A comparison of androgen deprivation therapy versus surgical castration for patients with advanced prostatic carcinoma

Cardiovascular Impact of Androgen Deprivation Therapy: from Basic Biology to Clinical Practice

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

There have been increasing reports of cardiovascular complications of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) leading to worse outcomes among patients with prostate cancer. While this may result from the direct effects of androgen suppression in the cardiovascular systems, there are ADT-type-specific distinct cardiovascular complications suggestive of mechanisms beyond androgen-mediated. Thus, it is critical to understand the biological and clinical impact of ADT on the cardiovascular system.

RECENT FINDINGS

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists cause increased cardiovascular events compared to GnRH antagonists. Androgen receptor antagonists are linked to an increased risk of long QT syndrome, torsades de pointes, and sudden cardiac death. Androgen synthesis inhibitors are associated with increased rates of hypertension, atrial tachyarrhythmia, and, in rare incidences, heart failure. ADT increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. The risk among ADT drugs differs and must be evaluated to develop a medically optimal plan for prostate cancer patients.

Biphasic transcriptional and posttranscriptional regulation of MYB by androgen signaling mediates its growth control in prostate cancer

MYB, a proto-oncogene, is overexpressed in prostate cancer (PCa) and promotes its growth, aggressiveness, and resistance to androgen-deprivation therapy. Here, we examined the effect of androgen signaling on MYB expression and delineated the underlying molecular mechanisms. Paralleling a dichotomous effect on growth, low-dose androgen induced MYB expression at both transcript and protein levels, whereas it was suppressed in high-dose androgen-treated PCa cells. Interestingly, treatment with both low- and high-dose androgen transcriptionally upregulated MYB by increasing the binding of androgen receptor to the MYB promoter. In a time-course assay, androgen induced MYB expression at early time points followed by a sharp decline in high-dose androgen-treated cells due to decreased stability of MYB mRNA. Additionally, profiling of MYB-targeted miRNAs demonstrated significant induction of miR-150 in high-dose androgen-treated PCa cells. We observed a differential binding of androgen receptor on miR-150 promoter with significantly greater occupancy recorded in high-dose androgen-treated cells than those treated with low-dose androgen. Functional inhibition of miR-150 relieved MYB suppression by high-dose androgen, while miR-150 mimic abolished MYB induction by low-dose androgen. Furthermore, MYB-silencing or miR-150 mimic transfection suppressed PCa cell growth induced by low-dose androgen, whereas miR-150 inhibition rescued PCa cells from growth repression by high-dose androgen. Similarly, we observed that MYB silencing suppressed the expression of androgen-responsive, cell cycle-related genes in low-dose androgen-treated cells, while miR-150 inhibition increased their expression in cells treated with high-dose androgen. Overall, these findings reveal novel androgen-mediated mechanisms of MYB regulation that support its biphasic growth control in PCa cells.

Bilateral Orchidectomy Revisited in Management of Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a well-established treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). It includes either bilateral orchiectomy or medical castration in form of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist or antagonist. We conducted this study to compare surgical and medical castration in terms of time to progression (TTP) to castration resistant prostate cancer.

METHODS

Patients with mHSPC underwent either bilateral orchidectomy or medical castration by either LHRH agonist or by antagonist from November 2016 to May 2018 in our institution. Initial PSA and baseline imaging either magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET CT) finding were recorded. Serum PSA, testosterone, and FSH were repeated every 3 months till 1 year. All enrolled patients were followed up with a bone scan/MRI/ PET CT at 6 months and 12 months. End point of study was progression of disease and death of patient.

RESULTS

Mean nadir PSA (ng/ml) after treatment was 4.7 and 9.8 in surgical and medical group respectively, whereas mean time to the nadir PSA was 8.7 and 8.8 respectively with no statistically significant difference. Mean TTP was 13.9 months in bilateral orchidectomy group and 13.8 months in medical castration group (chi-square 0.003, p value 0.958).

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in time to progression between bilateral orchidectomy and medical castration. Considering nadir PSA level, better quality of life, patient compliance, reduced hospital visit, and decrease in cost of treatment, bilateral orchidectomy may be a better treatment option especially in developing countries.

