Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists and fracture risk: a claims-based cohort study of men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer

Cancer treatment-induced bone loss

Cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTBL) is associated with anti-tumor treatments, including endocrine therapies, chemotherapeutic treatments, radiotherapy, glucocorticoids, and tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Osteoporosis, characterized by the loss of bone mass, can increase the risk of fractures, leading to mortality and long-term disability, even after cancer remission. Cancer and osteoporosis have marked clinical and pathogenetic similarities. Both have a multifactorial etiology, affect the geriatric population, and markedly influence quality of life. Lifestyle management, including calcium and vitamin D supplementation, is recommended but the supporting evidence is limited. Oral and injectable bisphosphonates are effective for osteoporosis and malignant bone disease. Bisphosphonates increase bone mineral density (BMD) in patients with CTBL. Denosumab is also used in the management of CTBL; in clinical trials, it improved BMD and reduced the risk of fracture. Currently, there are no bone anabolic therapies for patients with cancer. Appropriate therapies are necessary to maintain optimal bone health, particularly in patients at heightened risk.

Hormonal Control of Bone Architecture Throughout the Lifespan: Implications for Fracture Prediction and Prevention

BACKGROUND

Skeletal modeling in childhood and adolescence and continuous remodeling throughout the lifespan are designed to adapt to a changing environment and resist external forces and fractures. The flux of sex steroids in men and women, beginning from fetal development and evolving through infancy, childhood, puberty, young adulthood, peri/menopause transition, and postmenopause, is critical for bone size, peak bone mass, and fracture resistance.

OBJECTIVE

This review will highlight how changes in sex steroids throughout the lifespan affect bone cells and the consequence of these changes on bone architecture and strength.

METHODS

Literature review and discussion.

RESULTS

The contributions of estrogen and testosterone on skeletal development have been difficult to study due to the reciprocal and intertwining contributions of one on the other. Although orchiectomy in men renders circulating testosterone absent, circulating estrogen also declines due to testosterone being the substrate for estradiol. The discovery of men with absent estradiol or resistance to estrogen and the study of mouse models led to the understanding that estrogen has a larger direct role in skeletal development and maintenance in men and women. The mechanistic reason for larger bone size in men is incompletely understood but related to indirect effects of testosterone on the skeleton, such as higher muscle mass leading to larger mechanical loading. Declines in sex steroids during menopause in women and androgen deprivation therapies in men have profound and negative effects on the skeleton. Therapies to prevent such bone loss are available, but how such therapies can be tailored based on bone size and architecture remains an area of investigation.

CONCLUSION

In this review, the elegant interplay and contribution of sex steroids on bone architecture in men and women throughout the lifespan is described.

Testosterone recovery after androgen deprivation therapy in localised prostate cancer: Long-term data from two randomised trials

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To determine the rate and time of testosterone (T) recovery in patients (pts) with localised prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy plus 0-, 6-, 18- or 36-month of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 1230 pts with prostate cancer randomised into two phase III trials, serum T was measured at baseline, then regularly. T recovery rate was compared between normal vs. abnormal baseline T and with ADT duration with Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. A multivariable logistic regression model to predict the probability of recovering normal T was performed.

RESULTS

Overall, 87.4 % (167/191), 75.9 % (293/386), 54.8 % (181/330) and 43.2 % (80/185) of pts, recovered normal T on the 0-, 6-, 18- or 36-month schedule, respectively (p < 0.001). In patients recovering normal T, the median time to T recovery increased with ADT duration ranging from 0.31, 1.64, 3.06 to 5.0 years for the 0-, 6-, 18- or 36-month schedules, respectively (p < 0.001) and was significantly faster for those with a normal T at baseline (p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, older age and longer ADT duration are associated with a lower T recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Testosterone recovery rate after ADT depends on several factors including hormonal duration, normal baseline T, age and medical comorbidities. A longer ADT duration is the most important variable affecting T recovery. The data from this report might be a valuable tool to help physicians and patients in evaluating risks and benefits of ADT.

TempEasy 3D Hydrogel Coculture System Provides Mechanistic Insights into Prostate Cancer Bone Metastasis

Patients diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer (PCa) often experience incurable bone metastases; however, a lack of relevant experimental models has hampered the study of disease mechanisms and the development of therapeutic strategies. In this study, we employed the recently established Temperature-based Easy-separable (TempEasy) 3D cell coculture system to investigate PCa bone metastasis. Through coculturing PCa and bone cells for 7 days, our results showed a reduction in PCa cell proliferation, an increase in neovascularization, and an enhanced metastasis potential when cocultured with bone cells. Additionally, we observed increased cell proliferation, higher stemness, and decreased bone matrix protein expression in bone cells when cocultured with PCa cells. Furthermore, we demonstrated that the stiffness of the extracellular matrix had a negligible impact on molecular responses in both primary (PCa cells) and distant malignant (bone cells) sites. The TempEasy 3D hydrogel coculture system is an easy-to-use and versatile coculture system that provides valuable insights into the mechanisms of cell-cell communication and interaction in cancer metastasis.

Alterations of Sexual and Erectile Functions after Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer Based on Patient-Reported Questionnaires

The aim of the study was to compare the side effects of high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRBT) and low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDRBT), with a particular focus on the effects on sexual functions and sexual well-being (PROMOBRA study, NCT02258087). Localized low-risk and low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients were treated with mono LDR (N = 123, 145 Gy dose) or mono HDR brachytherapy (N = 117, 19/21 Gy). Prior to the treatment and during follow-up (at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months after treatment, and then annually after two years), patients completed patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) questionnaires EORTC QLQ-PR-25, International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), and IIEF-5 (SHIM). We compared the patients in different group breakdowns (HDR vs. LDR, hormone naïve and hormone-receiving HDR vs. LDR, hormone naïve and hormone-receiving patients in general, and 19 Gy HDR vs. 21 Gy HDR). In the hormone-naive LDR group, erectile function, orgasm function, sexual desire, satisfaction with intercourse, and overall satisfaction functions significantly decreased compared to baseline throughout the whole follow-up period. However, there were significant decreases in function at a maximum of three time points after HDR therapy without hormone therapy. In hormone-receiving patients, the orgasm function was significantly better in the HDR group at multiple time points compared to the baseline, and sexual desire improved at four time points. According to our results, both LDRBT and HDRBT can be safely administered to patients with localized prostate cancer. In hormone-naive patients, the HDR group showed only recovering decreases in sexual functions, while the LDR group showed a lasting decline in multiple areas. Thus, HDR appears to be more advantageous to hormone-naive patients.

Testosterone Treatment and Fractures in Men with Hypogonadism

BACKGROUND

Testosterone treatment in men with hypogonadism improves bone density and quality, but trials with a sufficiently large sample and a sufficiently long duration to determine the effect of testosterone on the incidence of fractures are needed.

METHODS

In a subtrial of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that assessed the cardiovascular safety of testosterone treatment in middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, we examined the risk of clinical fracture in a time-to-event analysis. Eligible men were 45 to 80 years of age with preexisting, or high risk of, cardiovascular disease; one or more symptoms of hypogonadism; and two morning testosterone concentrations of less than 300 ng per deciliter (10.4 nmol per liter), in fasting plasma samples obtained at least 48 hours apart. Participants were randomly assigned to apply a testosterone or placebo gel daily. At every visit, participants were asked if they had had a fracture since the previous visit. If they had, medical records were obtained and adjudicated.

