⁻² day^-1. Population estimates of growth rates for drug-sensitive (Gs) and drug-resistant PCa cells (G_R) were 1.96 x 10⁻³ and 6.54 x 10⁻⁴ day^-1, corresponding to a PSA doubling time of 354 and 1060 days, respectively. Proportion of the original PCa cells inherently resistant to treatment was estimated to be 1.94%. Application of population-based disease progression model to clinical data allowed characterization of tumor resistant patterns and growth/regression rates that enhances our understanding of how PCa responds to ADT.

Association between immunosuppressive cytokines and PSA progression in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer treated with intermittent hormonal therapy

BACKGROUND

Immunosuppressive cytokines have the potential to promote prostate cancer progression. Assessing their longitudinal changes may implicate mechanisms of progression, treatment resistance, and suggest new therapeutic targets.

METHODS

Thirty-seven men with biochemically recurrent (BCR) prostate cancer who received 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and were monitored until the time to prostate-specific antigen progression (TTPP) were identified from a completed phase III trial (NCT00020085). Serum samples were archived at baseline, 3 months after ADT, and at TTPP. Cytokine concentrations were quantified using a 36-parameter electrochemiluminescence assay. The Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test was used to compare observations between time points. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to calculate TTPP dichotomized by cytokine values above or below the median. Pearson's rank correlation coefficient was used to compare continuous variables.

RESULTS

Median TTPP was 399 days (range, 114-1641). Median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at baseline and progression were 8.5 and 5.3 ng/mL, respectively. Twenty-three patients (62%) achieved undetectable PSA with ADT. Castrate levels of testosterone (<50 ng/dL) after 3 months of ADT occurred in 35 patients (95%). TNF-α (P = .002), IL-23 (P = .002), and CXCL10 (P = .001) significantly increased from baseline to post ADT. Certain cytokines correlated longitudinally: TNF-α correlated with IL-23 (r = .72; P < .001) and IL-8 (r = .59; P < .001) from baseline to post ADT and to PSA progression. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio correlated with IL-27 (r = .57; P < .001) and MIP-3α (r = .56; P < .001). Patients with a detectable PSA after ADT had elevated levels of IL-6 (P = .049) and IL-8 (P = .013) at PSA progression as compared with those with an undetectable PSA. There was a trend toward shorter TTPP in patients with TNF-α levels above the median (P = .042).

CONCLUSIONS

Several innate cytokines were associated with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer.

Assessing the Justification, Funding, Success, and Survival Outcomes of Randomized Noninferiority Trials of Cancer Drugs: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis

IMPORTANCE

Noninferiority trials test whether a new intervention is not worse than the comparator by a given margin.

OBJECTIVES

To study the characteristics of published randomized noninferiority trials in oncology with overall survival as an end point, to assess the association of justification and success in achieving noninferiority with the funding of these trials, and to evaluate the association of such trials with patient survival.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of PubMed and Google Scholar databases was conducted in March 2018, with no date restrictions.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized noninferiority trials of cancer drug therapies with overall survival as an end point were included. Trials of decision support, supportive care, and nondrug treatment in both arms were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for meta-epidemiological studies. Studies were screened for eligibility criteria, and data on criteria for noninferiority, funding, success (achieving noninferiority), and hazard ratios with confidence intervals for overall survival were extracted. Hazard ratios for overall survival were pooled across trials using a random-effects model.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Associations of the justification for using a noninferiority design and success in achieving noninferiority with the source of funding were assessed. Overall pooled hazard ratios and confidence intervals for overall survival were calculated.

RESULTS

Among 74 noninferiority trials of cancer drug therapies, 23 (31%; enrolling 21 437 patients) used overall survival as the primary end point. The noninferiority margins for the hazard ratio of overall survival ranged from 1.08 to 1.33. Noninferiority design was justified in 14 trials (61%) but not in 9 (39%). Overall, 18 trials (78%) concluded with a finding of noninferiority. Industry funding was associated with lack of justification for noninferiority design (P = .02, assessed using the Fisher exact test) but not with success in proving noninferiority (P = .80, assessed using the Fisher exact test). When the hazard ratios across the trials were pooled, there was no beneficial or detrimental association with overall survival, with a pooled hazard ratio of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.92-1.02).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings suggest that a substantial fraction of noninferiority trials in oncology, most of which are industry funded, lack justification for such a design. Greater attention to the use of noninferiority designs in randomized clinical trials of cancer drugs from local and national regulators is warranted.

