Cardiovascular mortality after androgen deprivation therapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: RTOG 85-31

Cardiovascular Mortality and Duration of Androgen Deprivation in Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: Long-term Update of NRG/RTOG 9202

BACKGROUND

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been associated with coronary heart disease and myocardial infarction (MI) in prostate cancer patients, but controversy persists regarding its effects on cardiovascular mortality (CVM).

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the long-term relationship between ADT and CVM in a prostate cancer randomized trial (NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9202).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

From 1992 to 1995, 1554 men with locally advanced prostate cancer (T2c-T4, prostate-specific antigen <150 ng/ml) received radiotherapy with 4 mo (short-term [STADT]) versus 28 mo (longer-term [LTADT]) of ADT.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Using the Fine-Gray and Cox regression models, the relationship between ADT and mortality was evaluated.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

With a median follow-up of 19.6 yr, LTADT was associated with improved overall survival (OS) versus STADT (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.88; p = 0.03) and prostate cancer survival (subdistribution HR [sHR] 0.70, p = 0.003). Comparing LTADT with STADT, prostate cancer mortality improved by 6.0% (15.6% [95% confidence interval 13.0-18.3%] vs 21.6% [18.6-24.7%]) at 15 yr, while CVM increased by 2.2% (14.9% [12.4-17.6%] vs 12.7% [10.4-15.3%]). In multivariable analyses, LTADT was not associated with increased CVM versus STADT (sHR 1.22 [0.93-1.59]; p = 0.15). An association between LTADT and MI death was detected (sHR 1.58 [1.00-2.50]; p = 0.05), particularly in patients with prevalent cardiovascular disease (CVD; sHR 2.54 [1.16-5.58]; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

With 19.6 yr of follow-up, LTADT was not significantly associated with increased CVM in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. Patients may have increased MI mortality with LTADT, particularly those with baseline CVD. Overall, there remained a prostate cancer mortality benefit and no OS detriment with LTADT.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In a long-term analysis of a large randomized prostate cancer trial, radiation with 28 mo of hormone therapy did not increase the risk of cardiovascular death significantly versus 4 mo of hormone therapy. Future studies are needed for patients with pre-existing heart disease, who may have an increased risk of myocardial infarction death with longer hormone use.

Novel hormone therapy and coordination of care in high-risk biochemically recurrent prostate cancer

Biochemical recurrence (BCR) occurs in 20-50% of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing primary definitive treatment. Patients with high-risk BCR have an increased risk of metastatic progression and subsequent PCa-specific mortality, and thus could benefit from treatment intensification. Given the increasing complexity of diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, multidisciplinary care (MDC) can play a crucial role in the individualized management of this patient population. This review explores the role for MDC when evaluating the clinical evidence for the evolving definition of high-risk BCR and the emerging therapeutic strategies, especially with novel hormone therapies (NHTs), for patients with either high-risk BCR or oligometastatic PCa. Clinical studies have used different characteristics to define high-risk BCR and there is no consensus regarding the definition of high-risk BCR nor for management strategies. Next-generation imaging and multigene panels offer potential enhanced patient identification and precision-based decision-making, respectively. Treatment intensification with NHTs, either alone or combined with radiotherapy or metastasis-directed therapy, has been promising in clinical trials in patients with high-risk BCR or oligometastases. As novel risk-stratification and treatment options as well as evidence-based literature evolve, it is important to involve a multidisciplinary team to identify patients with high-risk features at an earlier stage, and make informed decisions on the treatments that could optimize their care and long-term outcomes. Nevertheless, MDC data are scarce in the BCR or oligometastatic setting. Efforts to integrate MDC into the standard management of this patient population are needed, and will likely improve outcomes across this heterogeneous PCa patient population.

Review of Cardiovascular Risk of Androgen Deprivation Therapy and the Influence of Race in Men with Prostate Cancer

Androgen deprivation therapy is the cornerstone of prostate cancer therapy. Recent studies have revealed an association between androgen deprivation therapy and cardiovascular adverse effects such as myocardial infarction and stroke. This review summarizes the available research on the cardiovascular risk of men using androgen deprivation therapy. We also discuss racial disparities surrounding both prostate cancer and cardiovascular disease, emphasizing the importance of biological/molecular and socioeconomic factors in assessing baseline risk in patients beginning androgen ablation. Based on the literature, we provide recommendations for monitoring patients who are at high risk for a cardiovascular adverse event while being treated on androgen deprivation therapy. This review aims to present the current research on androgen deprivation therapy and cardiovascular toxicity with an emphasis on racial disparities and provides a framework for clinicians to decrease the cardiovascular morbidity in men that are being treated with hormone therapy.