RESULTS

The full-analysis population included 5204 participants (2601 in the testosterone group and 2603 in the placebo group). After a median follow-up of 3.19 years, a clinical fracture had occurred in 91 participants (3.50%) in the testosterone group and 64 participants (2.46%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 1.97). The fracture incidence also appeared to be higher in the testosterone group for all other fracture end points.

CONCLUSIONS

Among middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, testosterone treatment did not result in a lower incidence of clinical fracture than placebo. The fracture incidence was numerically higher among men who received testosterone than among those who received placebo. (Funded by AbbVie and others; TRAVERSE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03518034.).

Changes in bone and mineral homeostasis after short-term androgen deprivation therapy with or without androgen receptor signalling inhibitor - substudy of a single-centre, double blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) have an increased fracture risk. Exploring biomarkers for early bone loss detection is of great interest.

METHODS

Pre-planned substudy of the ARNEO-trial (NCT03080116): a double blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial performed in high-risk PCa patients without bone metastases between March 2019 and April 2021. Patients were 1:1 randomised to treatment with gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (degarelix) + androgen receptor signalling inhibitor (ARSI; apalutamide) versus degarelix + matching placebo for 12 weeks prior to prostatectomy. Before and following ADT, serum and 24-h urinary samples were collected. Primary endpoints were changes in calcium-phosphate homeostasis and bone biomarkers.

FINDINGS

Of the 89 randomised patients, 43 in the degarelix + apalutamide and 44 patients in the degarelix + placebo group were included in this substudy. Serum corrected calcium levels increased similarly in both treatment arms (mean difference +0.04 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval, 0.02; 0.06), and parathyroid hormone and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 levels decreased. Bone resorption markers increased, and stable calcium isotope ratios reflecting net bone mineral balance decreased in serum and urine similarly in both groups.

INTERPRETATION

This exploratory substudy suggests that 12 weeks of ADT in non-metastatic PCa patients results in early bone loss. Additional treatment with ARSI does not seem to more negatively influence bone loss in the early phase. Future studies should address if these early biomarkers are able to predict fracture risk, and can be implemented in clinical practice for follow-up of bone health in PCa patients under ADT.

FUNDING

Research Foundation Flanders; KU Leuven; University-Hospitals-Leuven.

Proceedings of the 2023 Santa Fe Bone Symposium: Progress and Controversies in the Management of Patients with Skeletal Diseases

The Santa Fe Bone Symposium (SFBS) held its 23rd annual event on August 5-6, 2023, in Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. Attendees participated in-person and remotely, representing many states and countries. The program included plenary presentations, panel discussions, satellite symposia, a Project ECHO workshop, and a session on healthcare policy and reimbursement for fracture liaison programs. A broad range of topics were addressed, including transitions of osteoporosis treatments over a lifetime; controversies in vitamin D; update on Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry; spine surgery and bone health; clinical applications of bone turnover markers; basic bone biology for clinicians; premenopausal-, pregnancy-, and lactation-associated osteoporosis; cancer treatment induced bone loss in patients with breast cancer and prostate cancer; genetic testing for skeletal diseases; and an update on nutrition and bone health. There were also sessions on rare bone diseases, including managing patients with hypophosphatasia; treatment of X-linked hypophosphatemia; and assessment and treatment of patients with hypoparathyroidism. There were oral presentations of abstracts by endocrinology fellows selected from those who participated in the Santa Fe Fellows Workshop on Metabolic Bone Diseases, held the 2 days prior to the SFBS. These proceedings of the 2023 SFBS present the clinical highlights and insights generated from many formal and informal discussions in Santa Fe.

Management of cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) in patients with breast cancer or prostate cancer

Breast cancer and prostate cancer are sex hormone-dependent cancers, and estrogen or androgen suppression therapy is the standard treatment. Cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL): bone loss and osteoporosis have become important side effects of these therapies. To summarize the current evidences, (1) Endocrine therapy for breast cancer and prostate cancer is associated with a significant decrease in bone mineral density. (2) Aromatase inhibitors (AI) for breast cancer are associated with a significant increase in fractures, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer is likely to be associated with an increase in fractures. (3) Administration of bisphosphonates and denosumab increases bone mass in patients undergoing endocrine therapy for breast cancer. Administration of bisphosphonates, denosumab, and SERMs increased bone mass in patients undergoing ADT therapy for prostate cancer. (4) Bisphosphonates and denosumab reduce fracture risk in patients on AI for breast cancer, and toremifene and denosumab in patients on ADT for prostate cancer.

Fracture risk and assessment in adults with cancer

Individuals with cancer face unique risk factors for osteoporosis and fractures. Clinicians must consider the additive effects of cancer-specific factors, including treatment-induced bone loss, and premorbid fracture risk, utilizing FRAX score and bone mineral densitometry when available. Pharmacologic therapy should be offered as per cancer-specific guidelines, when available, or local general osteoporosis guidelines informed by clinical judgment and patient preferences. Our objective was to review and summarize the epidemiologic burden of osteoporotic fracture risk and fracture risk assessment in adults with cancer, and recommended treatment thresholds for cancer treatment-induced bone loss, with specific focus on breast, prostate, thyroid, gynecological, multiple myeloma, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant. This narrative review was informed by PubMed searches to July 25, 2022, that combined terms for cancer, stem cell transplantation, fracture, bone mineral density (BMD), trabecular bone score, FRAX, Garvan nomogram or fracture risk calculator, QFracture, prediction, and risk factors. The literature informs that cancer can impact bone health in numerous ways, leading to both systemic and localized decreases in BMD. Many cancer treatments can have detrimental effects on bone health. In particular, hormone deprivation therapies for hormone-responsive cancers such as breast cancer and prostate cancer, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant for hematologic malignancies, adversely affect bone turnover, resulting in osteoporosis and fractures. Surgical treatments such as hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for gynecological cancers can also lead to deleterious effects on bone health. Radiation therapy is well documented to cause localized bone loss and fractures. Few studies have validated the use of fracture risk prediction tools in the cancer population. Guidelines on cancer-specific treatment thresholds are limited, and major knowledge gaps still exist in fracture risk and fracture risk assessment in patients with cancer. Despite the limitations of current knowledge on fracture risk assessment and treatment thresholds in patients with cancer, clinicians must consider the additive effects of bone damaging factors to which these patients are exposed and their premorbid fracture risk profile. Pharmacologic treatment should be offered as per cancer-specific guidelines when available, or per local general osteoporosis guidelines, in accordance with clinical judgment and patient preferences.