Quality-of-Life Assessment and Reporting in Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review of Phase 3 Trials Testing Anticancer Drugs Published Between 2012 and 2018

Quality of life (QoL) is not included among the end points in many studies, and QoL results are underreported in many phase 3 oncology trials. We performed a systematic review to describe QoL prevalence and heterogeneity in QoL reporting in recently published prostate cancer phase 3 trials. A PubMed search was performed to identify primary publications of randomized phase 3 trials testing anticancer drugs in prostate cancer, issued between 2012 and 2018. We analyzed QoL inclusion among end points, presence of QoL results, and methodology of QoL analysis. Seventy-two publications were identified (15 early-stage, 20 advanced hormone-sensitive, and 37 castration-resistant prostate cancer [CRPC]). QoL was not listed among study end points in 23 studies (31.9%) (40.0% early stage, 40.0% advanced hormone sensitive, and 24.3% CRPC). QoL results were absent in 15 (30.6%) of 49 primary publications of trials that included QoL among end points. Overall, as a result of absent end point or unpublished results, QoL data were lacking in 38 (52.8%) primary publications (53.3% early stage, 55.0% in advanced hormone sensitive, and 51.4% in CRPC). The most commonly used QoL tools were Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) (21, 53.8%) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) (14, 35.9%); most common methods of analysis were mean changes or mean scores (28, 71.8%), time to deterioration (14, 35.9%), and proportion of patients with response (10, 25.6%). In conclusion, QoL data are lacking in a not negligible proportion of recently published phase 3 trials in prostate cancer, although the presence of QoL results is better in positive trials, especially in CRPC. The methodology of QoL analysis is heterogeneous for type of instruments, analysis, and presentation of results.

A phase 3, open-label, multicenter study of a 6-month pre-mixed depot formulation of leuprolide mesylate in advanced prostate cancer patients

Objectives

To determine the safety, efficacy and pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of a pre-mixed depot formulation of leuprolide mesylate subcutaneous injectable suspension (LMIS) 50 mg for up to 1 year of treatment for subjects with advanced prostate cancer.

Patients and methods

In this open-label, multicenter study, prostate cancer patients with indication for androgen ablation therapy received two subcutaneous injection of LMIS 50 mg 6 months apart and were followed for an additional 6 months. Two efficacy primary end points were the percentage of subjects with a serum testosterone level ≤ 50 ng/dL by Day 28 as well as the percentage of subjects with similar testosterone suppression from Day 28 to Day 336.

Results

Of the 137 enrolled subjects, 15 (10.9%) subjects did not complete the study, including 5 subjects who terminated early due to an adverse event. By Day 28, 98.5% (95% confidence interval 94.8–99.8) of the subjects achieved a castrate testosterone level. At the end of the study, 97% and 95.9% of the subjects had serum testosterone level ≤ 50 ng/dL and ≤ 20 ng/dL, respectively. LMIS 50 mg significantly reduced serum prostate-specific antigen levels after its first injection and this PSA declination effect remained until the end of the study. No statistically significant change was observed in worsening bone pain or urinary symptom assessments during the study. Hot flush (48.9%) and hypertension (14.6%) were the two most common adverse events reported.

Conclusions

LMIS 50 mg, administered at 6-month intervals, effectively suppressed serum testosterone level, and demonstrated a consistent safety profile.

Revisiting Intermittent Therapy in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Can Less Be More in the "New World Order"?

CONTEXT

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the standard of care for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC) and a potential treatment option in those with prostate-specific antigen relapse after local therapy. Based on promising biological and preclinical data, several clinical trials compared the efficacy of intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) versus continuous androgen deprivation (CAD) with the objective of delaying disease progression and improving survival and quality of life (QoL).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to revisit the concept of IAD in the "new world order" and reconsider whether it has a potential clinical role in an era where we have seen unprecedented progress in the management of patients with metastatic HSPC.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing IAD and CAD therapies. References of retrieved articles were also searched. Articles with at least 100 randomized patients, which were published in 2008 or later and had data on overall survival or QoL outcomes, were included.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The evidence to date cannot exclude inferiority of IAD compared with CAD with respect to survival outcomes. The hazard ratios in metastatic disease indicate less favorable survival with IAD. No superiority trial conclusively favored IAD or CAD. Two trials demonstrated noninferiority of IAD, although the noninferiority margins (NIMs) are clinically concerning. Another trial could not exclude noninferiority. A modest but temporary QoL and symptom benefit generally favoring IAD was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