Cardiovascular Effects of Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Prostate Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and cardiovascular events in men with prostate cancer. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a primary cause of noncancer mortality in men with prostate cancer. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Medicare-linked data revealed that CVD was responsible for about a quarter of deaths among men with prostate cancer, with a focus on the role of ADT as a contributing cause.

We performed a literature search in November 2021 utilizing search engines such as PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. Original publications with data published between 2006 and 2020 were used in the investigation of men with prostate cancer undergoing ADT treatment with a CVD outcome. Two reviewers independently examined the content of the studies and extracted data from the final papers after they had been validated for quality using quality assessment tools. A total of 14 observational studies and two randomized controlled trials are included in this systematic review. Sample sizes in the examined publications varied from 79 to 201,797 individuals. ADT was the intervention in all of the investigations. Seven of the included studies did not identify the type of ADT utilized; instead, they compared the outcomes of individuals who got ADT against those who did not. The specific type of ADT used is mentioned in the remaining nine studies included in the systematic review. Patients who got ADT, such as gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, combination androgen blockade, surgical castration, and oral anti-androgen, are compared to those who did not receive ADT to discover who had a better prognosis.

In conclusion, even though ADT has several negative metabolic side effects that increase the risk of cardiovascular toxicity, published research utilizing a variety of designs has demonstrated inconsistency in the impact of ADT on cardiovascular outcomes. While the risk of CVD should be considered when prescribing ADT, the findings suggest that it should not be considered a contraindication if the expected benefit is substantial.

A review of clinical evidence to assess differences in efficacy and safety of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist (goserelin) and LHRH antagonist (degarelix)

Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist (LHRH-A), goserelin, and antagonist, degarelix, are both indicated for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer (PCa); however, large comparative trials evaluating their efficacy and safety are lacking. In this review, we assessed the available evidence for both the drugs. Although degarelix achieves an early rapid decline in testosterone (T) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, median T and PSA levels, in addition to prostate volume and International Prostate Symptom Scores, become comparable with goserelin over the remaining treatment period. Degarelix causes no initial flare, therefore it is recommended in patients with spinal metastases or ureteric obstruction. Goserelin achieves lower PSA, improved time to progression, and better survival outcomes when administered adjunctively to radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone, with significant results even over long-term follow-up. The evidence supporting adjuvant degarelix use is limited. Goserelin has better injection site safety, single-step delivery, and an efficient administration schedule compared with degarelix, which has significantly higher injection site reactions and less efficient administration mechanism. There is conflicting evidence about the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and caution is required when using LHRH-A in patients with preexisting CVD. There is considerable long-term evidence for goserelin in patients with advanced PCa, with degarelix being a more recent option. The available comparative evidence of goserelin versus degarelix has several inherent limitations related to study design, sample size, conduct, and statistical analyses, and hence warrants robust prospective trials and long-term follow-up.

Metabolic Syndrome and Physical Inactivity May Be Shared Etiological Agents of Prostate Cancer and Coronary Heart Diseases

Simple Summary

As metabolic syndrome (MetS) and a sedentary lifestyle are associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer (PCa) and cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), the 2 conditions may share common causes. We investigated the association between CVDs and PCa. Clinical data from patients undergone prostate biopsy were collected, physical activity (PA) was assessed and coronary heart diseases (CHDs) recorded. PCa was diagnosed in 395/955 men and 238 were aggressive tumors. Although CHDs were more common among PCa-patients (9.4% vs. 7.5%) the difference was not statistically significant and no difference was observed between low- and high-grade subgroups (9.5% vs. 9.2%). PA significantly reduced the risk of PCa diagnosis and aggressiveness while MetS only increased the risk of being diagnosed with cancer. CHDs were associated neither with tumor diagnosis nor aggressiveness. MetS and PA are strong predictors of PCa. We failed to prove a significant association between PCa and CHDs.

Abstract

As metabolic syndrome (MetS) and a sedentary lifestyle have been associated with an increased risk of developing both prostate cancer (PCa) and cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), the 2 conditions may share a common etiology. We aimed at investigating the association between CVDs and PCa. A retrospective analysis was performed. Our dataset on patients undergone systematic prostate biopsy was searched for histopathologic and clinical data. The physical activity (PA) scale for the elderly (PASE) was collected. Coronary heart diseases (CHDs) were recorded. Prognostic Grade Group ≥3 tumors were defined as high-grade (HG). The association between MetS, PA, CHDs and PCa was assessed using logistic regression analyses. Data on 955 patients were collected; 209 (22%) presented with MetS, 79 (8%) with CHDs. PCa was diagnosed in 395 (41.3%) men and 60% (n = 238) presented with an high-grade tumor. CHDs were more common among PCa-patients (9.4% vs. 7.5%; p = 0.302) but the difference was not statistically significant. No difference was observed between low- and high-grade subgroups (9.5% vs. 9.2%; p = 0.874). PASE independently predicted PCa diagnosis (OR: 0.287; p = 0.001) and HG-PCa (OR: 0.165; p = 0.001). MetS was an independent predictor of HG-PCa only (OR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.100–2.560; p = 0.023). CHDs were not associated with tumor diagnosis and aggressiveness.