Bone Metastases and Health in Prostate Cancer: From Pathophysiology to Clinical Implications

Clinically relevant bone metastases are a major cause of morbidity and mortality for prostate cancer patients. Distinct phenotypes are described: osteoblastic, the more common osteolytic and mixed. A molecular classification has been also proposed. Bone metastases start with the tropism of cancer cells to the bone through different multi-step tumor-host interactions, as described by the "metastatic cascade" model. Understanding these mechanisms, although far from being fully elucidated, could offer several potential targets for prevention and therapy. Moreover, the prognosis of patients is markedly influenced by skeletal-related events. They can be correlated not only with bone metastases, but also with "bad" bone health. There is a close correlation between osteoporosis-a skeletal disorder with decreased bone mass and qualitative alterations-and prostate cancer, in particular when treated with androgen deprivation therapy, a milestone in its treatment. Systemic treatments for prostate cancer, especially with the newest options, have improved the survival and quality of life of patients with respect to skeletal-related events; however, all patients should be evaluated for "bone health" and osteoporotic risk, both in the presence and in the absence of bone metastases. Treatment with bone-targeted therapies should be evaluated even in the absence of bone metastases, as described in special guidelines and according to a multidisciplinary evaluation.

Safety differences across androgen receptor inhibitors in nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Approval of apalutamide, enzalutamide and darolutamide has transformed the treatment landscape and guideline recommendations for patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer but now raises the issue of decision-making regarding treatment selection. In this commentary, we discuss the efficacy and safety of these second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors and propose that for patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, safety considerations for these treatments are especially important. We examine these considerations in the context of patient and caregiver preferences as well as patient clinical characteristics. We further posit that consideration of treatments' safety profiles should include not only the initial direct impacts from potential treatment-emergent adverse events and drug-drug interaction events, but also the full cascade of potentially avoidable healthcare complications.

Testosterone Therapy in Advanced Prostate Cancer

Androgen deprivation therapy is a mainstay of advanced prostate cancer (PCa) but the resulting low testosterone levels leave men susceptible to a multitude of adverse effects. These can include vasomotor symptoms, reduced sexual desire and performance, and mood changes. Testosterone therapy (TTh) in advanced PCa has historically been contraindicated since Huggins and Hodges reported that testosterone activates PCa. Although TTh has been demonstrated to be safe in patients who have undergone treatment for localized PCa, there is extremely limited evidence on its safety in advanced PCa. Despite the lack of evidence, some men with advanced PCa still inquire about TTh, and recent publications have described its use. In this article, we review the potential implications of TTh in men with advanced PCa, defined here as biochemical recurrence after localized therapy or metastatic PCa that is either hormone sensitive or castration resistant.

Bone health in ageing men

Osteoporosis does not only affect postmenopausal women, but also ageing men. The burden of disease is projected to increase with higher life expectancy both in females and males. Importantly, osteoporotic men remain more often undiagnosed and untreated compared to women. Sex steroid deficiency is associated with bone loss and increased fracture risk, and circulating sex steroid levels have been shown to be associated both with bone mineral density and fracture risk in elderly men. However, in contrast to postmenopausal osteoporosis, the contribution of relatively small decrease of circulating sex steroid concentrations in the ageing male to the development of osteoporosis and related fractures, is probably only minor. In this review we provide several clinical and preclinical arguments in favor of a 'bone threshold' for occurrence of hypogonadal osteoporosis, corresponding to a grade of sex steroid deficiency that in general will not occur in many elderly men. Testosterone replacement therapy has been shown to increase bone mineral density in men, however data in osteoporotic ageing males are scarce, and evidence on fracture risk reduction is lacking. We conclude that testosterone replacement therapy should not be used as a sole bone-specific treatment in osteoporotic elderly men.

Bone loss induced by cancer treatments in breast and prostate cancer patients

Cancer and cancer therapies are a major factor risk for osteoporosis due to bone loss and deterioration of bone microarchitecture. Both factors contribute to a decrease in bone strength and, consequently, increased bone fragility and risk of fracture. Cancer-associated bone loss is a multifactorial process, and optimal interdisciplinary management of skeletal health, accurate assessment of bone density, and early diagnosis are essential when making decisions aimed at reducing bone loss and fracture risk in patients who have received or are receiving treatment for cancer. In this document, a multidisciplinary group of experts collected the latest evidence on the pathophysiology of osteoporosis and its prevention, diagnosis, and treatment with the support of the Spanish scientific society SEOM. The aim was to provide an up-to-date and in-depth view of osteoporotic risk and its consequences, and to present a series of recommendations aimed at optimizing the management of bone health in the context of cancer.

What We Have Learned from Animal Models to Understand the Etiology and Pathology of Endometrioma-Related Infertility

Endometrioma (OMA) is the most common subtype of endometriosis, in which the endometriotic lesions are implanted in the ovary. Women with OMA are usually associated with infertility, presenting with reduced ovarian reserve, low oocyte quantity and quality, and poor fertility outcomes. However, the underlying pathological mechanisms in OMA-related infertility are still unclear. Due to the limitations and ethical issues of human studies in reproduction, animal models that recapitulate OMA characteristics and its related infertility are critical for mechanistic studies and subsequent drug development, preclinical testing, and clinical trials. This review summarized the investigations of OMA-related infertility based on previous and latest endometrioma models, providing the possible pathogenesis and potential therapeutic targets for further studies.

Secondary Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Diseases

Fragility fracture is a worldwide problem and a main cause of disability and impaired quality of life. It is primarily caused by osteoporosis, characterized by impaired bone quantity and or quality. Proper diagnosis of osteoporosis is essential for prevention of fragility fractures. Osteoporosis can be primary in postmenopausal women because of estrogen deficiency. Secondary forms of osteoporosis are not uncommon in both men and women. Most systemic illnesses and organ dysfunction can lead to osteoporosis. The kidney plays a crucial role in maintaining physiological bone homeostasis by controlling minerals, electrolytes, acid-base, vitamin D and parathyroid function. Chronic kidney disease with its uremic milieu disturbs this balance, leading to renal osteodystrophy. Diabetes mellitus represents the most common secondary cause of osteoporosis. Thyroid and parathyroid disorders can dysregulate the osteoblast/osteoclast functions. Gastrointestinal disorders, malnutrition and malabsorption can result in mineral and vitamin D deficiencies and bone loss. Patients with chronic liver disease have a higher risk of fracture due to hepatic osteodystrophy. Proinflammatory cytokines in infectious, autoimmune, and hematological disorders can stimulate osteoclastogenesis, leading to osteoporosis. Moreover, drug-induced osteoporosis is not uncommon. In this review, we focus on causes, pathogenesis, and management of secondary osteoporosis.

Association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and disease severity among prostate cancer patients on androgen deprivation therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Androgen-regulated enzymes such as the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and the transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2) are involved in the SARS-CoV-2 infection process. The expression of TMPRSS2 and its fusion gene, which are increased in the epithelium of the human prostate gland during prostate carcinogenesis, are regulated by androgens. Our goal was to assess the risk of the SARS-CoV-2 infection and the severity of the disease in PCa patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines. We queried PubMed and Web of Science databases on 1 July 2021. We used random- and/or fixed-effects meta-analytic models in the presence or absence of heterogeneity according to Cochrane's Q test and I2 statistic, respectively.

RESULTS

Six retrospective studies (n = 50,220 patients) were selected after considering inclusion and exclusion criteria for qualitative evidence synthesis. Four retrospective studies were included to assess the SARS-CoV-2 infection risk in PCa patients under ADT vs. no ADT and the summarized risk ratio (RR) was 0.8 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.44-1.47). Five retrospective studies were included to assess the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in PCa patients under ADT versus no ADT and the summarized RR was 1.23 (95% CI 0.9-1.68).

