Phase I-II trial of weekly bicalutamide in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen and negative prostate biopsies

Drug-induced gynecomastia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence concerning treatment-related gynecomastia in patients taking spironolactone, antiandrogens, 5 alpha-reductase inhibitors, lipid-lowering and psychotropic drugs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A search of Medline and EMBASE was performed up to 30 June 2021. We included randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of a drug belonging to these classes versus placebo or versus a drug of the same class.

RESULTS

A total of 32 randomized controlled trials were included in the final review. There was an increased odds of gynecomastia in men receiving antiandrogens (OR = 17.38, 95% CI: 11.26 to 26.82; 6 trials, 9599 participants) and 5 alpha-reductase inhibitors compared to controls (OR = 1.77, 95% CI: 1.53 to 2.06; 7 series out of 6 trials, 34860 participants). The use of spironolactone in mixed gender populations was characterized by significantly higher odds of having gynecomastia compared to controls (OR = 8.39, 95% CI: 5.03 to 13.99; 14 trials, 3745 participants). No placebo-controlled trials focusing on the risk of gynecomastia in patients taking antipsychotic drugs was available, although there was a significant difference in the odds of having gynecomastia in a comparison between risperidone and quetiapine (OR = 4.32, 95% CI: 1.31 to 14.27; 3 trials, 343 participants). Limited evidence about the effects of statins on mammary glands was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Antiandrogens and to a lesser extent 5 alphareductase inhibitors and spironolactone are associated with an increased risk of developing gynecomastia. Such effect can be explained by a modification of the testosterone to estradiol ratio. Gynecomastia (and galactorrhea) associated to the use of conventional and certain atypical antipsychotics can be related to high prolactin levels.

Chemoprevention of prostate cancer in men with high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN): a systematic review and adjusted indirect treatment comparison

Background

High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) is the precursor or premalignant form of prostate cancer. At least 30% patients with a confirmed HGPIN will develop prostate cancer within 1 year after repeated biopsy. HGPIN patients are the appropriate at-risk population for chemoprevention strategies investigation against prostate cancer. However the commonly used chemoprevention agents that targeted on hormonal imbalance or lifestyle-related factors showed varied results in HGPIN patients.

Methods

Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library according to Cochrane guidelines before January 31^st, 2017. Direct meta-analysis were performed to summarize the efficacy of candidate chemopreventative agents Dutasteride, Flutamide, Toremifene, Selenium, Green tea components, Lycopene and natural food products combination. Adjusted indirect meta-analyses were employed to compare the relative efficacy of these candidate chemoprevention agents head-to-head.

Results

The overall incidence of prostate cancer in HGPIN was slightly decreased by chemoprevention agents (25.7% vs 31.5%, RR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.83-1.03, P = 0.183), with minor heterogeneity (I² = 22.3%, χ² = 15.08, P = 0.237), but without statistical significance. Subgroup analysis showed that green tea catechins significantly decreased prostate cancer in HGPIN patients (7.60% vs 23.1%, RR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.16-10.97, P P = 0.044), with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 47.9%, χ² = 1.92, P = 0.166). The adjusted indirect meta-analysis favored green tea catechins over other chemoprevention agents, and significantly when compared to natural food products combination (RR = 0.355, 95% CI: 0.134-0.934).

Conclusion

The overall efficacy of chemoprevention agents in HGPIN patients is limited. But Green tea catechins showed the superiority to decrease prostate cancer in HGPIN patients.

Use of 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors as alternatives to luteinizing-hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) analogs or anti-androgens for prostate downsizing before brachytherapy

INTRODUCTION

Prostate hypertrophy, median lobe hypertrophy, and pubic arch interference (PAI) are relative contraindications to brachytherapy because of potential morbidity and technical considerations. GnRH analogs or non-steroidal anti-androgens are currently utilized to achieve prostatic downsizing prior to brachytherapy. However, such agents have been associated with effects on body habitus, metabolism, and quality of life. In contrast, 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARI) are far less frequently associated with these morbidities.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with large gland size, median lobe hypertrophy, or PAI were offered 5-ARI therapy. Repeat transrectal ultrasound was performed at 3 or 4 months, followed by brachytherapy if resolution was achieved. If downsizing was inadequate, patients were offered continuation of 5-ARI for additional 3 months, gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog (GnRH) agonist or antiandrogen therapy, or other curative treatment.

