Risk of cardiovascular toxicities and hypertension in nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients treated with novel hormonal agents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Molecular landscape for risk prediction and personalized therapeutics of castration-resistant prostate cancer: at a glance

Prostate cancer (PCa) is commonly occurred with high incidence in men worldwide, and many patients will be eventually suffered from the dilemma of castration-resistance with the time of disease progression. Castration-resistant PCa (CRPC) is an advanced subtype of PCa with heterogeneous carcinogenesis, resulting in poor prognosis and difficulties in therapy. Currently, disorders in androgen receptor (AR)-related signaling are widely acknowledged as the leading cause of CRPC development, and some non-AR-based strategies are also proposed for CRPC clinical analyses. The initiation of CRPC is a consequence of abnormal interaction and regulation among molecules and pathways at multi-biological levels. In this study, CRPC-associated genes, RNAs, proteins, and metabolites were manually collected and integrated by a comprehensive literature review, and they were functionally classified and compared based on the role during CRPC evolution, i.e., drivers, suppressors, and biomarkers, etc. Finally, translational perspectives for data-driven and artificial intelligence-powered CRPC systems biology analysis were discussed to highlight the significance of novel molecule-based approaches for CRPC precision medicine and holistic healthcare.

Cardiovascular Toxicity Associated With Androgen Receptor Axis-Targeted Agents in Patients With Prostate Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Second-generation androgen receptor axis-targeting (ARAT) agents have become a standard treatment for patients with advanced prostate cancer (PC), however much remains unknown about the potential cardiovascular toxicities.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library for randomized controlled trials of patients receiving ARAT agents for PC from inception to March 2023. The odds ratios (ORs) of all-grade and high-grade cardiovascular adverse events (CVAEs) for patients treated with and without ARAT agents were pooled for meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses based on PC type and treatment regimen were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 15 double-blind placebo-controlled phase 3 trials comprising 15,842 patients were included. In addition to hot flush and hypertension of any degree of severity, inclusion of ARAT agents was associated with a significantly higher risk of acute myocardial infarction (OR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.05-3.68, P = .04), myocardial infarction (OR: 2.44, 95% CI: 1.27-4.66, P = .007) and angina pectoris (OR: 2.00, 95% CI: 1.00-4.02, P = .05). With regard to individual ARAT agents, enzalutamide was associated with a significantly higher risk of acute myocardial infarction (OR: 3.11, 95% CI: 1.17-8.28, P = .02), coronary artery disease (OR: 8.33, 95% CI: 1.54-44.95, P = .01), and high-grade hypertension (OR: 4.94, 95% CI: 1.11-22.06, P = .04), while abiraterone and apalutamide were associated with a significantly higher risk of angina pectoris (OR: 5.48, 95% CI: 1.23-24.33, P = .03) and myocardial infarction (OR: 7.00, 95% CI: 1.60-30.62, P = .01), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The inclusion of ARAT agents was associated with a significantly higher risk of several CVAEs. Clinicians should remain vigilant, both in pre-treatment screening and monitoring for clinical symptoms and signs, when considering ARAT agent particularly for patients with pre-existing risk factors.

Cardiovascular risks of androgen receptor targeted agents in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Androgen receptor targeted agents (ARTA) have increasingly been incorporated into treatment regimens for various stages of prostate cancer. Patients are living longer with prostate cancer, and thus have a higher cumulative exposure to the treatment and its accompanying side effects, especially those of cardiovascular disease. We aim to assess the differences in the incidence of cardiac-related adverse events after treatment of prostate cancer with ARTA versus placebo.

METHODS

Three databases were thoroughly searched for relevant articles. The PICOS model was used to frame our clinical question, with which 2 independent authors went through several rounds of screening to select the final included studies. Meta-analysis was done using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Method. Quality assessment was carried out with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool RoB 2.

RESULTS

The use of ARTA in prostate cancer increases the incidence of cardiac-related adverse events (RR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.29-1.90, p < 0.00001), such as hypertension (RR: 1.69, 95% CI: 1.46-1.97, p < 0.00001), ischaemic heart disease (RR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.36-2.50, p < 0.0001), and arrhythmia (RR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.11-1.71, p = 0.004), although this did not manifest in an increased incidence of cardiac arrests/deaths (RR: 1.28, 95% CI: 0.87-1.88, p = 0.21).