CONCLUSION

We found a non-significant association between the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity in PCa patients treated with ADT. However, our results suggest that during the COVID-19 pandemic PCa patients can safely undergo ADT as a cancer therapy without worsening COVID-19 risk and trajectory.

Association of Bone Mineral Density Testing With Risk of Major Osteoporotic Fractures Among Older Men Receiving Androgen Deprivation Therapy to Treat Localized or Regional Prostate Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Bone health screening is recommended for patients with prostate cancer who are initiating treatment with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT); however, bone mineral density screening rates in the US and their association with fracture prevention are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To assess dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) screening rates and their association with fracture rates among older men with prostate cancer initiating treatment with androgen deprivation therapy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective nationwide population-based cohort study used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database and the Texas Cancer Registry linked with Medicare claims. Participants comprised 54 953 men 66 years or older with prostate cancer diagnosed between January 2005 and December 2015 who initiated treatment with ADT. Data were censored at last enrollment in Medicare and analyzed from January 1 to September 30, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry screening within 12 months before and 6 months after the first ADT claim.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Frequencies of DXA screening and fracture (any fracture and major osteoporotic fracture) and overall survival were calculated. The association between DXA screening and fracture was evaluated using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model with propensity score adjustment.

RESULTS

Among 54 953 men (median age, 74 years; range, 66-99 years) with prostate cancer, 4689 (8.5%) were Hispanic, 6075 (11.1%) were non-Hispanic Black, 41 453 (75.4%) were non-Hispanic White, and 2736 (5.0%) were of other races and/or ethnicities (including 121 [0.2%] who were American Indian or Alaska Native; 1347 [2.5%] who were Asian, Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander; and 1268 [2.3%] who were of unknown race/ethnicity). Only 4362 men (7.9%) received DXA screening. The DXA screening rate increased from 6.8% in 2005 to 8.4% in 2015. Lower screening rates were associated with being single (odds ratio [OR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81-0.97; P = .01) and non-Hispanic Black (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.91; P < .001), living in small urban areas (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.90; P = .001) and areas with lower educational levels (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.83; P < .001), and receiving nonsteroidal androgens (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.39-0.84; P = .004). Overall, 9365 patients (17.5%) developed fractures after initial receipt of ADT. The median time to first fracture was 31 months (IQR, 15-56 months). In the multivariable model with propensity score adjustment, DXA screening was not associated with fracture risk at any site (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.89-1.04; P = .32) among men without previous fractures before receipt of ADT. However, previous DXA screening was associated with a decreased risk of major fractures (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-1.00; P = .05) after propensity score adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, low DXA screening rates were observed among older men with localized or regional prostate cancer after initiation of treatment with ADT. Despite low rates of screening, evaluation of bone mineral density with a DXA scan was associated with lower risk of major fractures. These findings suggest that DXA screening is important for the prevention of major fractures among older men with prostate cancer and that implementation strategies are needed to adopt bone health screening guidelines in clinical practice.

Androgen Deprivation Therapy in High-Risk Localized and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer

The recommended treatment for high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer is radical prostatectomy plus extended pelvic lymph node dissection or radiation therapy plus long-term androgen deprivation therapy. However, some patients are treated with androgen deprivation therapy alone for various reasons. In this review, we will discuss the position, indications, complications, and future prospects of androgen deprivation therapy for high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer.

Targeted activation of androgen receptor signaling in the periosteum improves bone fracture repair

Low testosterone level is an independent predictor of osteoporotic fracture in elderly men as well as increased fracture risk in men undergoing androgen deprivation. Androgens and androgen receptor (AR) actions are essential for bone development and homeostasis but their linkage to fracture repair remains unclear. Here we found that AR is highly expressed in the periosteum cells and is co-localized with a mesenchymal progenitor cell marker, paired-related homeobox protein 1 (Prrx1), during bone fracture repair. Mice lacking the AR gene in the periosteum expressing Prrx1-cre (AR^-/Y;Prrx1::Cre) but not in the chondrocytes (AR^-/Y;Col-2::Cre) exhibits reduced callus size and new bone volume. Gene expression data analysis revealed that the expression of several collagens, integrins and cell adhesion molecules were downregulated in periosteum-derived progenitor cells (PDCs) from AR^-/Y;Prrx1::Cre mice. Mechanistically, androgens-AR signaling activates the AR/ARA55/FAK complex and induces the collagen-integrin α2β1 gene expression that is required for promoting the AR-mediated PDCs migration. Using mouse cortical-defect and femoral graft transplantation models, we proved that elimination of AR in periosteum of host mice impairs fracture healing, regardless of AR existence of transplanted donor graft. While testosterone implanted scaffolds failed to complete callus bridging across the fracture gap in AR^-/Y;Prrx1::Cre mice, cell-based transplantation using DPCs re-expressing AR could lead to rescue bone repair. In conclusion, targeting androgen/AR axis in the periosteum may provide a novel therapy approach to improve fracture healing.

Irradiation affects the structural, cellular and molecular components of jawbones

PURPOSE

Emerging evidence shows that changes in the bone and its microenvironment following radiotherapy are associated with either an inhibition or a state of low bone formation. Ionizing radiation is damaging to the jawbone as it increases the complication rate due to the development of hypovascular, hypocellular, and hypoxic tissue. This review summarizes and correlates the current knowledge on the effects of irradiation on the bone with an emphasis on jawbone, as these have been a less extensively studied area.

CONCLUSIONS

The stringent regulation of bone formation and bone resorption can be influenced by radiation, causing detrimental effects at structural, cellular, vascular, and molecular levels. It is also associated with a high risk of damage to surrounding healthy tissues and an increased risk of fracture. Technological advances and research on animal models as well as a few human bone tissue studies have provided novel insights into the ways in which bone can be affected by high, low and sublethal dose of radiation. The influence of radiation on bone metabolism, cellular properties, vascularity, collagen, and other factors like inflammation, reactive oxygen species are discussed.

Associations between osteoporosis and drug exposure: A post-marketing study of the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database (VigiBase®)

BACKGROUND

Bone remodeling is a complex process, and many conditions (including drug exposure) lead to osteoporosis. Here, we sought to detect new disproportionality signals for drugs associated with osteoporosis.

METHODS

We performed a disproportionality analysis of the World Health Organization's VigiBase® pharmacovigilance database through April 12, 2020. The frequency of reports on osteoporosis for all identified drug classes was compared with that for all other drugs and quoted as the reporting odds ratio (ROR) [95% confidence interval (CI)].

RESULTS

Of the 7,594,968 cases spontaneously recorded to VigiBase®, 4758 concerned osteoporosis. New disproportionality signals with a pharmacologically plausible mechanism were found for drugs used in neurology (levodopa (ROR [95%CI]: 10.18 [4.33-25.10]), selective serotonin agonists (4.22 [2.34-7.00]) and memantine (4.10 [1.56-8.93])), hematology (romiplostim (4.93 [1.15-21.10])), pulmonology (macitentan (3.02 [1.84-4.90])), ophthalmology (ranibizumab (3.31 [1.00-10.51])) and rheumatology (tofacitinib (3.65 [3.00-4.40])). The robustness of these new results is supported by the significant RORs for the vast majority of drugs already known to induce osteoporosis and/or increase the fracture risk, namely glucocorticoids, gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs, anti-aromatases, androgen receptor blockers, thyroid hormones, proton pump inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, vitamin K antagonists, loop diuretics, protease inhibitors, nucleoside and nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and enzyme-inducing antiepileptics including barbiturates and derivatives, hydantoin derivatives, carboxamide derivatives and fatty acid derivatives.