IAD has not conclusively demonstrated an impact on disease progression or survival, and has only modest effects on QoL and symptoms measured in the short term. As such, it is not the standard of care, particularly in the era where we have seen unprecedented survival impact with combination ADT+docetaxel or abiraterone +prednisone. IAD may need to be reassessed in the context of current therapies, ideally driven by biological rationale, with the goal of minimizing physical and financial toxicities with appropriately designed informative clinical trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this report, we looked at two hormone therapy approaches for prostate cancer that is still sensitive to castration: one with treatment breaks and one without. Patients may tolerate therapy with breaks more easily, but this effect is not sustained and is not associated with better longevity. The best longevity is seen in patients who receive newer hormone therapies or chemotherapy in addition to continuous hormone therapy. Whether these newer therapies would be as effective if given intermittently is an important but unanswered question.

Criteria for indication and treatment modification in a cohort of patients with prostate cancer treated with hormone therapy

BACKGROUND

No published studies have specifically assessed whether treatment modifications to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer (PCa) are frequently carried out in routine clinical practice. The current study was conducted to determine what proportion of patients who had initiated hormone therapy with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue then had their treatment regimen modified during the first 24 months.

METHODS

A prospective, noninterventional study was carried out in routine clinical practice in France. Patients with locally advanced or metastatic PCa were followed up for 2 years after treatment initiation with a GnRH analogue. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a modification to their initial hormone therapy.

RESULTS

In total, 1301 patients were enrolled into the study by 204 physicians, and the primary endpoint could be evaluated for 891 patients. The GnRH analogue treatment was initiated for metastatic PCa (24.2%), locally advanced PCa without planned local treatment (20.6%), locally advanced PCa in association with radiotherapy (31.6%), and biochemical recurrence after local treatment (21.4%). Hormonal treatment was modified in 43.8% (390/891) of patients during the 24-month follow-up period after GnRH analogue initiation. In 61.3% of cases (239/390), the type of modification involved a change of GnRH analogue formulation or switch to another GnRH analogue. A total of five significant predictive factors for GnRH analogue treatment modification were identified: metastatic stage; physician sector; physician speciality; presence or absence of urinary symptoms; and intermittent versus continuous ADT.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that in 43.8% of the patients with advanced PCa, ADT is modified in the first 2 years after initiation in routine clinical practice. Predictive factors for alteration of ADT were metastatic stage and the choice of an intermittent schedule.

RETRACTED: Recommandations françaises du Comité de Cancérologie de l’AFU – Actualisation 2018–2020 : cancer de la prostate French ccAFU guidelines – Update 2018–2020: Prostate cancer

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy). Cet article est retiré de la publication à la demande des auteurs car ils ont apporté des modifications significatives sur des points scientifiques après la publication de la première version des recommandations. Le nouvel article est disponible à cette adresse: DOI:10.1016/j.purol.2019.01.007. C’est cette nouvelle version qui doit être utilisée pour citer l’article. This article has been retracted at the request of the authors, as it is not based on the definitive version of the text because some scientific data has been corrected since the first issue was published. The replacement has been published at the DOI:10.1016/j.purol.2019.01.007. That newer version of the text should be used when citing the article.

Intermittent, low-dose, antiandrogen monotherapy as an alternative therapeutic option for patients with positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy

The aim of the present study was to determine whether oncologic outcomes and adverse events associated with active on/off intermittent antiandrogen monotherapy (daily bicalutamide, 50 mg per day) are comparable with those of standard external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) or combined androgen blockade (CAB) therapy in prostate cancers with positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy. Two hundred twenty-three patients with positive surgical margins post-radical prostatectomy who underwent active surveillance (AS, n = 32), EBRT without hormone therapy (n = 55), intermittent antiandrogen monotherapy without EBRT (IAAM, n = 50), or CAB without EBRT (n = 86), between 2007 and 2014, were reviewed retrospectively. Pathologic outcomes, biochemical recurrence rates, radiological disease progression, and adverse events were collected from medical records. Biochemical recurrence rates, biochemical recurrence-free survival rates, and radiological recurrence were not different between the groups (P = 0.225, 0.896, and 0.284, respectively). Adverse event rates and severities were lower for IAAM compared with EBRT or CAB (both P < 0.05), but were comparable to those for AS (P = 0.591 and 0.990, respectively). Grade ≥3 adverse events were not reported in the IAAM or AS groups. Erectile dysfunction and loss of libido rates were lower in the IAAM group compared with the EBRT and CAB groups (P = 0.032). Gastrointestinal complications were more frequently reported in the EBRT group (P = 0.008). Active on/off IAAM treatment might be an appropriate treatment option for patients with positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy. Furthermore, regarding oncologic outcomes, IAAM was comparable to standard EBRT but had a milder adverse event profile.