Trends in Androgen Deprivation Use in Men with Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer Who Underwent Radiotherapy

Purpose

Until 2018, National Cancer Comprehensive Network guidelines recommended androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for all men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who had undergone radiation therapy. Intermediate risk was stratified as favorable and unfavorable in 2018, and ADT recommendation was limited to men with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Data suggesting this stratification and treatment deintensification were first published in December 2013. This study characterizes US national trends for demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic factors associated with ADT use in men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who have undergone definitive radiation therapy.

Methods and Materials

This retrospective cohort study examined 108,185 men in the National Cancer Database who were diagnosed with intermediate-risk prostate cancer from 2004 to 2016. Temporal trends in demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic factors among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer and associations with the use of ADT were characterized.

Results

In total, 108,185 men diagnosed with intermediate-risk prostate cancer underwent radiation therapy from 2004 to 2016. Of these men, 41.09% received ADT. Among the 60,705 men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, 32.06% received ADT. Among the 47,480 men with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, 52.64% received ADT. On multivariate analysis, use of ADT was associated with age and year of diagnosis; being a race other than White; having government-based insurance; having a higher prostate-specific antigen level, tumor stage, and Gleason score; receiving treatment at a nonacademic center; and receiving external beam radiation therapy alone.

Conclusions

The findings highlight that ADT use is variable in men undergoing definitive radiation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer, with the data suggesting that several clinical and socioeconomic disparities influence its use. The findings suggest that a significant proportion of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer receive ADT and remain candidates for treatment de-escalation, whereas a significant proportion of men with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer may be undertreated when ADT is omitted.

¡Mi Vida Saludable! A randomized, controlled, 2 × 2 factorial trial of a diet and physical activity intervention among Latina breast cancer survivors: Study design and methods

BACKGROUND

Most Latina breast cancer survivors do not meet diet and physical activity (PA) guidelines for cancer survivors and effective lifestyle interventions to adopt and maintain these recommendations are limited, especially among underserved populations. Here we describe the design, methods and enrollment of a 2 × 2 factorial-designed trial testing the separate effects of the ¡Mi Vida Saludable! (My Healthy Life!) intervention program on changes in diet and PA behaviors among Latina breast cancer survivors.

METHODS

Latinas with a history of stage 0-III breast cancer, no evidence of recurrent/metastatic disease, and > 90 days post-treatment were primarily identified via cancer registries and physician referral. Participants were randomized to four arms: 1) 4 weeks of in-person group sessions plus 11 months of eHealth communication, 2) in-person group sessions alone, 3) eHealth alone, or 4) control. All participants received a Fitbit to self-monitor PA. Assessments at baseline, 6 and 12 months include diet, PA, anthropometrics, predictors and mediators of behavior change, psychosocial and quality of life outcomes, and blood draw.

RESULTS

Of 884 women screened between January 2016 and September 2018, 27% were eligible. Primary reasons for ineligibility included not being willing/able to participate due to work/life responsibilities, health reasons, or transportation. Of 241 eligible women, 167 completed baseline assessment and enrolled.

CONCLUSIONS

We successfully enrolled a diverse group of breast cancer survivors representing more than 15 Latin American nationalities to a diet and physical activity trial. If effective, the ¡Mi Vida Saludable! program can be implemented by community groups and medical centers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02780271, registered May 2016.

Risk of cardiovascular intervention after androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer patients with a prior history of ischemic cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease: A nationwide population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer is known to increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, but there is controversy regarding the cardiovascular risk in patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease. This study assessed the risk of cardiovascular intervention after androgen deprivation therapy in patients with a history of cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, and cardiovascular intervention.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2008 and 2017, 195,308 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were identified from the nationwide claims database in South Korea. Among them, 49,090 men with a history of ischemic cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases were analyzed. The patients were divided into the androgen deprivation therapy (n = 14,092) and non-androgen deprivation therapy (n = 34,988) groups. The primary outcome was cardiovascular interventions (percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and coronary bypass surgery). Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to estimate the adjusted hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals of the events.

