Is Prophylactic Breast Radiotherapy Necessary in All Patients With Prostate Cancer and Gynecomastia and/or Breast Pain?

Radiotherapy for prevention or management of gynecomastia recurrence: Future role for general gynecomastia patients in plastic surgery given current role in management of high-risk prostate cancer patients on anti-androgenic therapy

PURPOSE

Several technologies and innovative approaches continue to emerge for the optimal management of gynecomastia by plastic surgeons; the present study investigates the role of radiation therapy in this context.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to evaluate the utility of radiotherapy for the prevention and treatment of gynecomastia incidence or recurrence by plastic surgeons.

RESULTS

Fifteen articles met the inclusion criteria for review. The mean incidence of gynecomastia was 70% in the high-risk population examined representing prostate cancer patients on estrogen or anti-androgen therapy. Radiotherapy was shown to significantly reduce the incidence to a median of 23%, with all six randomized control studies assessed demonstrating a statistically significant decrease in incidence following radiotherapy prophylaxis. Doses examined ranged from 8 to 16 Gy, delivered between 1 and 11 fractions. Complications following radiotherapy were minor and self-limiting in all cases, restricted to minor skin reactions, and associated with larger radiotherapy doses delivered in fewer fractions. The median complication rate was 12.4% with no major complications, such as neoplastic, pulmonary, or adverse cardiac outcomes. While the efficacy of radiation therapy as a treatment modality for gynecomastia was also established, it was shown to be less effective than other available options.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose radiotherapy to the male breast might be a safe and effective strategy to prevent gynecomastia incidence or recurrence in high-risk patients; further studies are indicated within the common gynecomastia population managed by plastic surgeons to assess the clinical and economical utility of this intervention before a recommendation for its ubiquitous adoption in plastic surgery can be made to continue improving outcomes for high-risk gynecomastia patients.

Treatment strategies to prevent and reduce gynecomastia and/or breast pain caused by antiandrogen therapy for prostate cancer : Statement from the DEGRO working group prostate cancer

Aim

To provide an overview on the available treatments to prevent and reduce gynecomastia and/or breast pain caused by antiandrogen therapy for prostate cancer.

Methods

The German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) expert panel summarized available evidence published and assessed the validity of the information on efficacy and treatment-related toxicity.

Results

Eight randomized controlled trials and one meta-analysis were identified. Two randomized trials demonstrated that prophylactic radiation therapy (RT) using 1 × 10 Gy or 2 × 6 Gy significantly reduced the rate of gynecomastia but not breast pain, as compared to observation. A randomized dose-finding trial identified the daily dose of 20 mg tamoxifen (TMX) as the most effective prophylactic dose and another randomized trial described that daily TMX use was superior to weekly use. Another randomized trial showed that prophylactic daily TMX is more effective than TMX given at the onset of gynecomastia. Two other randomized trials described that TMX was clearly superior to anastrozole in reducing the risk for gynecomastia and/or breast pain. One comparative randomized trial between prophylactic RT using 1 × 12 Gy and TMX concluded that prophylactic TMX is more effective compared to prophylactic RT and furthermore that TMX appears to be more effective to treat gynecomastia and/or breast pain when symptoms are already present. A meta-analysis confirmed that both prophylactic RT and TMX can reduce the risk of gynecomastia and/or breast pain with TMX being more effective; however, the rate of side effects after TMX including dizziness and hot flushes might be higher than after RT and must be taken into account. Less is known regarding the comparative effectiveness of different radiation fractionation schedules and more modern RT techniques.

Conclusions

Prophylactic RT as well as daily TMX can significantly reduce the incidence of gynecomastia and/or breast pain. TMX appears to be an effective alternative to RT also as a therapeutic treatment in the presence of gynecomastia but its side effects and off-label use must be considered.

Diagnosis and Management of Gynecomastia for Urologists

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Our aim is to review the steps of diagnosis and management of gynecomastia with a special focus on treatment of gynecomastia associated with androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies investigating tamoxifen and radiation therapy for both therapy and prophylaxis of bicalutamide-induced gynecomastia are reviewed. Gynecomastia is a common clinical problem, affecting between one and two thirds of middle-aged men. Diagnosis is typically made by history and physical exam. Common causes include chronic medical conditions and medications; however, unexplained gynecomastia should prompt laboratory work-up, followed by appropriate imaging studies to evaluate for hormone producing cancers. For patients taking bicalutamide for treatment of prostate cancer, tamoxifen or radiation therapy for gynecomastia are excellent options.