DISCUSSION

ARTA increases the risk of cardiac-related adverse events, hypertension, ischaemic heart disease and arrhythmia. Armed with this knowledge, we will be better poised to manage cardiac risks accordingly and involve a cardiologist as required when starting patients on ARTA.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022

BACKGROUND

Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management.

OBJECTIVE

To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.

Niclosamide in prostate cancer: An inhibitor of AR-V7, a mitochondrial uncoupler, or more?

A recent phase Ib study investigating the use of reformulated niclosamide in combination with abiraterone and prednisone in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) demonstrated encouraging preliminary efficacy with low toxicity. Preclinical studies have reported that niclosamide at clinically relevant concentrations inhibits androgen receptor splice variant 7 (AR-V7), a known tumor driver in CRPC. However, the magnitude of anti-tumor effects of niclosamide either used alone or in combination with abiraterone in these experimental models, far exceeded what could have been explained as a simple AR-V7 inhibition. Niclosamide at clinically relevant concentrations also acts as an oxidative phosphorylation (OxPhos) uncoupler in mitochondria. This raises the question whether the observed effects of niclosamide were partly mediated by OxPhos inhibition. Most OxPhos inhibitors did not demonstrate selectivity towards cancer cells and failed to enter clinical practice due to unacceptable toxicity. However, some mitochondrial uncouplers have greater cytotoxicity against cancerous cells compared to non-cancerous. Hyperpolarization of cancer cell mitochondria, or the more alkaline mitochondrial matrix of cancer cells could be potential reasons for this. Niclosamide can also alter Wnt/β-catenin, mTOR, Notch, NF-kB and STAT3 signaling pathways. Hence, the mechanism of action of reformulated niclosamide in CRPC patients requires further investigation. This will potentially lead to new opportunities to develop and investigate even more selective and effective treatments against prostate cancer.

Comparative efficacy of second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors for treating prostate cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors (SGARIs), namely enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide, are good for improving survival outcomes in prostate cancer patients, but some researchers have shown that using SGARIs increases side effects, which complicates clinicians' choice of. Therefore, we performed this network meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and toxicity of several SGARIs in the treatment of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases from January 2000 to December 2022 to identify randomized controlled studies associated with SGARIs. We use Stata 16.0 and R 4.4.2 for data analysis, hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to assess the results.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 7 studies with a total of 9488 patients. In mHSPC, enzalutamide and darolutamide had a positive effect on overall survival (OS) (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.82), but we did not find a difference in their efficacy to improve OS (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.75-1.89). Also in nmCRPC, enzalutamide, apalutamide and darolutamide were beneficial for metastasis-free survival (MFS) (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.25-0.41). Compared to darolutamide, enzalutamide (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.93) and apalutamide (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51-0.91) prolonged MFS, but there was no difference in efficacy between enzalutamide and apalutamide (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.73-1.28). Finally in mCRPC, there was no significant difference in indirect effects on OS between pre- and post-chemotherapy enzalutamide (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.70-1.13). However, using enzalutamide before chemotherapy to improve radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) was a better option (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.62-2.73).

CONCLUSION

The SGARIs used in each trial were beneficial for the primary endpoint in the study. Firstly there was no significant difference in the effect of enzalutamide and darolutamide in improving OS in patients with mHSPC. Secondly improving MFS in patients with nmCRPC was best achieved with enzalutamide and apalutamide. In addition both pre- and post-chemotherapy use of enzalutamide was beneficial for OS in mCRPC patients, but for improving rPFS pre-chemotherapy use of enzalutamide should be preferred.The INPLASY registration number of this systematic review is INPLASY202310084.