CONCLUSION

We established up a comprehensive list of drugs potentially associated with osteoporosis and highlighted those with pharmacologically plausible mechanisms leading to bone fragility. Our results might pave the way for additional exploration of these mechanisms.

Improving clinical outcomes through attention to sex and hormones in research

Biological sex, fluctuations in sex steroid hormones throughout life and gender as a social construct all influence every aspect of health and disease. Yet, for decades, most basic and clinical studies have included only male individuals. As modern health care moves towards personalized medicine, it is clear that considering sex and hormonal status in basic and clinical studies will bring precision to the development of novel therapeutics and treatment paradigms. To this end, funding, regulatory and policy agencies now require inclusion of female animals and women in basic and clinical studies. However, inclusion of female animals and women often does not mean that information regarding potential hormonal interactions with pharmacological treatments or clinical outcomes is available. All sex steroid hormones can interact with receptors for drug targets, metabolism and transport. Genetic variation in receptors or in enzymatic function might contribute to sex differences in therapeutic efficacy and adverse drug reactions. Outcomes from clinical trials are often not reported by sex, and, if the data are available, they are not translated into clinical practice guidelines. This Review will provide a historical perspective for the current state of research related to hormone trials and provide concrete strategies that, if implemented, will improve the health of all people.

Cancer Treatment–Induced Bone Loss and Role of Denosumab in Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: A Narrative Review

Bone loss is an important complication of prostate cancer and its associated treatments, especially androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). There is a 5 to 10 times increased loss of bone mineral density (BMD) in men receiving ADT with yearly 4 to 13% BMD loss. The risk of fracture increases yearly by 5 to 8% with ADT. ADT associated bone loss of 10 to 15% of BMD doubles the risk of fractures. Hence, BMD evaluation through dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and evaluation of individual fracture risk assessed before initiating ADT. The use of vitamin D, calcium, bisphosphonates, and denosumab has shown improved bone health in men with prostate cancer receiving ADT. Denosumab 60 mg is approved to increase bone mass in men at high risk for fractures receiving ADT for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Denosumab has shown improvement of 5.6% BMD at 2 years in nonmetastatic prostate cancer patients, with significant improvements seen at the total hip, femoral neck, and distal third of the radius. Denosumab has shown a 62% decreased incidence of new vertebral fractures at 36 months. Furthermore, denosumab delays the onset of bone metastases in high-risk nonmetastatic prostate cancer patients. Denosumab can be preferred over other bone modifying agents owing to several advantages, such as subcutaneous administration and no requirement of hospitalization, no dose modifications in renal impairment and less incidence of acute phase anaphylactic reactions. We review the available evidence of denosumab for managing bone loss in nonmetastatic prostate cancer patients. The relevant articles used in this narrative review were obtained through general search on google and PubMed using the key terms “non-metastatic prostate cancer,” “denosumab,” “bone loss,” “bone mineral density,” “fracture,” “CTIBL,” and “chemotherapy induced bone loss.”

Radium-223 in combination with enzalutamide in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a multi-centre, phase II open-label study

Background:

Radium-223 and enzalutamide are approved agents for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Combining radium-223 and enzalutamide to improve outcomes is of clinical interest due to their differing modes of action and non-overlapping toxicity profiles.

Methods:

This phase II study enrolled patients with mCRPC and bone metastases. Patients received six cycles of radium-223 in combination with enzalutamide, followed by enzalutamide alone. The primary endpoint was safety for the combination; secondary endpoints included radiographic/clinical progression-free survival (PFS), PSA PFS, overall survival (OS), change in alkaline phosphatase, patient-reported pain outcomes and skeletal related events.

Results:

Forty-five patients received the combination treatment: 42 patients (93.3%) received all six cycles. Fourteen patients (31.1%) developed grade 3 or 4 toxicities, most commonly fatigue and neutropaenia. Fractures during the combination period occurred in four patients (8.9%). A further 13 patients (28.9%) developed fractures after completing combination treatment, giving a total of 17 patients (37.8%) who developed a fracture at any time on study. The median time to fracture was greater than 17.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 17.2–not estimable]. The median time to PSA progression was 18.1 months (95% CI, 12.68–22.60) and the median time to radiological/clinical progression was 28.0 months (95% CI, 22.54–not reached). At the primary analysis, 19 (42.2%) out of 45 patients had died with a median OS not reached (mean 34.8 months, standard error 1.4).

Conclusion:

In men with progressive mCRPC and bone metastases, the combination of radium-223 and enzalutamide was tolerable with the majority of patients completing the combination treatment. Bone fractures during the combination period were uncommon; however, we did identify a higher incidence of fractures occurring in patients after completing combination treatment. Bone health agents should be administered and bone health should be closely monitored following treatment with radium-223 and enzalutamide.

Risk of Fracture During Androgen Deprivation Therapy Among Patients With Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies

Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) suppresses the production of androgen, and ADT is broadly used for intermediate or higher risk disease including advanced and metastatic cancer. ADT is associated with numerous adverse effects derived from the pharmacological properties. Previous meta-analysis on fracture risk among ADT users possessed limited data without further subgroup analysis. Risk estimation of updated real-world evidence on ADT-related fracture remains unknown. Objectives: To assess the risk of fracture and fracture requiring hospitalization associated with ADT among prostate cancer population on different disease conditions, treatment regimen, dosage level, fracture sites. Methods: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases were systematically screened for eligible cohort studies published from inception to March 2020. Two authors independently reviewed all the included studies. The risks of any fracture and of fracture requiring hospitalization were assessed using a random-effects model, following by leave-one-out, stratified, and sensitivity analyses. The Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system was used to grade the certainty of evidence. Results: Sixteen eligible studies were included, and total population was 519,168 men. ADT use is associated with increasing fracture risk (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.26-1.52) and fracture requiring hospitalization (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.29-1.88). Stratified analysis revealed that high-dose ADT results in an elevated risk of fracture with little statistical heterogeneity, whereas sensitivity analysis restricted to adjust for additional factors indicated increased fracture risks for patients with unknown stage prostate cancer or with no restriction on age with minimal heterogeneity. The GRADE level of evidence was moderate for any fracture and low for fracture requiring hospitalization. Conclusion: Cumulative evidence supports the association of elevated fracture risk with ADT among patients with prostate cancer, including those with different disease conditions, treatment regimens, dose levels, and fracture sites. Further prospective trials with intact information on potential risk factors on fracture under ADT use are warranted to identify the risky population.

Bone health management in the continuum of prostate cancer disease: a review of the evidence with an expert panel opinion

Bone health impairment is a frequent detrimental consequence of the high bone tropism of prostate cancer (PCa) cells. It is further worsened by administration of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), the current standard of care in the management of advanced PCa, through a rapid and dramatic increase in bone turnover and body mass changes. As a result, patients may experience substantial pain and poor quality of life (QoL) and have an increased risk of death. Notwithstanding the importance of this issue, however, bone health preservation is not yet a widespread clinical goal in daily practice.