A Study of Combination Bicalutamide and Raloxifene for Patients With Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate tissue expresses 2 estrogen receptor (ER) isoforms, ER-α and ER-β, and estrogen-based therapies have shown activity in preclinical studies. Raloxifene, a selective ER modulator, has inhibited the growth of prostate cancer xenograft models and was tested in a phase II trial of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), with some patients achieving stable disease. However, no studies have examined the safety of the combination of bicalutamide plus raloxifene for CRPC. Therefore, we investigated the safety of treatment with bicalutamide plus raloxifene in patients with CRPC in an initial study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a study to evaluate the toxicity (primary endpoint) of the combination of bicalutamide (50 mg) and raloxifene (60 mg) in 28-day cycles (maximum, 6 cycles) in men with progressive CRPC. The secondary endpoint, quality of life (QOL), was assessed by patients using a 6-item linear analog self-assessment or hormonal domain scale of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite.

RESULTS

We enrolled 18 patients with CRPC in the study to evaluate the safety of, and patient assessment of QOL (mental, physical, social, emotional, and spiritual) with, bicalutamide plus raloxifene therapy. No grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred. None of the 18 patients required dose reductions. The patient assessment of QOL showed no statistically significant changes after 2 treatment cycles. The median progression-free survival with bicalutamide plus raloxifene was 1.9 months (95% confidence interval, 1.8-2.8 months).

CONCLUSION

The results of the present study have shown that bicalutamide/raloxifene treatment is well tolerated. However, limited clinical activity occurred in men with CRPC who had previously undergone secondary hormonal therapy or chemotherapy.

Gynecomastia in Patients with Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Gynecomastia and/or mastodynia is a common medical problem in patients receiving antiandrogen (bicalutamide or flutamide) treatment for prostate cancer; up to 70% of these patients result to be affected; furthermore, this can jeopardise patients' quality of life.

AIMS

To systematically review the quality of evidence of the current literature regarding treatment options for bicalutamide-induced gynecomastia, including efficacy, safety and patients' quality of life.

METHODS

The PubMed, Medline, Scopus, The Cochrane Library and SveMed+ databases were systematically searched between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2014. All searches were undertaken between January and February 2015. The search phrase used was:"gynecomastia AND treatment AND prostate cancer". Two reviewers assessed 762 titles and abstracts identified. The search and review process was done in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The PICOS (patients, intervention, comparator, outcomes and study design) process was used to specify inclusion criteria. Quality of evidence was rated according to GRADE.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes were: treatment effects, number of complications and side effects. Secondary outcome was: Quality of Life.

RESULTS

Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria and are analysed in this review. Five studies reported pharmacological intervention with tamoxifen and/or anastrozole, either as prophylactic or therapeutic treatment. Four studies reported radiotherapy as prophylactic and/or therapeutic treatment. Two studies compared pharmacological treatment to radiotherapy. Most of the studies were randomized with varying risk of bias. According to GRADE, quality of evidence was moderate to high.

CONCLUSIONS

Bicalutamide-induced gynecomastia and/or mastodynia can effectively be managed by oral tamoxifen (10-20 mg daily) or radiotherapy without relevant side effects. Prophylaxis or therapeutic treatment with tamoxifen results to be more effective than radiotherapy.

Treatment of gynecomastia in patients with prostate cancer and androgen deprivation

CONTEXT

Gynecomastia, defined as benign proliferation of glandular breast tissue has a prevalence of 32% to 72% in the male. In the urology setting, it is associated to patients with prostate cancer and hormone treatment with a prevalence of 15% in the case of complete hormone blockage and 75% in monotherapy. The different options of treatment in prostate cancer have changed in recent decades. Thus, we have focused on this subject to evaluate the different therapy options of hormone manipulation induced gynecomastia in prostate cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize the available evidence on the different therapeutic options in prostate cancer patients who develop gynecomastia due to the use of nonsteroidal antiandrogens and to generate a diagnostic algorithm and treatment.

ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE

Using the PICO type structured search strategy (Patient or problem, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome or result) in the data bases of PubMed-Medline and Cochrane, identification was made of the relevant studies related to the treatment of gynecomastia in Prostate Cancer patients treated with nonsteroidal antiandrogens.

SYNTHESIS OF EVIDENCE

We have found 3 possible therapeutic options for the treatment of gynecomastia and mastodynia in patients with hormone deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. The 10Gy radiotherapy would be an option for the treatment of gynecomastia, although not all the patients need prophylactic treatment since only 50% report moderate-severe discomfort. Another option is the use of drugs such as tamoxifen 20mg/day that lead to a significant decrease in the mammary effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Gynecomastia and mastodynia, given their high incidence, make the physical examination a fundamental tool for all patients before initiating treatment with antiandrogens. The use of tamoxifen 20mg/day is the best treatment and prevention option against gynecomastia and mastodynia, while in the case of long-course established gynecomastia, surgery is the gold standard.

Tamoxifen for the management of breast events induced by non-steroidal antiandrogens in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Tamoxifen has emerged as a potential management option for gynecomastia and breast pain due to non-steroidal antiandrogens, and it is considered an alternative to surgery or radiotherapy. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the benefits and harms of tamoxifen, in comparison to other treatment options, for either the prophylaxis or treatment of breast events induced by non-steroidal antiandrogens in prostate cancer patients.

METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, reference lists, the abstracts of three major conferences and three trial registers to identify ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two authors independently screened the articles identified, assessed the trial quality and extracted data. The protocol was prospectively registered (CRD42011001320; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).

RESULTS

Four studies were identified. Tamoxifen significantly reduced the risk of suffering from gynecomastia (risk ratio 9RR0 0.10, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.22) or breast pain (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.17) at six months compared to untreated controls. Tamoxifen also showed a significant benefit for the prevention of gynecomastia (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.58) and breast pain (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.64) when compared to anastrozole after a median of 12 months. One study showed a significant benefit of tamoxifen for the prevention of gynecomastia (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.65) and breast pain (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.65) when compared with radiotherapy at six months. Radiotherapy increased the risk of suffering from nipple erythema and skin irritation, but there were no significant differences for any other adverse events (all P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The currently available evidence suggests good efficacy of tamoxifen for the prevention and treatment of breast events induced by non-steroidal antiandrogens. The impact of tamoxifen therapy on long-term adverse events, disease progression and survival remains unclear. Further large, well-designed RCTs, including long-term follow-ups, are warranted. Also, the optimal dose needs to be clarified.

Optimal prophylactic and definitive therapy for bicalutamide-induced gynecomastia: results of a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Bicalutamide is approved as an adjuvant to primary treatments (radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy) or as monotherapy in men with locally advanced, nonmetastatic prostate cancer (pca). However, this treatment induces gynecomastia in most patients, which often results in treatment discontinuation. Optimal therapy for these breast events is not known so far. We undertook a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of various treatment options for bicalutamide-induced gynecomastia.

METHODS

The medline, cancerlit, and Cochrane library databases were searched and the Google search engine was used to identify prospective and retrospective controlled studies published in English from January 2000 to December 2010 comparing prophylactic or curative treatment options with a control group (no treatment) for pca patients who developed bicalutamide-induced gynecomastia. Radiotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity was also evaluated.

RESULTS

The search identified nine controlled trials with a total patient population of 1573. Pooled results from prophylactic trials showed a significant reduction of gynecomastia in pca patients treated with prophylactic tamoxifen 20 mg daily (odds ratio: 0.06; 95% confidence interval: 0.05 to 0.09; p = 0.09), and pooled results from treatment trials showed a significant response of gynecomastia to definitive radiotherapy (odds ratio: 0.06; 95% confidence interval: 0.01 to 0.24; p < 0.0001). Aromatase inhibitors and weekly tamoxifen were not found to be effective as prophylactic and curative options. For the radiotherapy, skin-to-heart distance was found to be an important risk factor for cardiotoxicity (p = 0.006). A funnel plot of the meta-analysis showed significant heterogeneity (Egger test p < 0.00001) because of low sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggests using prophylactic tamoxifen 20 mg daily as the first-line preventive measure and radiotherapy as the first-line treatment option for bicalutamide-induced gynecomastia. Aromatase inhibitors and weekly tamoxifen are not recommended.