Intermittent androgen deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer: Connecting the dots

Intermittent androgen deprivation therapy (IADT) is now being increasingly opted by the treating physicians and patients with prostate cancer. The most common reason driving this is the availability of an off-treatment period to the patients that provides some relief from treatment-related side-effects, and reduced treatment costs. IADT may also delay the progression to castration-resistant prostate cancer. However, the use of IADT in the setting of prostate cancer has not been strongly substantiated by data from clinical trials. Multiple factors seem to contribute towards this inadequacy of supportive data for the use of IADT in patients with prostate cancer, e.g., population characteristics (both demographic and clinical), study design, treatment regimen, on- and off-treatment criteria, duration of active treatment, endpoints, and analysis. The present review article focuses on seven clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of IADT vs. continuous androgen deprivation therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer. The results from these clinical trials have been discussed in light of the factors that may impact the treatment outcomes, especially the disease (tumor) burden. Based on evidence, potential candidate population for IADT has been suggested along with recommendations for the use of IADT in patients with prostate cancer.

Cardiovascular Complications of Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Prostate cancer is a common hormone-sensitive malignancy, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a cornerstone of therapy in advanced disease. The most important and controversial of ADT side effects is cardiovascular (CV) toxicity. Prospective trials have demonstrated that ADT increases CV risk by lowering insulin sensitivity, causing dyslipidemia, and causing weight gain thus mimicking metabolic syndrome. Retrospective data suggests that ADT increases CV risk; however, data on cardiovascular mortality is equivocal. This discrepancy can be explained by study design limitations and selection bias inherent to post hoc analysis of trials not designed to study CV outcomes. Despite the adverse CV and metabolic sequelae of ADT, little data is available for optimal cardiac screening or management in these patients. The short-term CV risk is higher in patients who have had CV events in the year prior to starting ADT. A careful discussion of risk and benefit of ADT must take place with patients with pre-existing CV disease prior to initiating hormonal therapy. The duration of ADT must be considered. We recommend diligent pretherapy screening and optimization of cardiac risk factors and close surveillance especially within the first year of ADT.

[CCAFU french national guidelines 2016-2018 on prostate cancer]

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the guidelines national committee CCAFU was to propose updated french guidelines for localized and metastatic prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

A Medline search was achieved between 2013 and 2016, as regards diagnosis, options of treatment and follow-up of PCa, to evaluate different references with levels of evidence.

RESULTS

Epidemiology, classification, staging systems, diagnostic evaluation are reported. Disease management options are detailed. Recommandations are reported according to the different clinical situations. Active surveillance is a major option in low risk PCa. Radical prostatectomy remains a standard of care of localized PCa. The three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy is the technical standard. A dose of > 74Gy is recommended. Moderate hypofractionation provides short-term biochemical control comparable to conventional fractionation. In case of intermediate risk PCa, radiotherapy can be combined with short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). In case of high risk disease, long-term ADT remains the standard of care. ADT is the backbone therapy of metastatic disease. In men with metastases at first presentation, upfront chemotherapy combined with ADT should be considered as a new standard. In case of metastatic castration-resistant PCa (mCRPC), new hormonal treatments and chemotherapy provide a better control of tumor progression and increase survival.

CONCLUSIONS

These updated french guidelines will contribute to increase the level of urological care for the diagnosis and treatment for prostate cancer. © 2016 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of focal and total salvage 125I brachytherapy for recurrent prostate cancer after primary radiotherapy

PURPOSE

Focal salvage (FS) iodine 125 (125I) brachytherapy could be an effective treatment for locally radiorecurrent prostate cancer (PCa). Toxicity is often reduced compared to total salvage (TS) while cancer control can be maintained, which could increase cost-effectiveness. The current study estimates the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of FS compared to TS.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A decision analytic Markov model was developed, which compares costs and QALYs associated with FS and TS. A 3-year time horizon was adopted with six month cycles, with a hospital perspective on costs. Probabilities for genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity and their impact on health-related quality of life (SF-36) were derived from clinical studies in the University Medical Center Utrecht (UMCU). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis, using 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, was performed to quantify the joint decision uncertainty up to the recommended maximum willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000/QALY.