RESULTS

After balancing the covariates with 1:1 exact matching, the two groups had 10,514 subjects each. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that androgen deprivation therapy was not significantly associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular interventions (hazard ratio, 1.060; 95% confidence interval, 0.923-1.217; P = 0.4104), regardless of the duration of therapy. A history of cardiovascular intervention, diabetes mellitus, antithrombotic medication use, and cardiovascular events significantly increased the risk of cardiovascular intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Androgen deprivation therapy was not associated with cardiovascular intervention in patients with a previous history of cardiovascular disease, regardless of the duration of therapy. Therefore, the cardiovascular risk of androgen deprivation therapy should be reassessed in this population.

2020 Korean guidelines for the management of metastatic prostate cancer

In 2017, Korean Society of Medical Oncology (KSMO) published the Korean management guideline of metastatic prostate cancer. This paper is the 2nd edition of the Korean management guideline of metastatic prostate cancer. We updated recent many changes of management in metastatic prostate cancer in this 2nd edition guideline. The present guideline consists of the three categories: management of metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer; management of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer; and clinical consideration for treating patients with metastatic prostate cancer. In category 1 and 2, levels of evidence (LEs) have been mentioned according to the general principles of evidence-based medicine. And grades of recommendation (GR) was taken into account the quality of evidence, the balance between desirable and undesirable effects, the values and preferences, and the use of resources and GR were divided into strong recommendations (SR) and weak recommendations (WR). A total of 16 key questions are selected. And we proposed recommendations and described key evidence for each recommendation. The treatment landscape of metastatic prostate cancer is changing very rapid and many trials are ongoing. To verify the results of the future trials is necessary and should be applied to the treatment for metastatic prostate cancer patients in the clinical practice. Especially, many prostate cancer patients are old age, have multiple underlying medical comorbidities, clinicians should be aware of the significance of medical management as well as clinical efficacy of systemic treatment.

Risk of cardiovascular mortality with androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer: A secondary analysis of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

For men with radiation-managed prostate cancer, there is conflicting evidence regarding the association between androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and cardiovascular mortality (CVM), particularly among those who have with preexisting comorbidities. The objective of this study was to analyze the association between ADT and CVM across patient comorbidity status using prospectively collected data from a large clinical trial.

METHODS

In total, 1463 men were identified who were diagnosed with clinically localized, intermediate-risk/high-risk prostate cancer (T2b-T4, Gleason 7-10, or prostate-specific antigen >10 ng/mL) from 1993 to 2001 and managed with either radiation therapy (RT) alone or RT plus ADT during the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colon, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for cause-specific mortality (prostate cancer-specific mortality vs other-cause mortality-including the primary end point of CVM [death from ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular accident, or other circulatory disease]) were determined using Fine and Gray competing-risk regression analysis and stratified by comorbidity history.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the risk of 5-year CVM between ADT plus RT and RT alone (2.3% vs 3.3%, respectively; aHR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.38-1.24; P = .21) overall or on subgroup analysis among men with a history of ≥1 preexisting comorbidities (3.2% vs 5.3%, respectively; aHR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.43-1.60; P = .58), ≥2 preexisting comorbidities (6.9% vs 8.3%, respectively; aHR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.40-2.25; P = .90), or cardiovascular disease/risk factors (3.6% vs 4.3%, respectively; aHR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.44-1.65; P = .63). These results were all similar when each component of CVM was analyzed separately-either cardiac, stroke, or other vascular mortality (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides prospectively collected evidence that the use of ADT plus RT, compared with RT alone, is not associated with an increased risk of CVM, even among subgroups of men who have preexisting comorbidities and cardiovascular disease.

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

NA

The Value of Real-World Data in Understanding Prostate Cancer Risk and Improving Clinical Care: Examples from Swedish Registries

Simple Summary

Real-world data (RWD), i.e., data reflecting normal clinical practice collected outside the constraints of randomised controlled trials, provide important insights into our understanding of prostate cancer and its management. Clinical cancer registries are an important source of RWD. Depending on their scope and the potential linkage to other data sources, registry-based data can be utilised to address a variety of questions including risk factors, healthcare utilisation, treatment effectiveness, adverse effects, disparities in healthcare access, quality of care and healthcare economics. This review describes the various registry-based RWD sources for prostate cancer research in Sweden (namely the National Prostate Cancer Register, the Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden (PCBaSe) and the Patient-overview Prostate Cancer) and documents their utility for better understanding prostate cancer aetiology and improving clinical care.

