Choice of hormonal therapy for prostate cancer

Abiraterone plus Prednisone in Metastatic, Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Abiraterone acetate, a drug that blocks endogenous androgen synthesis, plus prednisone is indicated for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We evaluated the clinical benefit of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone with androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed, metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer.

METHODS

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 1199 patients to receive either androgen-deprivation therapy plus abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily, given once daily as four 250-mg tablets) plus prednisone (5 mg daily) (the abiraterone group) or androgen-deprivation therapy plus dual placebos (the placebo group). The two primary end points were overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 30.4 months at a planned interim analysis (after 406 patients had died), the median overall survival was significantly longer in the abiraterone group than in the placebo group (not reached vs. 34.7 months) (hazard ratio for death, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.76; P<0.001). The median length of radiographic progression-free survival was 33.0 months in the abiraterone group and 14.8 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.55; P<0.001). Significantly better outcomes in all secondary end points were observed in the abiraterone group, including the time until pain progression, next subsequent therapy for prostate cancer, initiation of chemotherapy, and prostate-specific antigen progression (P<0.001 for all comparisons), along with next symptomatic skeletal events (P=0.009). These findings led to the unanimous recommendation by the independent data and safety monitoring committee that the trial be unblinded and crossover be allowed for patients in the placebo group to receive abiraterone. Rates of grade 3 hypertension and hypokalemia were higher in the abiraterone group.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of abiraterone acetate and prednisone to androgen-deprivation therapy significantly increased overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival in men with newly diagnosed, metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; LATITUDE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01715285 .).

Endocrine therapy for prostate cancer

Endocrine therapy of prostate cancer has mostly been reserved to patients with advanced stages of the disease. The principle for endocrine treatment of prostate cancer is elimination of stimulatory effects of testicular androgens on the prostate tumour cells. This can be achieved by surgical removal of the testes, by inhibition of pituitary gonadotrohin secretion by GnRH-angonsists or antagonists, by oestrogens or by non-steroidal antiandrogens. Since non-steroidal antiandrogens have fewer side-effects than castrational therapies, there is an increased interest for using endocrine treatment as adjuvant therapy after localized treatment. At least in certain stages of the disease, early hormonal treatment may have survival benefits. The timing of endocrine therapy, the usage of combined androgen blockade and intermittent endocrine therapy will be discussed in this overview.

Androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer

Androgen deprivation continues to play a crucial role in the treatment of advanced and metastatic prostate cancer. In the 65 years since its use was first described, urologists and medical oncologists have developed new and innovative ways to manipulate the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis with the goal of alleviating symptoms and prolonging the life of men with prostate cancer. Despite the successes that androgen deprivation therapy has brought, each method and regimen possesses unique benefits and burdens, of which the clinician and patient must be cognizant. This review discusses the first-line androgen deprivation methods and regimens presently in use with special attention paid to their side effects and the management of them, as well as the question of when to initiate androgen deprivation therapy.

Rising prostate-specific antigen after primary prostate cancer therapy

An estimated 20-40% of men experience a biochemical recurrence within 10 years of definitive prostate cancer treatment. No single prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value is invariably associated with clinical metastasis or cancer-specific survival; PSA kinetics might prove to be a more important predictor of eventual progression-free survival and cancer-specific survival than absolute PSA level alone. With only one-third of patients progressing from biochemical recurrence to clinical disease, therapeutic morbidity should not outpace risk of disease progression. Salvage radiation therapy following radical prostatectomy has widely variable long-term biochemical control rates (from 18 to 64% depending on the follow-up period). Early hormonal therapy delivered as castration or complete androgen blockade might delay clinical metastasis in patients with high-risk pathologic disease; however, the adverse effects and morbidity of long-term therapy must not be underestimated. Non-steroidal antiandrogens as monotherapy for early biochemical recurrence, particularly for younger men who wish to preserve their libido and sexual potency, have received considerable attention, but there are conflicting data on long-term outcomes. Because of their favorable adverse-effect profiles, non-traditional therapies that exert localized hormonal or cellular effects are receiving considerable attention for treatment of early, PSA-only recurrence. Data from animal models provide a rationale for the use of these therapies, but there is a lack of evidence to support prolongation of progression-free survival or cancer-specific survival.