RESULTS

Focal salvage dominates TS as it results in less severe toxicity and lower treatment costs. Decision uncertainty is small, with a 97-100% probability for FS to be cost-effective compared to TS (€0-€80,000/QALY). Half of the difference in costs between FS and TS was explained by higher treatment costs of TS, the other half by higher incidence of severe toxicity. One-way sensitivity analyses show that model outcomes are most sensitive to utilities and probabilities for severe toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Focal salvage 125I brachytherapy dominates TS, as it has lower treatment costs and leads to less toxicity in our center. Larger comparative studies with longer follow-up are necessary to assess the exact influence on (biochemical disease free) survival and toxicity.

Adverse Health Events Following Intermittent and Continuous Androgen Deprivation in Patients With Metastatic Prostate Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Although intermittent androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) has not been associated with better overall survival in prostate cancer (PC), it has the potential for lower adverse effects. To our knowledge, the incidence of long-term adverse health events has not been reported.

OBJECTIVE

To examine long-term late events in elderly patients randomized to intermittent or continuous ADT to determine whether late cardiovascular and endocrine events would be lower in patients treated with intermittent ADT.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter clinical trial using linkage between patient data from S9346, a randomized SWOG trial of intermittent vs continuous ADT in men with metastatic PC, and corresponding Medicare claims.

EXPOSURE

Intermittent or continuous ADT.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was to identify long-term adverse health events by treatment arm. Patients were classified as having an adverse health event if they had any hospital claim--or at least 2 physician or outpatient claims at least 30 days apart--for any of the following diagnoses: ischemic and thrombotic events, endocrine events, sexual dysfunction, dementia, and depression. To incorporate time from beginning of observation through evidence of an event, we determined the cumulative incidence of each event. Competing risks Cox regression was used, adjusting for covariates.

RESULTS

In total, 1134 eligible US-based male patients with metastatic PC were randomized to continuous vs intermittent ADT in the S9346 trial. A total of 636 of trial participants (56%) had at least 1 year of continuous Medicare parts A and B coverage and no health maintenance organization participation. The median age was 71.3 years. The most common long-term events were hypercholesterolemia (31%) and osteoporosis (19%). The 10-year cumulative incidence of ischemic and thrombotic events differed by arm; 24% for continuous and 33%for intermittent ADT (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .02). There were no statistically significant differences by arm in any other adverse health events.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Contrary to our hypothesis that intermittent ADT would reduce long-term health-related events compared with continuous ADT, we found that older men assigned to intermittent ADT had no apparent reduction in bone, endocrine, or cognitive events and an increased incidence of ischemic and thrombotic events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00002651.

A meta-analysis of cardiovascular events in intermittent androgen-deprivation therapy versus continuous androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is the standard treatment for advanced and recurrent prostate cancer but it has been shown to cause adverse effects on the cardiovascular system. Intermittent androgen deprivation has been studied as an alternative therapy. To conduct a meta-analysis comparing the incidence of cardiovascular events in patients with prostate cancer receiving intermittent (IADT) versus continuous ADT (CADT).

METHODS

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, The National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials and The Clinical Trials Register of Trials Central, and Google Scholar from inception of each database through February 2016. References from published guidelines, reviews and other relevant articles were also considered. We selected randomized clinical trials comparing IADT versus CADT in patients with prostate cancer that reported data on cardiovascular events. Two reviewers performed the study selection, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment. We calculated risk ratios with the Mantel-Haenszel method, using random effect models. We assessed heterogeneity using I² index. The primary outcome was incidence of cardiovascular events. Secondary outcomes were thromboembolic events and cardiovascular-related mortality.

RESULTS

Out of 106 references, we included seven articles from six trials (4810 patients) published between 2009 and 2015. We observed no significant difference between intermittent versus continuous androgen deprivation with respect to cardiovascular events (risk ratio (RR): 0.95; confidence interval (CI) 95%=0.83-1.08; seven trials, 4810 patients) and thromboembolic events (RR: 1.05; CI 95%=0.85-1.30; three trials, 1816 patients). There was marginally significant difference with respect to cardiovascular-related mortality (RR: 0.85; CI 95%=0.71-1.00; five trials, 4170 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CADT, IADT shows no difference in terms of cardiovascular events and thromboembolic events. However, there was an association between lower cardiovascular-related mortality and intermittent androgen deprivation.