Abstract

Real-world data (RWD), that is, data from sources other than controlled clinical trials, play an increasingly important role in medical research. The development of quality clinical registers, increasing access to administrative data sources, growing computing power and data linkage capacities have contributed to greater availability of RWD. Evidence derived from RWD increases our understanding of prostate cancer (PCa) aetiology, natural history and effective management. While randomised controlled trials offer the best level of evidence for establishing the efficacy of medical interventions and making causal inferences, studies using RWD offer complementary evidence about the effectiveness, long-term outcomes and safety of interventions in real-world settings. RWD provide the only means of addressing questions about risk factors and exposures that cannot be “controlled”, or when assessing rare outcomes. This review provides examples of the value of RWD for generating evidence about PCa, focusing on studies using data from a quality clinical register, namely the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) Sweden, with longitudinal data on advanced PCa in Patient-overview Prostate Cancer (PPC) and data linkages to other sources in Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden (PCBaSe).

Reduced Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Increased Cardiovascular Mortality After Prolonged Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Background

Prolonged androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is favored over short-term use in patients with localized high-risk prostate cancer (PC).

Objectives

This study sought to compare cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and cardiovascular (CV) mortality among patients with PC with and without ADT exposure and to explore how duration of ADT exposure influences CRF and CV mortality.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study of patients referred for exercise treadmill testing (ETT) after a PC diagnosis. PC risk classification was based on Gleason score (GS): high risk if GS ≥8; intermediate risk if GS = 7; and low risk if GS <7. CRF was categorized by metabolic equivalents (METs): METs >8 defined as good CRF and METs ≤8 as reduced CRF. ADT exposure was categorized as short term (≤6 months) versus prolonged (>6 months).

Results

A total of 616 patients underwent an ETT a median of 4.8 years (interquartile range: 2.0, 7.9 years) after PC diagnosis. Of those, 150 patients (24.3%) received ADT prior to the ETT; 99 with short-term and 51 with prolonged exposure. 504 patients (81.8%) had ≥2 CV risk factors. Prolonged ADT was associated with reduced CRF (odds ratio [OR]: 2.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.31 to 5.61; p = 0.007) and increased CV mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.87; 95% CI: 1.16 to 12.96; p = 0.028) in adjusted analyses. Although the association between short-term ADT exposure and reduced CRF was of borderline significance (OR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.00 to 2.94; p = 0.052), there was no association with CV mortality (HR: 1.60; 95% CI: 0.51 to 5.01; p = 0.420) in adjusted Cox regression models.

Conclusions

Among patients with PC and high baseline CV risk, prolonged ADT exposure was associated with reduced CRF and increased CV mortality.

Does androgen-deprivation therapy increase the risk of ischemic cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases in patients with prostate cancer? A nationwide population-based cohort study

PURPOSE

We investigated whether ADT use was associated with the risk of ischemic cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and cerebrovascular diseases (CrVD) in a nationwide population-based cohort.

METHODS

Claims data of the Health Insurance and Review Assessment system in South Korea were used. In total, 195,308 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2017 were identified. After applying the exclusion criteria, 131,189 men were enrolled. The study cohort was divided into ADT and non-ADT groups. Study outcomes were newly developed CVD, cardiovascular intervention (CVI), and CrVD. To control for potential confounders, various cardiovascular risk factors were balanced between groups. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of events.

RESULTS

Univariable analysis revealed that ADT was significantly associated with an increased risk of CVD and CrVD. Multivariable analysis did not reveal this association. In the propensity score matched cohort (n = 61,722), multivariable analysis demonstrated that ADT independently reduced the risk of CVD (HR 0.890; 95% CI 0.846-0.936; p < 0.0001), CVI (HR 0.873; 95% CI 0.770-0.991; p = 0.0352), and CrVD (HR 0.869; 95% CI 0.824-0.917; p < 0.0001). CVD risk was significantly decreased in patients using ADT for over 2 years. CVI and CrVD risks were significantly lower in men using ADT for over 3 years.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that ADT may reduce the risk of CVD, CVI, and CrVD, and ADT duration is associated with this risk reduction.

Risk of Ischemic Heart Disease and Stroke in Prostate Cancer Survivors: A Nationwide Study in South Korea

In this study using national health insurance data, we investigated the risk of ischemic heart disease (IHD) and stroke among prostate cancer (PC) survivors compared with the general population, as well as the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) according to primary treatment. A total of 48,298 PC patients diagnosed from 2007 to 2013 were included and matched to non-cancer controls. Compared to the general population, PC survivors had a slightly lower risk of IHD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83–0.96) or stroke (aHR 0.90, 95% CI 0.87–0.95). Especially, survivors who underwent surgery had lower risks of IHD (aHR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61–0.80) or stroke (aHR 0.73, 95% CI 0.67–0.81). Compared to survivors in the active surveillance/watchful waiting group, the androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) group had a significantly greater risk of stroke (aHR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02–1.32), but the IHD risk was not significantly elevated (aHR 1.06, 95% CI 0.88–1.29). In conclusion, PC survivors had a slightly lower risk of CVD compared to the general population, which was attributable to self-selection for PSA screening, specifically in the surgery-only group. CVD risk was dependent on treatment received, and attention should be given to patients who receive ADT.

