Safety of testosterone therapy in men with prostate cancer

Testosterone Nanoemulsion Prevents Prostate Cancer: PC-3 and LNCaP Cell Viability In Vitro

For many years, it has been speculated that elevated testosterone levels may be critically involved in the genesis and proliferation of prostate cancer.

METHODS

The effect of testosterone on the metabolic activity of hormone-independent [PC-3] and hormone-dependent [LNCAP] cancer cells was investigated in vitro. Additionally, the impact of testosterone nanoemulsion [nanocare®] on cell viability was accessed by flow cytometry.

RESULTS

Despite the dependency of the normal prostate and of most prostatic cancers upon androgens, the obtained results indicate that, contrary to prevailing opinion, the supplementation of testosterone with higher doses in nanoemulsion was able to lower the metabolic activity and viability of prostate cancer cells.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that the growth of hormone-independent and hormone-dependent prostate cancer cells was reduced by the exposure of a nanoemulsion of bioidentical testostosterone in vitro. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that the potential effect of a testosterone nanoemulsion on the metabolic activity of prostate cancer cells has been shown. Such tests suggest that the growth of hormone-independent and hormone-dependent prostate cancer cells was reduced by the administration of bioidentical testostosterone, and this might be an interesting strategy for prostate cancer treatment in diagnosed patients.

Oncologic Outcomes of Testosterone Therapy for Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Population-based Analysis

Background and objective

There is insufficient evidence on the oncologic risks of testosterone therapy for men with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. We carried out a retrospective study to assess the effect of testosterone therapy on oncologic outcomes for men on active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Methods

Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data were used to identify men diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2008 to 2017 who were managed with active surveillance and received testosterone (n = 167) or no testosterone (n = 6658) therapy. Outcomes included conversion from active surveillance to active treatment (radical prostatectomy, cryotherapy, radiation, or androgen deprivation therapy), prostate cancer-specific mortality, and overall mortality. Statistically significant factors on univariable analysis were included in a Cox proportional-hazards regression model for multivariable analysis.

Key findings and limitations

The median age was 71 yr (interquartile range [IQR] 68-74) in the testosterone group and 72 yr (IQR 69-75) in the no-testosterone group, with corresponding median follow-up after prostate cancer diagnosis of 5.2 yr (IQR 3.4-7.8) and 4.7 yr (IQR 3.2-6.9). There were no prostate cancer-specific deaths in the testosterone group and 39 (0.6%) in the no-testosterone group. Testosterone therapy was not associated with conversion to active treatment (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.97; p = 0.033) or overall mortality (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.68-1.53; p > 0.9).

Conclusions and clinical implications

In the first population-based, nationally representative study of testosterone therapy for men on active surveillance for prostate cancer, testosterone therapy did not increase the risk of conversion to active therapy or worsen mortality. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Patient summary

For men on active surveillance for prostate cancer, we assessed the effect of testosterone therapy. We found that testosterone therapy did not increase the risk of proceeding to active therapy or of death from prostate cancer.

A systematic review on the latest developments in testosterone therapy: Innovations, advances, and paradigm shifts

Objectives

To review the latest innovations and advances in testosterone treatments including their advantages and disadvantages and to address important issues in testosterone therapy (TTh).

Methods

This review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. The PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane databases were searched using specifically related key words. The identified studies were screened for inclusion criteria that included studies discussing one of the four objectives of the systematic review: 1) cut–off references, 2) prevention/remission of type II diabetes mellitus (T2DM), 3) duration of treatment, and 4) prostate, lower urinary tract symptoms, prostate health, or cancer. The search was limited to the past 15 years. Any studies were not written in English were excluded.

Results

The initial literature search retrieved 393 studies. After screening four studies were removed due to duplication, 360 studies were further excluded after reviewing the title, abstract or the whole manuscript due to different exclusion criteria or being not focussed on the objective. Finally, 29 studies were included in the review. One study discussed the cut–off value, four studies discussed the effect of testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) on the control of T2DM, four studies on duration of TRT, and 20 studies discussed the effects of TRT on the prostate

Conclusions

Numerous studies have demonstrated the benefits of TTh in overtly hypogonadal men. There are several possible administration routes for testosterone treatment. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, and the choice of the method of TRT will often be determined by patient preference or co-medication (no intramuscular injections in patients under coumarin or similar anticoagulants). Although new developments are promising, it seems that among the available treatments, only transdermal gel delivery and long-acting injectable testosterone undecanoate provide pharmacokinetic behaviour that gives a steady state level within a physiological range.

A Selective Androgen Receptor Modulator (OPK-88004) in Prostate Cancer Survivors: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Androgen deficiency is common among prostate cancer survivors, but many guidelines consider history of prostate cancer a contraindication for testosterone replacement. We determined the safety and efficacy of a selective androgen receptor modulator (OPK-88004) in symptomatic, testosterone-deficient men who had undergone radical prostatectomy for low-grade, organ-confined prostate cancer.

METHODS

In this placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind trial, 114 men, ≥19 years of age, who had undergone radical prostatectomy for low-grade, organ-localized prostate cancer, undetectable PSA (<0.1 ng/mL) for ≥2 years after radical prostatectomy and testosterone deficiency were randomized in stages to placebo or 1, 5, or 15 mg OPK-88004 daily for 12 weeks. Outcomes included PSA recurrence, sexual activity, sexual desire, erectile function, body composition, muscle strength and physical function measures, mood, fatigue, and bone markers.

RESULTS

Participants were on average 67.5 years of age and had severe sexual dysfunction (mean erectile function and sexual desire domain scores 7.3 and 14.6, respectively). No participant experienced PSA recurrence or erythrocytosis. OPK-88004 was associated with a dose-related increase in whole-body (P < 0.001) and appendicular (P < 0.001) lean mass and a significantly greater decrease in percent body fat (P < 0.001) and serum alkaline phosphatase (P < 0.001) than placebo. Changes in sexual activity, sexual desire, erectile function, mood, fatigue, physical performance, and bone markers did not differ among groups (P = 0.73).

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of OPK-88004 was safe and not associated with PSA recurrence in androgen-deficient men who had undergone radical prostatectomy for organ-confined prostate cancer. OPK-88004 increased lean body mass and decreased fat mass but did not improve sexual symptoms or physical performance.

How I treat cancer-associated anemia

Despite increasing use of targeted therapies to treat cancer, anemia remains a common complication of cancer therapy. Physician concerns about the safety of intravenous (IV) iron products and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) have resulted in many patients with cancer receiving no or suboptimal anemia therapy. In this article, we present 4 patient cases that illustrate both common and complex clinical scenarios. We first present a review of erythropoiesis and then describe our approach to cancer-associated anemia by identifying the contributing causes before selecting specific treatments. We summarize clinical trial data affirming the safety and efficacy of currently available IV iron products used to treat cancer-associated anemia and illustrate how we use commonly available laboratory tests to assess iron status during routine patient management. We compare adverse event rates associated with IV iron vs red cell transfusion and discuss using first-line IV iron monotherapy to treat anemic patients with cancer, which decreases the need for ESAs. A possible mechanism behind ESA-induced tumor progression is discussed. Finally, we review the potential of novel therapies such as ascorbic acid, prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors, activin traps, hepcidin, and bone morphogenetic protein antagonists in treating cancer-associated anemia.