Second generation androgen receptor antagonists and challenges in prostate cancer treatment

Prostate cancer is a hormone-dependent malignancy, whose onset and progression are closely related to the activity of the androgen receptor (AR) signaling pathway. Due to this critical role of AR signaling in driving prostate cancer, therapy targeting the AR pathway has been the mainstay strategy for metastatic prostate cancer treatment. The utility of these agents has expanded with the emergence of second-generation AR antagonists, which began with the approval of enzalutamide in 2012 by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Together with apalutamide and darolutamide, which were approved in 2018 and 2019, respectively, these agents have improved the survival of patients with prostate cancer, with applications for both androgen-dependent and castration-resistant disease. While patients receiving these drugs receive a benefit in the form of prolonged survival, they are not cured and ultimately progress to lethal neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC). Here we summarize the current state of AR antagonist development and highlight the emerging challenges of their clinical application and the potential resistance mechanisms, which might be addressed by combination therapies or the development of novel AR-targeted therapies.

Recent advances in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer: maximizing existing therapies while searching for novel solutions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Present highlights from recent research examining treatment of advanced prostate cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Data are emerging that combining androgen deprivation, docetaxel, and additional androgen-receptor-targeted therapies in treatment naïve metastatic prostate cancer may be an effective strategy to improve outcomes. Genomically targeted therapies and radiopharmaceuticals continue to be evaluated in the treatment of advanced castration-resistant prostate cancer.

SUMMARY

Although no clear consensus has emerged regarding the best sequencing of available therapeutics, trial results continue to support moving available therapies earlier in the disease course. Data continue to build for novel radiopharmaceuticals soon to likely be approved for treatment of castration-resistant disease.

Androgen deprivation therapy and cardiovascular risk in prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), with or without palliative local treatments, is the standard of care for many patients with locally-advanced and/or metastatic prostate cancer. However, the possible cardiovascular (CV) risks associated with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists and agonists continue to be the subject of concern, especially in a patient population that may already be at increased CV risk.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The present review provides a narrative summary of the evidence regarding the CV risks associated with GnRH antagonists and agonists from randomized clinical trials (RCTs), real-world evidence, and meta-analyses.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

From RCTs, it appears clear that there is a direct class effect for CV risk in patients with prostate cancer being administered GnRH agonists and antagonists, with the latter being associated with reduced CV risk. Real-world data and the available meta-analyses largely indicate that CV risk is lower with GnRH antagonists than with GnRH agonists.

CONCLUSIONS

A review of the pathophysiological mechanisms of gives further support to the possibility that GnRH antagonists are associated with lower CV risk than agonists. It can be highlighted that when treating patients with advanced or metastatic prostate cancer it is important to screen for underlying comorbidities prior to choosing the most appropriate therapy; moreover, patients should be closely monitored for factors associated with CV risk in order to optimize outcomes. Further studies are needed to define the most appropriate treatment according to the individual patient characteristics.

Evaluation of 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT in prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) ligands targeting has shown promising results in staging of prostate cancer (PCa). The aim of present study was to evaluate the value of ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT in PCa patients with biochemical recurrence.

METHODS

71 patients with PCa after radical prostatectomy (RP) were included in the present study. Median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 1.27 ng/mL (range 0.01-67.40 ng/mL, n = 69). All patients underwent whole-body PET/CT imaging after injection of 333±38 MBq ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007. The distribution of PSMA-positive lesions was assessed. The influence of PSA level, androgen deprivation therapy and primary Gleason score on PSMA-positive finding and uptake of ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 were evaluated.

RESULTS

56 (79%) patients showed at least one pathological finding on ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT. The rates of positive scans were 50%, 80%, 100%, 100% among patients with PSA levels ≤0.5, 0.51-1.0, 1.1-2.0 and >2.0 ng/mL, respectively. The median Gleason score was 8 (range 7-10), and higher Gleason score (≤7 vs. ≥8) leads to higher detection rates (58.3% (14/24) vs. 88.9% (32/36), P = 0.006). The median SUVmax of positive findings in patients with PSA levels ≤0.5, 0.51-1.0, 1.1-2.0 and >2.0 ng/mL were 4.51, 4.27, 11.50 and 14.08, respectively. The median SUVmax in patients with PSA level >2.0 ng/mL was significantly higher than that in patients with PSA ≤2.0 ng/mL (14.08 vs. 6.13, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT demonstrated a high detection rate for patients with a raised PSA level after radical prostatectomy even in patients with extremely low PSA level (eg. PSA level ≤0.5 ng/mL), which was essential for further clinical management for PCa patients.