RESULTS

Of 59 patients with follow-up available, 42 (71%) were deemed to have adequate downsizing; 37 (63%) after 3 to 4 months of 5-ARI and 5 (8%) after 7 to 8 months. Seventeen patients (29%) received other treatments because of inadequate effect. Median volume reduction was 20%. Of 41 patients undergoing brachytherapy, 4 (9.7%) required temporary catheterization because of obstruction. Median follow-up after implantation was 25 months (range, 1-64). Median time for return to International Prostate Symptom Score ≤5 of baseline score was 7 months (interquartile ratio, 6-13). All but 1 patient who received brachytherapy remain biochemically controlled.

CONCLUSION

5-ARI monotherapy is an alternative for downsizing in patients with hypertrophy or PAI, with more than 70% achieving adequate downsizing without use of GnRH analogs or antiandrogens. Patients who received brachytherapy experienced typical rates of postimplant urinary morbidity.

Premalignancy in Prostate Cancer: Rethinking What we Know

High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) has been accepted as the main precursor lesion to invasive adenocarcinoma of the prostate, and this is likely to be the case. However, in an unknown number of cases, lesions fulfilling the diagnostic criteria for high-grade PIN may actually represent intra-acinar or intraductal spread of invasive carcinoma. Intriguingly, this possibility would not contradict many of the findings of previous epidemiologic studies linking high-grade PIN to carcinoma or molecular pathologic studies showing similar genomic (e.g., TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion) as well as epigenomic and molecular phenotypic alterations between high-grade PIN and carcinoma. Also, this possibility would be consistent with previous anatomic studies in prostate specimens linking high-grade PIN and carcinoma in autopsy and other whole prostate specimens. In addition, if some cases meeting morphologic criteria for PIN actually represent intra-acinar spread of invasive carcinoma, this could be an important potential confounder of the interpretation of past clinical trials enrolling patients presumed to be without carcinoma, who are at high risk of invasive carcinoma. Thus, in order to reduce possible bias in future study/trial designs, novel molecular pathology approaches are needed to decipher when an apparent PIN lesion may be intra-acinar/intra-ductal spread of an invasive cancer and when it truly represents a precursor state. Similar approaches are needed for lesions known as intraductal carcinoma to facilitate better classification of them as true intra-ductal/acinar spread on one hand or as precursor high-grade PIN (cribriform type) on the other hand; a number of such molecular approaches (e.g., coevaluating TMPRSS-ERG fusion and PTEN loss) are already showing excellent promise. Cancer Prev Res; 9(8); 648-56. ©2016 AACR.

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.

Androgen deprivation therapy impact on quality of life and cardiovascular health, monitoring therapeutic replacement

INTRODUCTION

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is commonly utilized in the management of both localized and advanced adenocarcinoma of the prostate. The use of ADT is associated with several adverse events, physical changes, and development of medical comorbidities/mortality.

AIM

The current article reviews known adverse events associated with ADT as well as treatment options, where available. Current recommendations and guidelines are cited for ongoing monitoring of patients receiving ADT.

METHODS

A PubMed search of topics relating to ADT and adverse outcomes was performed, with select articles highlighted and reviewed based on level of evidence and overall contribution.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Reported outcomes of studies detailing adverse effects of ADT were reviewed and discussed. Where available, randomized trials and meta-analyses were reported.

RESULTS

ADT may result in several adverse events including decreased libido, erectile dysfunction, vasomotor symptoms, cognitive, psychological and quality of life impairments, weight gain, sarcopenia, increased adiposity, gynecomastia, reduced penile/testicular size, hair changes, periodontal disease, osteoporosis, increased fracture risk, diabetes and insulin resistance, hyperlipidemia, and anemia. The definitive impact of ADT on lipid profiles, cardiovascular morbidity/mortality, and all-cause mortality is currently unknown with available data. Treatment options to reduce ADT-related adverse events include changing to an intermittent treatment schedule, biophysical therapy, counseling, and pharmacotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with ADT are at increased risk of several adverse events and should be routinely monitored for the development of potentially significant morbidity/mortality. Where appropriate, physicians should reduce known risk factors and counsel patients as to known risks and benefits of therapy.