Is intermittent androgen-deprivation therapy beneficial for patients with advanced prostate cancer?

Continuous versus intermittent extended adjuvant letrozole for breast cancer: final results of randomized phase III SOLE (Study of Letrozole Extension) and SOLE Estrogen Substudy

BACKGROUND

Late recurrences in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancers remain an important challenge. Avoidance or delayed development of resistance represents the main objective in extended endocrine therapy (ET). In animal models, resistance was reversed with restoration of circulating estrogen levels during interruption of letrozole treatment. This phase III, randomized, open-label Study of Letrozole Extension (SOLE) studied the effect of extended intermittent letrozole treatment in comparison with continuous letrozole. In parallel, the SOLE estrogen substudy (SOLE-EST) analyzed the levels of estrogen during the interruption of treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

SOLE enrolled 4884 postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, lymph node-positive, operable breast cancer between December 2007 and October 2012 and among them, 104 patients were enrolled in SOLE-EST. They must have undergone local treatment and have completed 4-6 years of adjuvant ET. Patients were randomized between continuous letrozole (2.5 mg/day orally for 5 years) and intermittent letrozole treatment (2.5 mg/day for 9 months followed by a 3-month interruption in years 1-4 and then 2.5 mg/day during all of year 5).

RESULTS

Intention-to-treat population included 4851 women in SOLE (n = 2425 in the intermittent and n = 2426 in the continuous letrozole groups) and 103 women in SOLE-EST (n = 78 in the intermittent and n = 25 in the continuous letrozole groups). After a median follow-up of 84 months, 7-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 81.4% in the intermittent group and 81.5% in the continuous group (hazard ratio: 1.03, 95% confidence interval: 0.91-1.17). Reported adverse events were similar in both groups. Circulating estrogen recovery was demonstrated within 6 weeks after the stop of letrozole treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Extended adjuvant ET by intermittent administration of letrozole did not improve DFS compared with continuous use, despite the recovery of circulating estrogen levels. The similar DFS coupled with previously reported quality-of-life advantages suggest intermittent extended treatment is a valid option for patients who require or prefer a treatment interruption.

Hormone naïve prostate cancer: predicting and maximizing response intervals

Hormone naïve advanced prostate cancer is subdivided into two disease states: biochemical recurrence and traditional M1 (metastatic) prostate cancer and characterized by no prior hormonal therapy or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). In biochemical recurrence/prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence, men should be risk-stratified based on their PSA doubling time, the Gleason score and the timing of the recurrence. In general, only men who are at high risk should be considered for early/immediate ADT although this is best done using shared decision with the patient. The type of ADT to be used in biochemical recurrence ranging from oral-only peripheral blockade (peripheral androgen deprivation) to complete hormonal therapy (combined androgen blockade [CAB]) remains in debate owing to lack of randomized controlled trials (RCT). However, there is good RCT support for use of intermittent hormonal therapy (IHT). There is also limited research on biomarker response (PSA and testosterone decline) to predict prognosis. On the other hand, in the setting of M1 hormone naïve prostate cancer, there are many more RCT's to inform our decisions. CAB and gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists perhaps provide a slight efficacy advantage while IHT may be slightly inferior with minimal M1 disease. The PSA nadir at 7 months after starting ADT is a powerful prognostic tool for M1 patients. There is growing recognition that serum testosterone (T) control while on ADT is linked to the development of castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Especially for a M1 patient, maintaining a serum T below 20–30 ng dl⁻¹ prolongs the response to ADT. Novel oral agents (abiraterone and enzalutamide) may soon find use in hormone naïve disease and may alter the treatment landscape. Despite over 75 years of experience with ADT, many questions remain, and the field continues to evolve.

International survey of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for non-metastatic prostate cancer in 19 countries

Background

Continuous androgen deprivation therapy (CADT) is commonly used for patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer as primary therapy for high-risk disease, adjuvant therapy together with radiation or for recurrence after initial local therapy. Intermittent ADT (IADT), a recently developed alternative strategy for providing ADT, is thought to potentially reduce adverse effects, but little is known about practice patterns relating to it. We aimed to describe factors related to physicians’ ADT use and modality for patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer.

Methods

A 45 min online survey was completed by urologists and oncologists responsible for treatment decisions for non-metastatic prostate cancer from 19 countries with high or increasing prevalence of non-metastatic prostate cancer.

Results

There were 441 treating physicians who completed the survey which represented 99 177 patients with prostate cancer under their care, of which 76 386 (77%) had non-metastatic prostate cancer. Of patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer, 38% received ADT (37% gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH), 2% orchiectomy); among patients on GnRH, 54% received CADT (≥6 without >3 months interruption), 23% IADT and 23% <6 months. Highest rates of ADT were reported among oncologists (62%) and in Eastern Europe (Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland). Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels (65%), Gleason score (52%) and treatment guidelines (48%) were the most common reasons for CADT whereas PSA levels (54%), patient request (48%), desire to maintain sexual function (40%), patient age and comorbidities (38%) were cited most frequently as reasons for IADT.

Conclusions

This international survey with 441 treating physicians from 19 countries showed that ADT is commonly used in treating patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer, and type of ADT is influenced by high-risk criteria (PSA and Gleason), treatment guidelines and patient preferences. IADT use was primarily driven by PSA levels, patient request and patient age/comorbidities, likely reflecting an attempt to minimise adverse effects of ADT in patients with lower risk tumours.

The 'Timing of Androgen-Deprivation therapy in incurable prostate cancer' protocol (TOAD)--where are we now? Synopsis of the Victorian Cooperative Oncology Group PR 01-03 and Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 03.06 clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To outline the development of the 'Timing of Androgen Deprivation' (TOAD) protocol, a collaborative randomised clinical trial under the auspices of the Cancer Council Victoria, the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group, and the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand (USANZ), which opened to recruitment in 2004.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The principal hypothesis for the trial was that the early introduction of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT; experimental arm) at the time when curative therapies are no longer considered an option, would improve overall survival for these patients, whilst maintaining an acceptable quality of life; compared with waiting for disease progression or the development of symptoms (control arm). An increase in overall survival at 5 years of 10% was judged to be clinically worthwhile.

RESULTS

Recruitment was slow, with fewer than half of the protocol requirement of 750 patients eventually accrued, but nonetheless it is considered that the trial will still contribute a major source of evidence in this area. The study closed to follow-up at the end of 2013, with data analysis commencing mid-2014, and with the primary publication anticipated to be submitted by the end of 2014.

CONCLUSION

The question of timing of ADT remains relevant in the current era of newer and more varied treatment methods. Even with the advent of novel chemotherapy and the biological agents that are undergoing investigation for progressively earlier disease stages, the dilemma of when to commence palliative treatment in an asymptomatic patient will remain, unless or until these agents are shown to increase overall survival. The TOAD trial will contribute to answering at least in part, some of these questions.