The role of androgen deprivation therapy plus radiation therapy in patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has a long and illustrious history in the treatment for prostate cancer and continues to be a mainstay treatment for locally advanced and high-risk patients. Because the survival for even high-risk prostate patients is lengthy, details of treatment such as duration and timing must be considered carefully and weighed against the various side effects.

AREAS COVERED

In the following article, we discuss the evolution of ADT from its initial applications in metastatic prostate cancer to its more recent incorporation into front line treatment in conjunction with radiation therapy (RT) for intermediate and high risk disease. We emphasize the results of phase III trials, which have defined the role of ADT in combination with RT in this patient population. We emphasize not only the potential benefits of ADT with RT, but also the potential risks, and underscore the need to consider both in order to maximize the therapeutic ration for each patient. Studies were identified via a search of PubMed as well as the bibliographies of articles discussed herein. Expert commentary: Even with advanced radiation techniques and dose escalation, adjuvant ADT continues to confer an overall survival benefit in intermediate and high-risk patients, although some evidence suggest that duration of treatment may be shortened, particularly for the high-risk group. The coming years will shed further information on this complicated topic with maturing of results from several ongoing trials.

Evaluating Intermittent Androgen-Deprivation Therapy Phase III Clinical Trials: The Devil Is in the Details

PURPOSE

Intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) has been widely tested in prostate cancer. However, phase III trials testing continuous androgen deprivation (CAD) versus IAD have reached inconclusive and seemingly contradictory results. Different design and conduct issues must be critically evaluated to better interpret the results.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Seven published phase III trials were examined for prespecified design and outcomes. Treatment specifications; primary end point; superiority versus noninferiority design assumptions, including magnitude of assumed versus observed noninferiority margin (NIM); duration of follow-up; and quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes were considered in terms of the results and conclusions reported.

RESULTS

Five trials had a superiority and three had a noninferiority primary hypothesis. Only three trials had a uniform population and overall survival (OS) end point. All trials observed better outcomes in terms of OS and progression-free survival (PFS) than assumed at time of study design, translating into prespecified NIMs or hazard ratios that reflected larger absolute differences in OS or PFS between arms. Lower-than-expected event rates also reduced statistical power for the trials. Other factors, including length of follow-up, cause of death, QOL, and primary end point, and their impact on trial interpretation are discussed.

CONCLUSION

No trial to date has demonstrated survival superiority of IAD compared with CAD. Trials concluding IAD is noninferior to CAD were based on wide NIMs that included clinically important survival differences, not likely to be considered comparable by physicians or patients. Interim analyses relying on short follow-up and including a majority of non-prostate cancer deaths will favor a noninferiority conclusion and should be interpreted cautiously. Adequate follow-up is required to ensure capture of prostate cancer deaths in both superiority and noninferiority trials.

The effect of continuous androgen deprivation treatment on prostate cancer patients as compared with intermittent androgen deprivation treatment

Purpose

To investigate the efficacy of androgen deprivation treatment (ADT) between continuous and intermittent ADT.

Materials and Methods

Between January 2006 and May 2015, 603 patients were selected and divided into continuous ADT (CADT) (n=175) and intermittent ADT (IADT) (n=428) groups. The median follow-up in this study was 48.19 (1.0-114.0) months. The primary end point was time to castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). The types of ADT were monotherapy and maximal androgen blockade (i.e., luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist and antiandrogen).

Results

The characteristics of patients showed no significant differences between the CADT and IADT groups, except for the Gleason score (p<0.001). The median time to CRPC of all enrolled patients with ADT was 20.60±1.60 months. The median time to CRPC was 11.20±1.31 months in the CADT group as compared with 22.60±2.08 months in the IADT group. In multivariate analysis, percentage of positive core (p=0.047; hazard ratio [HR], 0.976; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.953-1.000), Gleason score (p=0.007; HR, 1.977; 95% CI, 1.206-3.240), lymph node metastasis (p=0.030; HR, 0.498; 95% CI, 0.265-0.936), bone metastasis (p=0.028; HR, 1.921; 95% CI, 1.072-3.445), and CADT vs. IADT (p=0.003; HR, 0.254; 95% CI. 0.102-0.633) were correlated with the duration of progression to CRPC. The IADT group presented a significantly longer median time to CRPC compared with the CADT group. Additionally, patients in the IADT group showed a longer duration in median time to CRPC in subgroup analysis according to the Gleason score.

