Design and interpretation of studies of the risk of cancer and other long-term morbidity and mortality after growth hormone treatment

Prospective safety surveillance of GH-deficient adults: comparison of GH-treated vs untreated patients

CONTEXT

In clinical practice, the safety profile of GH replacement therapy for GH-deficient adults compared with no replacement therapy is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare adverse events (AEs) in GH-deficient adults who were GH-treated with those in GH-deficient adults who did not receive GH replacement.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This was a prospective observational study in the setting of US clinical practices.

PATIENTS AND OUTCOME MEASURES

AEs were compared between GH-treated (n = 1988) and untreated (n = 442) GH-deficient adults after adjusting for baseline group differences and controlling the false discovery rate. The standardized mortality ratio was calculated using US mortality rates.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 2.3 years, there was no significant difference in rates of death, cancer, intracranial tumor growth or recurrence, diabetes, or cardiovascular events in GH-treated compared with untreated patients. The standardized mortality ratio was not increased in either group. Unexpected AEs (GH-treated vs untreated, P ≤ .05) included insomnia (6.4% vs 2.7%), dyspnea (4.2% vs 2.0%), anxiety (3.4% vs 0.9%), sleep apnea (3.3% vs 0.9%), and decreased libido (2.1% vs 0.2%). Some of these AEs were related to baseline risk factors (including obesity and cardiopulmonary disease), higher GH dose, or concomitant GH side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

In GH-deficient adults, there was no evidence for a GH treatment effect on death, cancer, intracranial tumor recurrence, diabetes, or cardiovascular events, although the follow-up period was of insufficient duration to be conclusive for these long-term events. The identification of unexpected GH-related AEs reinforces the fact that patient selection and GH dose titration are important to ensure safety of adult GH replacement.

Growth hormone treatment and risk of recurrence or progression of brain tumors in children: a review

INTRODUCTION

Brain tumors are one of the most common types of solid neoplasm in children. As life expectancy of these patients has increased with new and improved therapies, the morbidities associated with the treatments and the tumor itself have become more important.

DISCUSSION

One of the most common morbidities is growth hormone deficiency, and since recombinant growth hormone (GH) became available, its use has increased exponentially. There is concern that in the population of children with brain tumors, GH treatment might increase the risk of tumor recurrence or progression or the appearance of a second neoplasm. In the light of this ongoing concern, the current literature has been reviewed to provide an update on the risk of tumor recurrence, tumor progression, or new intracranial tumor formation when GH is used to treat GH deficiency in children, who have had or have intracranial tumors.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of this review, the authors conclude that the use of GH in patients with brain tumor is safe. GH therapy is not associated with an increased risk of central nervous system tumor progression or recurrence, leukemia (de novo or relapse), or extracranial non-leukemic neoplasms.

Acromegaly, growth hormone and cancer risk

Acromegaly is an endocrine disorder characterized by sustained hypersecretion of growth hormone (GH) with concomitant elevation of insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) associated with premature mortality from cardiopulmonary diseases and certain malignancies. In particular, there is a two-fold increased risk of developing colorectal cancer. Possible mechanisms underlying this association include elevated levels of circulating GH and IGF-I, but several other plausible processes may be relevant. In a parallel literature, there has been debate whether GH replacement therapy is associated with increased cancer risk in three scenarios: (1) tumour recurrence in children with previously treated cancer; (2) second neoplasms (SNs) in survivors of childhood cancer treated with GH; and (3) de-novo cancer in non-cancer patients treated with GH. The general evidence suggests no increased risk in scenario 1. Through a maze of complex study designs, there is inconclusive evidence of a very modest increase in cancer risk in treated GH-deficiency patients in scenarios 2 and 3, but it is likely that the cumulative risk equates to that of the general population. This emphasizes the need for patient selection balanced against the known morbidity of untreated GH deficiency.