To address this urgent unmet need, following a thorough discussion of available data and sharing of their clinical practice experience, a panel of Italian experts in the field of bone health and metabolism formulated a number of practical advices for optimising the monitoring and treatment of bone health in men undergoing ADT during all phases of the disease. The rationale behind the venture was to raise awareness on the importance of bone preservation in this complex setting, while providing an instrument to support physicians and facilitate the management of bone health.

Current evidence regarding the effects on bone health of ADT, of novel hormone therapies (which improve progression delay, pain control and QoL while consistently carrying the risk of non-pathological fractures in both non-metastatic and metastatic PCa) and of bone turnover inhibitors (whose use is frequently suboptimal) is reviewed. Finally, the expert opinion to optimise bone health preservation is given.

Triple-arm androgen blockade for advanced prostate cancer: a review

Prostate cancer is estimated to be the second most common malignancy in men in the USA in 2020 and represents the second highest mortality from cancer behind lung and bronchial neoplasms. Management of advanced prostate cancer is evolving. Medical androgen deprivation therapy is currently a cornerstone of therapy for prostate cancer; however molecular mechanisms of resistance have emerged leading to castration-resistant prostate cancer that is proliferation of prostate cancer in the setting of low testosterone (< 50 ng/dl). The benefit of double androgen blockade like ADT plus abiraterone acetate or androgen receptor blockers is proven in many clinical trials; however multiple mechanisms of resistance still exist. In theory, another layer of androgen blockade will prevent, or at least slow, prostate cancer proliferation. This direction of thought has recently been explored with multiple clinical trials. In this review article, we summarize the current knowledge regarding androgen resistance, newer androgen inhibition therapies, and the implications of a triple-arm anti-androgen blockade in advanced prostate cancer.

Androgen-deprivation therapy and the risk of newly developed fractures in patients with prostate cancer: a nationwide cohort study in Korea

We evaluated the risk of osteoporosis and fractures associated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use and duration in men with prostate cancer. From the nationwide claims database in South Korea, a total of 218,203 men with prostate cancer were identified between 2008 and 2017. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 144,670 patients were included in the analysis. To adjust for comorbidities between cohorts, 1:1 propensity score matching was used. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of events associated with ADT, after controlling for potential confounding factors. In the matched cohort, there were differences in the incidence of newly developed osteoporosis (8.79% in the ADT group vs. 7.08% in the non-ADT group, p < 0.0001) and fractures (8.12% in the ADT group vs. 5.04% in the non-ADT group, p < 0.0001). Age-adjusted Cox regression analysis revealed that the ADT group had a significantly higher risk of osteoporosis (HR, 1.381; 95% CI, 1.305–1.461; p < 0.0001) and fractures (HR, 1.815; 95% CI, 1.703–1.935; p < 0.0001) compared to the non-ADT group. Furthermore, the risk of osteoporosis and fractures increased as the duration of ADT increased. The ADT was associated with an increased risk of osteoporosis and fractures in prostate cancer patients. Clinicians who administer ADT for patients with prostate cancer should always be mindful of the risk of osteoporosis and fracture, avoid unnecessary ADT, and perform regular bone health check-ups.

Canadian Urological Association guideline on androgen deprivation therapy: Adverse events and management strategies

NA

Association between post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms and bone fractures after the Great East Japan Earthquake in older adults: a prospective cohort study from the Fukushima Health Management Survey

Background

It has been reported that psychological stress affects bone metabolism and increases the risk of fracture. However, the relationship between bone fractures and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of disaster-induced PTSD symptoms on fracture risk in older adults.

Methods

This study evaluated responses from 17,474 individuals aged ≥ 65 years without a history of fractures during the Great East Japan Earthquake who answered the Mental Health and Lifestyle Survey component of the Fukushima Health Management Survey conducted in 2011. The obtained data could determine the presence or absence of fractures until 2016. Age, sex, physical factors, social factors, psychological factors, and lifestyle factors were subsequently analyzed. Survival analysis was then performed to determine the relationship between the fractures and each factor. Thereafter, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were constructed to identify fracture risk factors.

Results

In total, 2,097 (12.0%) fractures were observed throughout the follow-up period. Accordingly, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models showed that PTSD symptoms (total PTSD checklists scoring ≥ 44) [hazard ratio (HR): 1.26; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.10–1.44; P = 0.001], history of cancer (HR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.24–1.79; P < 0.001), history of stroke (HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.03–1.52; P = 0.023), history of heart disease (HR: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.13–1.50; P < 0.001), history of diabetes (HR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.09–1.39; P < 0.001), current smoking (HR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.02–1.63; P = 0.036), and high dissatisfaction with sleep or no sleep at all (HR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.02–1.74; P = 0.035) promoted a significant increase in fracture risk independent of age and sex.

Conclusions

The present study indicates that disaster-induced PTSD symptoms and insomnia contribute to increased fracture risk among older adults residing in evacuation areas within the Fukushima Prefecture.

[ADVERSE EFFECTS OF ANDROGEN DEPRIVATION THERAPY ON PATIENTS WITH PROSTATE CANCER AND ITS EFFECT ON OVERALL SURVIVAL]

(Background) Patients with prostate cancer, which progresses slowly compared with other cancers, are generally older, and not a few are solely treated with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). The physical effects of ADT on bone health, body composition, and hematological parameters must be carefully considered. (Methods) We collected the clinical records of 185 men with pathologically diagnosed prostate cancer who were treated with ADT at our hospital. The primary aim of the study was to determine the prevalence and severity of adverse effects caused by ADT. The second aim was to analyze the effect of fluctuation in the rate of these adverse effects on overall survival (OS). (Results) The median age of patients was 75 years. After ADT for 1 or 2 years, evaluation of bone mineral density revealed median losses of 3% and 6%, respectively. After ADT for 1 year, body mass index was significantly increased by a median 2.1%, and total cholesterol and hemoglobin levels were significantly increased and decreased, respectively. The local and systemic symptoms of subcutaneous granuloma and hot flashes were experienced by 39% and 21.6% patients, respectively. Mono- and multivariate analysis revealed that significant fluctuation in the rate of adverse events after 1-year ADT did not affect OS. (Conclusion) Prevalence and severity of adverse effects caused by ADT were acceptable and almost all patients could be treated in the outpatient clinic, and significant fluctuation in the rate of adverse effects had no effect on OS.

Surgical versus Medical Castration for Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Use and Overall Survival in a National Cohort

PURPOSE

Surgical castration for metastatic prostate cancer is used less frequently than medical castration yet costs less, requires less followup and may be associated with fewer adverse effects. We evaluated temporal trends and factors associated with the use of surgical castration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study sampled 24,805 men with newly diagnosed (de novo) metastatic prostate cancer from a national cancer registry in the United States (2004 to 2016). Multivariable logistic regression assessed the association between sociodemographic factors and surgery. Multivariable Cox regression evaluated the association between castration type and overall survival.

RESULTS

Overall 5.4% of men underwent surgical castration. This figure decreased from 8.5% in 2004 to 3.5% in 2016 (per year later OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.87-0.91, p <0.001). Compared to Medicare, private insurance was associated with less surgery (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61-0.87, p <0.001) while Medicaid or no insurance was associated with more surgery (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.34-2.11, p <0.001 and OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.58-2.85, p <0.001, respectively). Regional median income greater than $63,000 was associated with less surgery (vs income less than $38,000 OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43-0.85, p=0.004). After a median followup of 30 months castration type was not associated with differences in survival (surgical vs medical HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95-1.09, p=0.6).