Cardiovascular Risk Profile in Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with GnRH Agonists versus Antagonists: An Italian Real-World Analysis

Purpose

To evaluate and compare the incidence of cardiovascular (CV) events in a large contemporary cohort of patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) and in treatment with GnRH agonists or GnRH antagonists.

Patients and Methods

An Italian observational retrospective cohort study based on administrative databases of three local health units and two Regions was performed. PCa patients treated with GnRH agonists or antagonist were included between January 01, 2013 and December 31, 2016. Index date (ID) was the date of first GnRH agonist/antagonist prescription during inclusion period. Follow-up was from ID to December 31, 2017. Patients were excluded if they were under abiraterone treatment or combination therapy with antiandrogens during follow-up. The incidence rate of CV events (acute myocardial infarction, ischemic heart diseases, cerebrovascular diseases, cardiac dysrhythmias, heart failure, atherosclerosis, aneurism, other CV-related conditions) was calculated among patients not switching to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the overall cohort and in a sub-cohort of patients without previous CV events.

Results

In total, 9785 (mean age 76.8 ± 8.5) patients were included: 9158 (93.6%) were treated with a GnRH agonist and 627 (6.4%) with a GnRH antagonist. Of them, 9627 did not switch to ADT and were considered in the analyses. The incidence of CV events was significantly higher in patients treated with GnRH agonists rather than antagonists (8.8 vs 6.2, p=0.002). Mean time to CV event was beyond 1 year of treatment in both groups. In the multivariable regression analysis, the risk of experiencing CV events was significantly lower in patients treated with GnRH antagonist rather than those treated with GnRH agonists [HR (95% CI): 0.76 (0.60-0.95), p=0.018]. These findings were confirmed in the sub-cohort of patients without previous CV events.

Conclusion

This Italian observational study shows that most patients received a GnRH agonist rather than a GnRH antagonist prescription. GnRH antagonist seems to have a better CV risk profile than GnRH agonist, both in patients with and without a history of CV events.

Clinical Outcomes of Dose-escalated Radiotherapy for Localised Prostate Cancer: A Single-institution Experience

BACKGROUND/AIM

To report the outcomes of patients with prostate cancer treated with dose-escalated radiotherapy over a 15-year period at our Institution.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with biopsy-proven cT1-4N0M0 disease who received radical external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) were reviewed. The endpoints were 5-year overall survival (OS), freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) and late treatment toxicities.

RESULTS

A total of 236 patients were eligible. Median follow-up was 70 months. Low-, intermediate- and high-risk disease was found in 9%; 29% and 62% of patients, respectively. The median radiation dose was 73.8 Gy. Overall 42% of patients had dose escalation to >74 Gy. Five-year OS and FFBF were 95.2%/81.6%/75.4% and 95.0%/98.0%/82.0% for low-/intermediate-/high-risk patients, respectively. Dose escalation to >74 Gy did not improve FFBF (hazard ratio=0.97, 95% confidence intervaI=0.43-2.19, p=0.93) and was associated with a 4.3-fold increase in the odds of grade 3 or more rectal bleeding (p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Dose escalation to >74 Gy did not improve OS or FFBF but was associated with a higher rate of grade 3 or more rectal haemorrhage.

The Use of Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonist Does Not Affect the Development of Cardiovascular Disease in Prostate Cancer Patients: a Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to investigate whether androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) in prostate cancer (Pca) patients is associated with cardiovascular disease in the cohort based from the entire Korean population.

METHODS

Using the Korean National Health Insurance database, we conducted an observational study of 579,377 men who sought treatment for Pca between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2016. After excluding patients with previously diagnosed cardiovascular disease or who had undergone chemotherapy, we extracted the data from 2,053 patients who started GnRHa (GnRHa users) and 2,654 men who were newly diagnosed with Pca (GnRHa nonusers) between July 1, 2012, and December 31, 2012, with follow-up through December 31, 2016. The primary outcomes were cerebrovascular attack (CVA) and ischemic heart disease (IHD).

RESULTS

GnRHa users were older, were more likely to reside in rural areas, had lower socioeconomic status, and had more comorbidities than nonusers (all P < 0.050). Although GnRHa users had an increased incidence of CVA and IHD (P = 0.013 and 0.048, respectively) in univariate analysis, GnRHa use was not associated with the outcomes in multivariate analysis. Furthermore, the cumulative duration of ADT was not associated with the outcomes whereas the associations between age at diagnosis with all diseases were significant.

CONCLUSION

Our complete enumeration of the Korean Pca population shows that ADT is not associated with increased risks of cardiovascular disease.