Capillarisin blocks prostate-specific antigen expression on activation of androgen receptor in prostate carcinoma cells

BACKGROUND

Capillarisin (Cap), an active ingredient of Artemisia capillaris extracts, has known for its anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and anticancer properties. Functions of Cap in prostate cancer are not clear. We investigate effects of Cap on downregulation of prostate specific antigen (PSA) via modulation of androgen receptor (AR) in prostate carcinoma cells.

METHODS

Cell proliferation was measured by water-soluble tetrazolium-1 (WST-1) cell proliferation assays. The PSA and AR expressions were assessed by immunoblotting and RT-qPCR assays. Effects of Cap on PSA expressions were determined by ELISA, immunoblotting, and reporter assays. Co-immunoprecipitation and immunoblotting assays were used to define the effects of Cap on dissociation of AR-heat shock protein 90 (Hsp90) interaction.

RESULTS

Cap inhibited LNCaP cell growth in a dose- and/or time-dependent way without inducing poly ADP-Ribose Polymerase (PARP) cleavage. Cap not only effectively suppressed AR and PSA protein expressions, but also attenuated activations of synthetic androgen (R1881) on PSA promoter activity dose- and time-dependently. The Cap pretreatment abrogated effects of R1881 on AR activity by reducing AR translocation to the nucleus. Immunoblotting assays indicated that Cap promoted a degradation of AR proteins dose-dependently in either cycloheximide pretreated-LNCaP cells or AR-ectopic expressed PC-3 cells. Pretreatment of MG132, a proteasome inhibitor, attenuated effect of Cap on AR degradation. Cap lessened AR stability by dissociation of AR-Hsp90 interaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicated that Cap inhibited growth of LNCaP cells. Cap effectively suppressed androgen activation on AR-mediated transactivation, which is AR-dependent through AR degradation and dissociation of AR-Hsp90 in prostate carcinoma cells.

Association between ischaemic bowel syndromes and androgen deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the risk of ischaemic bowel syndrome (IBS) in androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) users to explore the long-term outcomes of patients with prostate cancer (PC) receiving ADT treatment.

METHODS

We performed a population-based retrospective cohort study. All the clinical information of the study participants were acquired from the Longitudinal Health Insurance Database for Catastrophic Illness Patients in Taiwan. We extracted data for all the patients newly diagnosed with prostate malignancy (ICD-9-CM 185 or C61 in ICD-10-CM) from 2000 to 2008. The patients were then divided into two groups: 7160 male ADT cohort receiving ADT and 7160 male non-ADT comparison group frequency matched by age and index year of ADT treatment of the ADT group. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to estimate the adjusted HR and 95% CIs of the IBS risk.

RESULTS

No significant difference was noted in the overall incidence rate for IBS between the ADT and non-ADT cohorts (0.86 and 0.89 per 1000 person-year, respectively, p=0.89). Even after adjusting for potential risk factors, a 1.06-fold risk of IBS (95% CI 0.62 to 1.82, p=0.82) was observed in the ADT cohort relative to the non-ADT cohorts. Moreover, we stratified the ADT cohort by time point of ADT treatment after PC diagnosis. Different IBS incidence rates were observed among the early ADT, late-ADT and non-ADT users at 0.77, 1.23 and 0.89 per 1000 person-years, respectively; nonetheless, the difference was not statistically significant. Moreover, no difference was found between the ADT treatment types and IBS risk, including sole orchiectomy, sole luteinising-hormone-releasing hormone and both.

CONCLUSIONS

Results showed that ADT treatment in patients with PC is not an independent factor for IBS incidence. Large sample sizes for patients with IBS with patients with PC who had received ADT treatment are needed for further study.