CONCLUSIONS

In a contemporary, real-world cohort surgical castration use is low and decreasing despite its potential advantages and similar survival rate compared to medical castration. Men with potentially limited health care access undergo more surgery, perhaps reflecting a provider bias toward the perceived benefit of permanent castration.

Denosumab for cancer-related bone loss

INTRODUCTION

Prolonged use of anti-cancer treatments in breast and prostate tumors alters physiological bone turnover leading to adverse skeletal related events, such as osteoporosis, loss of bone mass, and increased risk of fractures. These complications known as cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) should be managed with bone targeting agents such as the bisphosphonates and denosumab. The latter is a monoclonal antibody against the receptor activator of nuclear factor-kB ligand (RANKL) that suppresses osteoclasts function and survival increasing bone mass.

AREAS COVERED

This review will focus on the mechanisms associated with bone loss induced by cancer treatments and the most recent evidence about the use of denosumab as preventive and therapeutic strategy to protect bone health. Moreover, we will discuss several key aspects regarding the clinical practical use of denosumab to optimize the management of CTLIB in breast and prostate cancer.

EXPERT OPINION

Denosumab treatment strongly prevents cancer therapies-related skeletal issues in breast and prostate cancer with a good safety profile. Adjuvant six-monthly denosumab delays the time to first fracture onset in early stage breast cancer patients with normal or altered bone mineral density (BMD). Similarly, denosumab treatment is able to prevent fractures and BMD loss in nonmetastatic prostate cancer patients.

Fracture risk and survival outcomes in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients sequentially treated with abiraterone acetate and RADIUM-223

PURPOSE

To evaluate the fracture risk and survival outcomes in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who received sequentially abiraterone acetate (AA) and radium 223 [223Ra]RaCl₂ in the daily clinical practice.

MATERIALS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of mCRPC patients who received [223Ra]RaCl₂ immediately after progressing during an AA treatment line in everyday clinical practice.

RESULTS

We reviewed data of a consecutive series of 94 mCRPC patients. Most of the patients (85.1%) received [223Ra]RaCl₂ as second- or third-line treatment. [223Ra]RaCl₂ treatment was well-tolerated; there were only four cases of grade 3 anaemia, two cases of grade 3 leukopenia and one case of grade 3 neutropenia. The overall fracture rate is 2.1%; one fracture was recorded during the course of [223Ra]RaCl₂ treatment, and one was recorded 1 month after its end. The fractures both occurred at metastatic sites. Median OS from [223Ra]RaCl₂ start was more than 14 months regardless of the treatment line when [223Ra]RaCl₂ was administered.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study show that the treatment with [223Ra]RaCl₂ immediately after AA was active and safe with a very low risk of a fracture. Thus, the present observational report makes a valuable contribution to the current debate concerning the risks and benefits of including [223Ra]RaCl₂ in the therapeutic algorithm.

Drugs Causing Bone Loss

Drugs may cause bone loss by lowering sex steroid levels (e.g., aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer, GnRH agonists in prostate cancer, or depot medroxyprogestone acetate - DMPA), interfere with vitamin D levels (liver inducing anti-epileptic drugs), or directly by toxic effects on bone cells (chemotherapy, phenytoin, or thiazolidinedions, which diverts mesenchymal stem cells from forming osteoblasts to forming adipocytes). However, besides effects on the mineralized matrix, interactions with collagen and other parts of the unmineralized matrix may decrease bone biomechanical competence in a manner that may not correlate with bone mineral density (BMD) measured by dual energy absorptiometry (DXA).Some drugs and drug classes may decrease BMD like the thiazolidinediones and consequently increase fracture risk. Other drugs such as glucocorticoids may decrease BMD, and thus increase fracture risk. However, glucocorticoids may also interfere with the unmineralized matrix leading to an increase in fracture risk, not mirrored in BMD changes. Some drugs such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI), paracetamol, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may not per se be associated with bone loss, but fracture risk may be increased, possibly stemming from an increased risk of falls stemming from effects on postural balance mediated by effects on the central nervous system or cardiovascular system.This paper performs a systematic review of drugs inducing bone loss or associated with fracture risk. The chapter is organized by the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification.

Risk of ischemic stroke in patients with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy in Taiwan

Background

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the treatment of prostate cancer may be associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic disease. The aim of our study was to investigate the association of ADT in the treatment of prostate cancer with ischemic stroke risk.

Methods

We identified individuals older than 20 years of age who were newly diagnosed with prostate cancer between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2012. Patients who experienced ischemic stroke or transient ischemic stroke before the index date were excluded. Patients who received at least one prescription for ADT within 6 months were defined as the ADT user group. Patients who did not receive at least one prescription for ADT within 6 months were defined as the ADT nonuser group. The patients were followed until the first occurrence of one of the primary outcome measures (ischemic stroke or death) or until December 31, 2013. The primary composite outcome was the time to any cause of death or ischemic stroke.

Results

There was no significant difference in the primary composite outcomes in the prostate cancer patients between the ADT user and nonuser groups. Prostate cancer patients who received ADT had a higher mortality rate than those who were not treated with ADT, and the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.907 (95% confidence interval: 1.278–2.844; P = 0.0016) after adjusting for age, comorbidities and comedication use.

Conclusion

ADT in the treatment of prostate cancer may not be associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke. The differences in thromboembolic effects in cardiovascular disease and ischemic stroke secondary to ADT should be further discussed and evaluated prospectively.

Androgens and Androgen Receptor Actions on Bone Health and Disease: From Androgen Deficiency to Androgen Therapy

Androgens are not only essential for bone development but for the maintenance of bone mass. Therefore, conditions with androgen deficiency, such as male hypogonadism, androgen-insensitive syndromes, and prostate cancer with androgen deprivation therapy are strongly associated with bone loss and increased fracture risk. Here we summarize the skeletal effects of androgens—androgen receptors (AR) actions based on in vitro and in vivo studies from animals and humans, and discuss bone loss due to androgens/AR deficiency to clarify the molecular basis for the anabolic action of androgens and AR in bone homeostasis and unravel the functions of androgen/AR signaling in healthy and disease states. Moreover, we provide evidence for the skeletal benefits of androgen therapy and elucidate why androgens are more beneficial than male sexual hormones, highlighting their therapeutic potential as osteoanabolic steroids in improving bone fracture repair. Finally, the application of selective androgen receptor modulators may provide new approaches for the treatment of osteoporosis and fractures as well as building stronger bones in diseases dependent on androgens/AR status.

Using Medicare Claims to Examine Long-term Prostate Cancer Risk of Finasteride in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial

Background

Investigators have used administrative claims to better understand cancer outcomes when a research question cannot feasibly be examined within a study. The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) showed that seven years of finasteride reduced prostate cancer (PC) risk by 25% in men age 55 years or older. However, it was unclear whether the observed reduction in PC for finasteride participants would be maintained after finasteride discontinuation.