American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations for the initial hormonal management of androgen-sensitive metastatic, recurrent, or progressive prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To develop a clinical practice guideline for the management of men with metastatic, recurrent, or progressive carcinoma of the prostate. The focus of this document is on the use, combinations, and timing of various forms of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for the palliation of men with androgen-sensitive disease.

METHODS

An expert panel and writing committee were formed. The questions to be addressed by the guideline were determined, and a systematic review of the literature was performed, which included a search of online databases, bibliographic review, and consultation with content experts. A priori criteria were used to select studies for analysis and study authors were contacted when necessary.

RESULTS

There were 10 randomized controlled trials, six systematic reviews, and one Markov model available to inform the guidelines.

CONCLUSION

A full discussion between practitioner and patient should occur to determine which therapy is best for the patient. Bilateral orchiectomy or luteinizing hormone releasing hormone agonists are the recommended initial treatments. Nonsteroidal antiandrogen therapy may be discussed as an alternative, but steroidal antiandrogens should not be offered as monotherapy. Patients willing to accept the increased toxicity of combined androgen blockage for a small benefit in survival should be offered nonsteroidal antiandrogen in addition to castrate therapy. Until data from studies using modern medical diagnostic/biochemical tests and standardized follow-up schedules become available, no specific recommendations can be issued regarding the question of early versus deferred ADT. A discussion about the pros and cons of early versus deferred ADT should occur.

Prospective strategies to enforce selectively cell death in cancer cells

Although induction of apoptosis (cell death mediated by caspases) determines response to cancer therapy, this approach is limited by lack of selectivity in available apoptosis-inducing agents. Furthermore, most cancers, almost by definition, are resistant to apoptosis, growth arrest and cell senescence. Then, how can anticancer agents kill cancer cell without unacceptable toxicity to a patient? The potential therapeutic approaches range from selective inhibition of antiapoptotic pathways, antiangiogenic therapy, tissue-selective therapy (including immunotherapy) to exploitation of, for example, drug resistance, oncoprotein addiction, unrestricted cell cycles, hypermitogenic and hypoxic features of cancer cells. These overlapping and complementary approaches rely on rational drug combinations (at mechanism-based doses and sequences) aimed at matching targets. To ensure killing of cancer cells selectively, we may combine apoptosis- and senescence-inducing agents with inhibitors of apoptosis (to protect normal cells), inhibitors of signal transduction with cell cycle-dependent chemotherapy, antiangiogenic agents with hypoxia-inducible factor-1 inhibitors, tissue-selective therapy with differentiating agents and activators of death receptors with chemotherapy. In theory, consecutive use of these drug combinations may control cancer.

Antiangiogenic therapy and tumor progression

Angiogenesis is necessary for tumor growth (a rationale for antiangiogenic therapy), but hypoxia caused by such a therapy will, in theory, drive tumor progression and metastasis. To reconcile conflicting notions, we discuss that, first, although a shift from normoxia (21% O2) to hypoxia indeed activates cancer cells for aggressive behavior, this may not occur during therapy, because most cancers are not normoxic to start with. Second, only successful antiangiogenic therapy, which is capable of controlling cancer, will select for resistance and progression. After all, in order to occur, therapy-induced tumor progression must be preceded by tumor regression.

Tissue-selective therapy of cancer

Instead of exploiting the differences between normal and cancer cells, seemingly unrelated anticancer modalities (from immunotherapy to hormones) exploit (a) the differences between various normal tissues and (b) tissue-specific similarities of normal and cancer cells. Although these therapies are successfully used for years to treat leukaemia and cancer, their unifying principles have never been explicitly formulated: namely, they are aimed at differentiated cells and normal tissues and target both normal and cancer cells in a tissue-specific manner. Whereas tiny differences between cancer and normal cells have yet to be successfully exploited for selective anticancer therapy, numerous tissue-specific differences (e.g. differences between melanocytes, prostate, thyroid and breast cells) provide a means to attack selectively that exact tissue that produced cancer. Despite inherent limitations, such as fostering resistance and dedifferentiation, tissue-selective therapy have enormous potentials to control cancer.