Is androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer associated with cardiovascular disease? A meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is widely being applied in men who suffered from prostate cancer. Whether androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is associated with an increased risk of developing cardiovascular-related disease is poorly defined.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present meta-analysis is to explore the relationship between ADT and the risk of cardiac events. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched databases from inception to April 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCT) or observational studies that reported data on ADT administration and cardiac event incidence. The connection was evaluated through estimating relative risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A significantly increased acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was detected in the ADT group compared with the control group (RR = 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02-1.39, P < .05). A significant difference between cardiovascular disease (CVD) and ADT was also observed, with summary RR = 1.25, 95% CI, 1.11-1.40, P < .05. Furthermore, our study also suggested ADT was not related to increased incidence of sudden cardiac death (SCD) (RR = 1.13, 95% CI, 0.92-1.38, P = .24); AMI and CVD were not connected with the duration of ADT (AMI: RR = 1.31; 95% CI, 0.66-2.63, P = .44, for > 5 year group; CVD: RR = 1.12, 95% CI, 0.97-1.30, P = .12, for > 5 year group). In addition, the RR for risk of CVD was 1.28 (95% CI, 1.01-1.62, P < .05) for men with PCa on new hormonal agents.

DISCUSSION

Various ADT modalities have different impact on cardiovascular disease risk in different level. Long-term application of ADT is not associated with increased risk of AMI and CVD. Both abiraterone and enzalutamide could significantly increase the incidence of cardiac events in patients who suffered from prostate cancer. Cautions and periodic cardiovascular elevation are necessary for patients before the ADT starting.

CONCLUSIONS

Androgen deprivation therapy is associated with increased risk of AMI, CHD, in contrast, this association is not detected in SCD.

CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES AND ANDROGEN DEPRIVATION THERAPY

The leading cause of death in patients with prostate cancer are cardiovascular diseases. Androgen deprivation therapy is the mainstay of treatment in prostate cancers. The latter has numerous perplexed disadvantaging effects to cardiovascular health. ADT alternates the metabolic profile, insulin resistance and glucose metabolism, causes loss of lean body mass, an increase in adipose tissue, obesity, worsening of atherosclerosis and heart failure. It is important to point out that prostate cancer survivors have increased prevalence of coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular stroke, myocardial infarctions and cardiovascular mortality. Due to these reasons particular care on prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases should become a standard of care in patients with prostate cancer.

Lipid Status During Combined Treatment in Prostate Cancer Patients

The aim of this study was to provide a specific review of current medical literature regarding the lipid profile during prostate carcinoma (PCa) treatment. The main aim was to analyze the results presented by different authors and to find a commonality in the changes occurring during the treatment-hormonotherapy. The levels of total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol were measured before and after the follow-up treatment. The manuscripts reviewed came from the period between 2008 and 2016. The size of the studies ranged from 16 participants to 310. The mean age was from 65 to 74 years in all studies. The Q test was used to attain all lipid parameters and to specify heterogeneity (p < .0001). After 12 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), the patients had a significantly higher level serum TC and TG.

Clinical studies investigating the use of leuprorelin for prostate cancer in Asia

Background

Leuprorelin is a well-established treatment for prostate cancer (PCa); however, there is limited information on its use in Asian males. This review of English language publications between January 2000 and 2016 describes the outcomes of clinical trials on leuprorelin in Asian males with PCa of any grade, stage, or histopathology.

Methods

The literature search was undertaken using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases.

Results

We identified nine studies from Japan, two studies from South Korea, and one international, multisite study which included Asian sites, with a total of 1,652 males previously diagnosed with PCa. All studies included subcutaneous or depot administration of leuprorelin at varying dose levels including 3.75 mg four weekly, 11.25 mg 12 weekly, or 22.5 mg every 12 or 24 weeks. Leuprorelin was administered as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy or hormonal therapy. Leuprorelin appears well tolerated in Asian males and is effective in reducing serum testosterone to castration levels (<50 ng/dL (<1.7 nmol/L)) and prostate-specific antigen levels. Common adverse events included hot flushes and mild hepatic dysfunction. Leuprorelin was shown to provide reasonable survival rates in PCa (T1b-T3N0M0) and in metastatic disease; another reasonable option for these patients is radiation therapy. Leuprorelin treatment also improved the quality of life.

Conclusion

Leuprorelin may be an appropriate and efficacious treatment for males with PCa (T1b-T3N0M0). Leuprorelin treatment was well tolerated and associated with improvement in the quality of life.