Non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy compared with luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists or surgical castration monotherapy for advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal antiandrogens and castration are the main therapy options for advanced stages of prostate cancer. However, debate regarding the value of these treatment options continues.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy compared with luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists or surgical castration monotherapy for treating advanced stages of prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Prostatic Diseases and Urologic Cancers Group Specialized Register (PROSTATE), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science with Conference Proceedings, three trial registries and abstracts from three major conferences to 23 December 2013, together with reference lists, and contacted selected experts in the field and manufacturers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy with medical or surgical castration monotherapy for men in advanced stages of prostate cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author screened all titles and abstracts; only citations that were clearly irrelevant were excluded at this stage. Then, two review authors independently examined full-text reports, identified relevant studies, assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted the study authors to request additional information. We used Review Manager 5 for data synthesis and used the fixed-effect model for heterogeneity less than 50%; we used the random-effects model for substantial or considerable heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies involving 3060 randomly assigned participants were included in this review. The quality of evidence is hampered by risk of bias. Use of non-steroidal antiandrogens decreased overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.48, six studies, 2712 participants) and increased clinical progression (one year: risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45, five studies, 2067 participants; 70 weeks: RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45, six studies, 2373 participants; two years: RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.25, three studies, 1336 participants), as well as treatment failure (one year: RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.38, four studies, 1539 participants; 70 weeks: RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.52, five studies, 1845 participants; two years: RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.24, two studies, 808 participants), compared with medical or surgical castration. The quality of evidence for overall survival, clinical progression and treatment failure was rated as moderate according to GRADE. Predefined subgroup analyses showed that use of non-steroidal antiandrogens, compared with castration, was less favourable for overall survival, clinical progression (at one year, 70 weeks, two years) and treatment failure (at one year, 70 weeks, two years) in men with metastatic disease. Use of non-steroidal antiandrogens also increased the risk for treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.94, eight studies, 1559 participants), including events such as breast pain (RR 22.97, 95% CI 14.79 to 35.67, eight studies, 2670 participants), gynaecomastia (RR 8.43, 95% CI 3.19 to 22.28, nine studies, 2774 participants) and asthenia (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.31, five studies, 2073 participants). The risk of other adverse events, such as hot flashes (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.27, nine studies, 2774 participants), haemorrhage (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.54, two studies, 546 participants), nocturia (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.69, one study, 480 participants), fatigue (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.88, one study, 51 participants), loss of sexual interest (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.83, one study, 51 participants) and urinary frequency (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.47, one study, 480 participants) was decreased when non-steroidal antiandrogens were used. The quality of evidence for breast pain, gynaecomastia and hot flashes was rated as moderate according to GRADE. The effects of non-steroidal antiandrogens on cancer-specific survival and biochemical progression remained unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently available evidence suggests that use of non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy compared with medical or surgical castration monotherapy for advanced prostate cancer is less effective in terms of overall survival, clinical progression, treatment failure and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. Evidence quality was rated as moderate according to GRADE. Further research is likely to have an important impact on results for patients with advanced but non-metastatic prostate cancer treated with non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy. However, we believe that research is likely not necessary on non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy for men with metastatic prostate cancer. Only high-quality, randomised controlled trials with long-term follow-up should be conducted. If further research is planned to investigate biochemical progression, studies with standardised follow-up schedules using measurements of prostate-specific antigen based on current guidelines should be conducted.

Prostate cancer and physical activity: adaptive response to oxidative stress

Prostate cancer is the most common form of cancer affecting men in the Western world. Its relative incidence increases exponentially with age and a steady increase is observed with extended life span. A sedentary lifestyle represents an important risk factor and a decrease in prostate cancer prevalence is associated with exercise. However, the molecular mechanisms involved in this process remain unknown. We hypothesize that reactive oxygen species generated by physical exercise are a key regulatory factor in prostate cancer prevention. Aging is correlated with increased oxidative stress (OS), which in turn provides a favorable environment for tumorigenesis. Running training is known to enhance the antioxidant defense system, reducing oxidative stress. In this context, the decrease in OS induced by exercise may delay the development of prostate cancer. This review focuses on oxidative stress-based mechanisms leading to prostate cancer sensitization to exercise, which could have some impact on the development of novel cancer therapeutic strategies.

Screening for prostate cancer: an updated review

Prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed malignancy in men and its incidence has been increasing in the last decades. Diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer were radically improved after the discovery of prostatic-specific antigen. Early detection rates increased, especially in asymptomatic individuals, confirmed by recent published randomized trials. The impact of screening in overdiagnosis and overtreatments is discussed, since benefits in overall mortality rates were not clearly demonstrated. Perhaps younger patients with a longer life expectancy would be the ones with the most benefits from screening. This study presents an update of the most important screening methods for prostate cancer as well as the recent recommendations for screening.