Prevention of gynecomastia and breast pain caused by androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer: tamoxifen or radiotherapy?

PURPOSE

To determine, in a meta-analysis, whether gynecomastia and breast pain rates in men with prostate cancer treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) are reduced if treated with prophylactic radiotherapy (RT) or tamoxifen (TMX).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CANCERLIT, and Cochrane Library databases, as well as proceedings of annual meetings, were systematically searched to identify randomized, controlled studies comparing RT or TMX with observation for men with prostate cancer using ADT.

RESULTS

Six RCTs (three RT trials and three TMX trials, N = 777 patients total) were identified that met the study criteria. Pooled results from these RCTs comparing RT vs. observation showed a significant reduction in the incidence of gynecomastia and breast pain rates in patients treated with RT (odds ratio [OR] = 0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.12-0.37, p < 0.0001, and OR = 0.34, 95% CI 0.20-0.57, p < 0.0001, respectively). Use of RT resulted in an absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 29.4% and 19.9%, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 3.4 and 5 to avoid one case of gynecomastia and breast pain, respectively. Pooled results from trials comparing TMX vs. observation showed a statistical benefit for breast pain and gynecomastia in favor of TMX arms (OR = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.02-0.08, p < 0.0001 and OR = 0.07, 95% CI = 0.0-0.14, p < 0.00001). TMX resulted in an ARR = 64.1% and 47.6%, with an NNT of 1.56 and 2.1 to avoid one case of gynecomastia and breast pain, respectively. Considering adverse effects, TMX was 6 times more adverse effects than RT.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data have shown that both TMX and RT prevented gynecomastia and breast pain in patients with prostate cancer receiving ADT for prostate cancer. Although TMX was two times more effective in preventing gynecomastia, RT should represent an effective and safe treatment option, to take into account mainly in patients with cardiovascular risk factors or thrombotic diathesis.

Low rate of clinician-scored gynecomastia induced by 6 months of combined androgen blockade in a randomized trial: Implications for prophylactic breast irradiation

PURPOSE

To determine the incidence and predictors of clinician-scored gynecomastia induced by 6 months of combined androgen blockade (CAB) in a randomized trial.

METHODS

We studied 94 men with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer randomized to radiation plus 6 months of neoadjuvant CAB consisting of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist and antiandrogen (flutamide). Patients were assessed for breast symptoms monthly as per protocol. Patients reporting breast tenderness or enlargement were then examined shirtless.

RESULTS

Median age at entry was 72.1 years. While 52 patients (55.3%) reported either breast tenderness or enlargement, only 9 patients (9.6%) were scored as having gynecomastia when examined shirtless by a single clinician. Four patients received radiation for self-reported breast tenderness or enlargement without clinician-scored gynecomastia. If these 4 had not been radiated, the total incidence of clinician-scored gynecomastia may have been as high as 13 of 94 (13.8%). No patient variable, such as age, body-mass index, and Adult Comorbidity Evaluation-27 score, or discontinuation of the antiandrogen, was associated with the development of gynecomastia.

CONCLUSIONS

While many patients self-reported breast tenderness or enlargement with short-course CAB, the incidence of breast enlargement noticeable to an examiner when the patient was shirtless was less than 15%, which is much lower than the 60% to 80% rates typically reported with antiandrogen monotherapy. Given that the long-term risks of prophylactic breast irradiation are not well characterized, these data suggest that prophylactic breast irradiation may not be as necessary in men receiving short-course CAB.

Gynecomastia - evaluation and current treatment options

CLINICAL QUESTION

What is the best management approach for gynecomastia?

RESULTS

In most patients, surgical correction usually leads to immediate cosmetic and symptomatic improvement and is considered the best approach. In men who are being treated with antiandrogen therapies, pharmacological intervention with tamoxifen is the most effective approach, followed by radiotherapy.

IMPLEMENTATION

Pitfalls to avoid when treating gynecomastia Failure to detect the very rare male breast cancerOverly aggressive early intervention or evaluationAppropriate medical interventionWhen to refer to specialist treatment.