Bicalutamide: in early-stage prostate cancer

Bicalutamide is an oral, once-daily nonsteroidal antiandrogen. Its efficacy in localised or locally advanced prostate cancer is currently being investigated as part of the Early Prostate Cancer (EPC) programme. In the EPC programme, bicalutamide 150 mg/day, as an adjunct to radiotherapy, radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting, significantly reduced the risk of objective disease progression, the incidence of bone metastases and the risk of prostate specific antigen progression compared with placebo (p < 0.0001 for all three parameters) after a median follow-up of 3 years. Survival data are currently immature, with an overall mortality rate of 6% in both treatment arms. On two nonblind, randomised trials, bicalutamide 150 mg/day monotherapy was as effective as medical or surgical castration in terms of overall survival in patients with locally advanced nonmetastatic prostate cancer. After a median follow-up of 6.3 years, median survival was 63.5 and 69.9 months for bicalutamide and castration, respectively; time to disease progression was also similar between treatment groups. Bicalutamide recipients reported a significantly smaller loss in sexual interest and a better physical capacity than recipients of castration (p <or= 0.05 for both parameters). Bicalutamide is well tolerated in studies of up to 6.3 years' duration.

Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone monotherapy: a viable option for treatment of prostate cancer?

When addressing the appropriateness of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analog monotherapy as a method of androgen deprivation, it is important to look at the alternative option of androgen deprivation by combined androgen blockade (CAB). The randomized control trials studying CAB have been thoroughly analyzed and subjected to meta-analyses that have shown a small but significant difference in survival at 5 years. These findings have been subject to variable interpretations. Much like other treatment-option decisions for prostate cancer, it is mandatory to inform patients fully on the costs and benefits of monotherapy versus CAB and to incorporate the patient's concerns and preferences in the decision-making process. Currently, parameters to identify a subgroup of patients who might specifically benefit from a combined androgen deprivation treatment policy are not available. When using monotherapy, it is necessary to recognize several important facts. Castrate testosterone levels are not achieved or maintained in all patients. For some patients this may be a disadvantage. Additionally, before categorizing a patient as having an androgen-independent tumor, it is important to measure serum testosterone to ensure that LHRH analog monotherapy has achieved and maintained a castrate testosterone level.

Combined androgen blockade with nonsteroidal antiandrogens for advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Combined androgen blockade with medical or surgical castration plus a nonsteroidal antiandrogen for metastatic prostate cancer has been the subject of 20 randomized trials. The findings range from no expected increase in survival in 17 studies to an estimated 3.7 to 7 months' survival improvement noted in 3 studies. Most recently, a 1999 evidence report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and a 2000 overview from the Prostate Cancer Trialists Collaborative Group indicated that combined androgen blockade was associated with an approximately 3% to 5% increase in 5-year survival. We report herein a systematic review on combined androgen blockade performed by the Cochrane Collaborative Review Group on Prostate Diseases.

METHODS

Controlled trials that included a randomization of immediate nonsteroidal antiandrogens with castration versus castration alone for metastatic prostate cancer and provided information on survival were reviewed. Information on overall survival, toxicity, progression-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and type of nonsteroidal antiandrogen and castration therapies was abstracted by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

Twenty trials (n = 6320 patients) were included. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for overall survival with combined androgen blockade was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85 to 1.25; n = 4970 from 13 trials), 1.16 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.33; n = 5286 from 14 trials), and 1.29 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.50; n = 3550 from 7 trials) at 1, 2, and 5 years, respectively. Progression-free survival was improved at 1 year (OR = 1.38; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.67; n = 2278 from 7 trials). Cancer-specific survival was improved at 5 years (OR = 1.58; 95% CI 1.05 to 2.37; n = 781 from 2 trials). When analysis was limited to studies identified as being of high quality, the pooled OR for overall survival progressively increased but was not significant at any follow-up interval.

CONCLUSIONS

We find that there is a 5% improvement in the percentage of men surviving at 5 years (30% vs. 25%) with combined androgen blockade with nonsteroidal antiandrogens as well as improvements in progression-free survival at 1 year. Appropriate patients with metastatic prostate cancer should be informed of the potential benefits, toxicities, and out-of-pocket expenditures.