Methods

We examined PC diagnoses identified by PCPT study records and Medicare claims (finasteride = 9423, placebo = 9457). A Medicare-defined PC diagnosis algorithm was defined using diagnosis and procedure codes. Multivariable Cox regression was used to examine time to PC within prespecified follow-up windows (<6.5, 6.5-7.5, and >7.5 years) using time-dependent covariates interacting with intervention assignment to account for the PCPT protocol-specified end-of-study biopsy at seven years. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results

Median follow-up using the linked database was 16 years. Overall, finasteride arm participants had a 21.1% decrease in the hazard ratio of PC (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.74 to 0.84, P < .001). The beneficial effect of finasteride in reducing the hazard ratio of PC was most pronounced in the first 7.5 years (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.66 to 0.77, P < .001), consistent with the original study findings; after 7.5 years, there was no increased risk of PC for finasteride arm participants (HR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.26, P = .18).

Conclusions

Finasteride provides a substantial reduction in PC through 16 years of follow-up. There was no strong evidence that the benefit of finasteride diminished after the end-of-study follow-up. Utilizing Medicare claims to augment PCPT follow-up illustrates how the novel use of secondary data sources can enhance the ability to detect long-term outcomes from prospective studies.

Validation of an Algorithm for Claims-based Incidence of Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is a commonly studied outcome in administrative claims studies, but there is a dearth of validated case identifying algorithms. The long-term development of the disease increases the difficulty in separating prevalent from incident prostate cancer. The purpose of this validation study was to assess the accuracy of a claims algorithm to identify incident prostate cancer among men in commercial and Medicare Advantage US health plans.

METHODS

We identified prostate cancer in claims as a prostate cancer diagnosis within 28 days after a prostate biopsy and compared case ascertainment in the claims with the gold standard results from the Georgia Comprehensive Cancer Registry (GCCR).

RESULTS

We identified 74,008 men from a large health plan claims database for possible linkage with GCCR. Among the 382 prostate cancer cases identified in claims, 312 were also identified in the GCCR (positive predictive value [PPV] = 82%). Of the registry cases, 91% (95% confidence interval = 88, 94) were correctly identified in claims. Claims and registry diagnosis dates of prostate cancer matched exactly in 254/312 (81%) cases. Nearly half of the false-positive cases also had claims for prostate cancer treatment. Thirteen (43%) false-negative cases were classified as noncases by virtue of having a biopsy and diagnosis >28 days apart as required by the algorithm. Compared to matches, false-negative cases were older men with less aggressive prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Our algorithm demonstrated a PPV of 82% with 92% sensitivity in ascertaining incident PC. Administrative health plan claims can be a valuable and accurate source to identify incident prostate cancer cases.

Castration Determines the Efficacy of ETAR Blockade in a Mouse Model of Prostate Cancer Bone Metastasis

Bone metastasis is a painful complication of advanced prostate cancer. Endothelin-1 is a tumor-secreted factor that plays a central role in osteoblast activation and the osteosclerotic response of prostate cancer metastatic to bone. Antagonists that block the activation of the endothelin A receptor (ETAR), located on osteoblasts, reduce osteoblastic bone lesions in animal models of bone metastasis. However, ETAR antagonists demonstrated limited efficacy in clinical trials of men with advanced prostate cancer who also received standard androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Previous data from our group suggested that, in a mouse model, ETAR antagonists might only be efficacious when androgen signaling in the osteoblast is lowered beyond the ability of standard ADT. This notion was tested in a mouse model of prostate cancer bone metastasis. Castrated and sham-operated male athymic nude mice underwent intracardiac inoculation of the ARCaPM castration-resistant prostate cancer cell line. The mice were then treated with either the ETAR antagonist zibotentan or a vehicle control to generate four experimental groups: vehicle+sham (Veh+Sham), vehicle+castrate (Veh+Castr), zibotentan+sham (Zibo+Sham), and zibotentan+castrate (Zibo+Castr). The mice were monitored radiographically for the development of skeletal lesions. The Zibo+Castr group had significantly longer survival and a single incidental lesion. Mice in the Zibo+Sham group had the shortest survival and the largest number of skeletal lesions. Survival and skeletal lesions of the Veh+Sham and Veh+Castr groups were intermediate compared with the zibotentan-treated groups. We report a complex interaction between ETAR and androgen signaling, whereby ETAR blockade was most efficacious when combined with complete androgen deprivation.

Management of Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer (mHSPC): an Evolving Treatment Paradigm

OPINION STATEMENT

Combination systemic therapy is now standard of care for all men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Patients with mHSPC should be treated with standard androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and abiraterone acetate with prednisone or docetaxel (chemohormoanl therapy) unless there are contraindications to combination therapy. Based on the Chemohormonal Therapy Versus Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Disease in Prostate Cancer (CHAARTED) study subgroup analysis, chemohormonal therapy may be most beneficial in men with high-volume disease burden, as men with low-volume metastatic disease do not appear to experience a survival benefit with chemohormonal therapy, while abiraterone in combination with ADT appears to be beneficial across both disease volume subgroups. Decisions regarding whether to use chemohormonal therapy or abiraterone and ADT for men with mHSPC should integrate consideration of volume of disease burden, quality of life effects, duration of therapy, and patient preferences for treatment as there is no formally powered prospective head-to-head comparison of these options demonstrating superiority of one approach over the other. Treatment of the primary tumor with radiation should be considered in men with de novo low-volume metastatic disease as radiation is associated with prolonged survival and a tolerable toxicity profile. Men with de novo high-volume metastatic disease do not appear to have improved survival with radiation of the primary tumor. Numerous clinical trials are ongoing to evaluate treatment approaches that may benefit men with mHSPC. Radical prostatectomy in men with mHSPC in combination with optimal systemic therapy is currently being assessed in a clinical trial, but should not be considered outside of a clinical trial. Metastasis-directed therapy with radiotherapy directed at metastatic lesions is still investigational, but can be considered in clinical trials in men with oligometastatic disease. Multiple studies are enrolling worldwide for men with mHSPC, and these should be considered for all interested patients.

Cancer- and Chemotherapy-Induced Musculoskeletal Degradation

Mobility in advanced cancer patients is a major health care concern and is often lost in advanced metastatic cancers. Erosion of mobility is a major component in determining quality of life but also starts a process of loss of muscle and bone mass that further devastates patients. In addition, treatment options become limited in these advanced cancer patients. Loss of bone and muscle occurs concomitantly. Advanced cancers that are metastatic to bone often lead to bone loss (osteolytic lesions) but may also lead to abnormal deposition of new bone (osteoblastic lesions). However, in both cases there is a disruption to normal bone remodeling and radiologic evidence of bone loss. Many antitumor therapies can also lead to loss of bone in cancer survivors. Bone loss releases cytokines (TGFβ) stored in the mineralized matrix that can act on skeletal muscle and lead to weakness. Likewise, loss of skeletal muscle mass leads to reduced bone mass and quality via mechanical and endocrine signals. Collectively these interactions are termed bone-muscle cross-talk, which has garnered much attention recently as a prime target for musculoskeletal health. Pharmacological approaches as well as nutrition and exercise can improve muscle and bone but have fallen short in the context of advanced cancers and cachexia. This review highlights our current knowledge of these interventions and discusses the difficulties in treating severe musculoskeletal deficits with the emphasis on improving not only bone mass and muscle size but also functional outcomes. © 2019 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.