Conclusions

This study found that IADT produces a longer duration in median time to CRPC than does CADT.

Management of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer

In 2014, prostate cancer will affect roughly 15 % of American men during their lifetimes with about 230,000 new cases and 29,000 deaths per year. If required, most can be treated with curative surgery or radiotherapy. Upon relapse, androgen deprivation therapy (intermittent or continuous) is the cornerstone of treatment for hormone-sensitive disease. Response is variable and treatment is associated with a significant risk of toxicity. Recently, significant advances in survival have been demonstrated with chemohormonal therapy in men with high-volume disease. In addition, new findings have informed the approach to preventing bone complications in patients on therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Devising clinical prediction tools and biomarkers is needed to select patients most likely to benefit from certain therapies and allow for a personalized approach.

Integrating Geriatric Assessment into Decision-Making after Prostatectomy: Adjuvant Radiotherapy, Salvage Radiotherapy, or None?

Despite current advancements in the field, management of older prostate cancer patients still remains a big challenge for Geriatric Oncology. The International Society of Geriatric Oncology (ISGO) has recently updated its recommendations in this area, and these have been widely adopted, notably by the European Association of Urology. This article outlines the principles that should be observed in the management of elderly patients who have recently undergone prostatectomy for malignancy or with a biochemical relapse following prostatectomy. Further therapeutic intervention should not be considered in those patients who are classified as frail in the geriatric assessment. In patients presenting better health conditions, salvage radiotherapy is to be preferred to adjuvant radiotherapy, which is only indicated in certain exceptional cases. Radiotherapy of the operative bed presents a higher risk to the elderly. Additionally, hormone therapy clearly shows higher side effects in older patients and therefore it should not be administered to asymptomatic patients. We propose a decision tree based on the ISGO recommendations, with specific modifications for patients in biochemical relapse.

Degarelix as an intermittent androgen deprivation therapy for one or more treatment cycles in patients with prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for prostate cancer treatment suggest that intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) can be considered for certain patients.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of degarelix as IAD for one or more treatment cycle(s) in prostate cancer patients requiring androgen deprivation.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This open-label uncontrolled multicenter study included patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >4 to 50 ng/ml or PSA doubling time <24 mo. Induction included 7-mo treatment. Off-treatment period started when PSA was ≤4 ng/ml and lasted up to 24 mo based on PSA and testosterone levels. Treatment was reinitiated when PSA was >4 ng/ml.

INTERVENTION

Each induction period included a starting dose of degarelix 240mg, and thereafter 80mg once a month for 6 mo, followed by off-treatment periods.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary end point was time to PSA >4 ng/ml. Secondary end points were subgroup analysis of the primary end point, time to testosterone >0.5 and >2.2 ng/ml, quality of life (QoL), and sexual function during the first off-treatment period.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Of 213 patients in the first induction period, 191 entered the first off-treatment period, 35 patients entered the second induction, and 30 entered the second off-treatment period. Only two patients entered the third cycle. Median time to PSA >4 ng/ml and duration of first off-treatment period was 392 d each. Significant differences in time to PSA >4 ng/ml were observed between subgroups stratified by prognostic factors (previous curative treatment, cancer stage, PSA levels, and Gleason scores). Time to testosterone >0.5 and >2.2 ng/ml was 112 and 168 d, respectively. Change in QoL remained nonsignificant, and sexual function gradually improved during the off-treatment period. Adverse events were fewer during the off-treatment period and subsequent treatment cycles.

CONCLUSIONS

IAD with degarelix resulted in an improvement in sexual function commensurate with increased testosterone levels while PSA remained suppressed. The treatment for one treatment cycle or more was well tolerated.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Guidelines for prostate cancer treatment suggest that intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) can be considered for certain patients. IAD with degarelix resulted in improved sexual function commensurate with increased testosterone levels while prostate-specific antigen remained suppressed. The treatment for one treatment cycle or more was well tolerated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00801242.

Intermittent versus continuous androgen deprivation for locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in older men in the United States (USA) and Western Europe. Androgen deprivation (AD) constitutes, in most cases, the first-line of treatment for these cases. The negative impact of CAD in quality of life, secondary to the adverse events of sustained hormone deprivation, plus the costs of this therapy, motivated the intermittent treatment approach. The objective of this study is to to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and adverse events profile of intermittent versus continuous androgen deprivation for locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

METHODS

Several databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), time to progression (TTP) and adverse events. We performed a meta-analysis (MA) of the published data. The results were expressed as Hazard Ratio (HR) or Risk Ratio (RR), with their corresponding 95% Confidence Intervals (CI 95%).

RESULTS

The final analysis included 13 trials comprising 6,419 patients with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. TTP was similar in patients who received intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) or continuous androgen deprivation (CAD) (fixed effect: HR = 1.04; CI 95% = 0.96 to 1.14; p = 0.3). OS and CSS were also similar in patients treated with IAD or CAD (OS: fixed effect: HR = 1.02; CI 95% = 0.95 to 1.09; p = 0.56 and CSS: fixed effect: HR = 1.06; CI 95% = 0.96 to 1.18; p = 0.26).

CONCLUSION

Overall survival was similar between IAD and CAD in patients with locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Data on CSS are weak and the benefits of IAD on this outcome remain uncertain. Impact in QoL was similar for both groups, however, sexual activity scores were higher and the incidence of hot flushes was lower in patients treated with IAD.

EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: Treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To present a summary of the 2013 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on the treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The working panel performed a literature review of the new data (2011-2013). The guidelines were updated, and levels of evidence and/or grades of recommendation were added to the text based on a systematic review of the literature that included a search of online databases and bibliographic reviews.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists are the standard of care in metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). LHRH antagonists decrease testosterone without any testosterone surge, and they may be associated with an oncologic benefit compared with LHRH analogues. Complete androgen blockade has a small survival benefit of about 5%. Intermittent androgen deprivation results in noninferior oncologic efficacy when compared with continuous androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) in well-selected populations. In locally advanced and metastatic PCa, early ADT does not result in a significant survival advantage when compared with delayed ADT. Relapse after local therapy is defined by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values >0.2 ng/ml following radical prostatectomy (RP) and >2 ng/ml above the nadir and after radiation therapy (RT). Therapy for PSA relapse after RP includes salvage RT (SRT) at PSA levels <0.5 ng/ml and SRP or cryosurgical ablation of the prostate in radiation failures. Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) are of limited importance if the PSA is <1.0 ng/ml; bone scans and CT can be omitted unless PSA is >20 ng/ml. Follow-up after ADT should include analysis of PSA and testosterone levels, and screening for cardiovascular disease and metabolic syndrome. Treatment of CRPC includes sipuleucel-T, abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA/P), or chemotherapy with docetaxel at 75mg/m(2) every 3 wk. Cabazitaxel, AA/P, enzalutamide, and radium-223 are available for second-line treatment of CRPC following docetaxel. Zoledronic acid and denosumab can be used in men with CRPC and osseous metastases to prevent skeletal-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The knowledge in the field of advanced, metastatic, and castration-resistant PCa is rapidly changing. These EAU guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and put them into clinical practice. A full version is available at the EAU office or at www.uroweb.org.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We present a summary of the 2013 version of the European Association of Urology guidelines on treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists are the standard of care in metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). LHRH antagonists decrease testosterone without any testosterone surge, and they might be associated with an oncologic benefit compared with LHRH analogues. Complete androgen blockade has a small survival benefit of about 5%. Intermittent androgen deprivation results in noninferior oncologic efficacy when compared with continuous androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) in well-selected populations. In locally advanced and metastatic PCa, early ADT does not result in a significant survival advantage when compared with delayed ADT. Relapse after local therapy is defined by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values >0.2 ng/ml following radical prostatectomy (RP) and >2 ng/ml above the nadir and after radiation therapy. Therapy for PSA relapse after RP includes salvage radiation therapy at PSA levels <0.5 ng/ml and salvage RP or cryosurgical ablation of the prostate in radiation failures. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) are of limited importance if the PSA is <1.0 ng/ml; bone scans, and CT can be omitted unless PSA is >20 ng/ml. Follow-up after ADT should include analysis of PSA and testosterone levels, and screening for cardiovascular disease and metabolic syndrome. Treatment of castration-resistant CRPC includes sipuleucel-T, abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA/P), or chemotherapy with docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) every 3 wk. Cabazitaxel, AA/P, enzalutamide, and radium-223 are available for second-line treatment of CRPC following docetaxel. Zoledronic acid and denosumab can be used in men with CRPC and osseous metastases to prevent skeletal-related complications. The guidelines reported should be adhered to in daily routine to improve the quality of care in PCa patients. As we have shown recently, guideline compliance is only in the area of 30-40%.