The role of radiotherapy in localised and locally advanced prostate cancer

For a patient suffering from non-metastatic prostate cancer, the individualized recommendation of radiotherapy has to be the fruit of a multidisciplinary approach in the context of a Tumor Board, to be explained carefully to the patient to obtain his informed consent. External beam radiotherapy is now delivered by intensity modulated radiotherapy, considered as the gold standard. From a radiotherapy perspective, low-risk localized prostate cancer is treated by image guided intensity modulated radiotherapy, or brachytherapy if patients meet the required eligibility criteria. Intermediate-risk patients may benefit from intensity modulated radiotherapy combined with 4–6 months of androgen deprivation therapy; intensity modulated radiotherapy alone or combined with brachytherapy can be offered to patients unsuitable for androgen deprivation therapy due to co-morbidities or unwilling to accept it to preserve their sexual health. High-risk prostate cancer, i.e. high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer, requires intensity modulated radiotherapy with long-term (≥2 years) androgen deprivation therapy with luteinizing hormone releasing hormone agonists. Post-operative irradiation, either immediate or early deferred, is proposed to patients classified as pT3pN0, based on surgical margins, prostate-specific antigen values and quality of life. Whatever the techniques and their degree of sophistication, quality assurance plays a major role in the management of radiotherapy, requiring the involvement of physicians, physicists, dosimetrists, radiation technologists and computer scientists. The patients must be informed about the potential morbidity of radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy and followed regularly during and after treatment for tertiary prevention and evaluation. A close cooperation is needed with general practitioners and specialists to prevent and mitigate side effects and maintain quality of life.

Retrospective Analysis of Patients With Prostate Cancer Initiating GnRH Agonists/Antagonists Therapy Using a German Claims Database: Epidemiological and Patient Outcomes

Objective: The objective of this study was to obtain real-world information on gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist (GnRHa) therapy in patients with advanced prostate cancer (PCa).

Materials and methods: Anonymized, routine healthcare claims data from approx. 75 German statutory health insurance funds from 2010–2015 (n = 4,205,227) were analyzed. Patients had an enrolment of 1 year before GnRHa, 1 index quarter of initial GnRHa prescription and ≥2 years of follow-up.

Results: In total, 2,382 patients with PCa were eligible. The most frequent index therapy was leuprolide in 56.6%. The rank order of PCa comorbidity prevalence was consistent over time (% at index and 3-years of follow-up): hypertension (71.5; 85.0), hyperlipidemia (45.2; 60.8), cardiovascular disease (CVD) (35.7; 54.1), and diabetes (28.3; 36.2). Comparing pooled therapy classes (agonists, hybrids, and antagonist), no significant differences in the incidence of CVD or diabetes were observed. For hypertension, there was a significant increase for agonists (16.4%) compared to antagonists (6.9%, p = 0.022) and leuprolide hybrid group (11.6%, p = 0.006). During the follow-up period 23.9% of all PCa patients died. There were no significant differences concerning mortality rate and discontinuation rates between the cohorts. In total, 11.2% of all patients discontinued GnRHa after first prescription; the mean time to first switch to another GnRHa therapy was 100 days earlier for hybrids than for agonists (p = 0.016).

Conclusion: This comparative retrospective analysis provides real-world information about healthcare characteristics and treatment patterns, highlighting the impact of different GnRHa on clinical outcomes for patients with advanced PCa in Germany.

Protocol for a phase III RCT and economic analysis of two exercise delivery methods in men with PC on ADT

BACKGROUND

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is commonly used to treat prostate cancer. However, side effects of ADT often lead to reduced quality of life and physical function. Existing evidence demonstrates that exercise can ameliorate multiple treatment-related side effects for men on ADT, yet adherence rates are often low. The method of exercise delivery (e.g., supervised group in-centre vs. individual home-based) may be important from clinical and economic perspectives; however, few studies have compared different delivery models. Additionally, long-term exercise adherence and an understanding of predictors of adherence are critical to achieving sustained benefits, but such data are lacking. The primary aim of this multi-centre phase III non-inferiority randomized controlled trial is to determine whether a home-based delivery model is non-inferior to a group-based delivery model in terms of benefits in fatigue and fitness in this population. Two other key aims include examining cost-effectiveness and long-term adherence.

METHODS

Men diagnosed with prostate cancer of any stage, starting or continuing on ADT for at least 6 months, fluent in English, and living close to a study centre are eligible. Participants complete five assessments over 12 months (baseline and every 3 months during the 6-month intervention and 6-month follow-up phases), including a fitness assessment and self-report questionnaires. Biological outcomes are collected at baseline, 6, and 12 months. A total of 200 participants will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to supervised group training or home-based training supported by smartphones, health coaches, and Fitbit technology. Participants are asked to complete 4 to 5 exercise sessions per week, incorporating aerobic, resistance and flexibility training. Outcomes include fatigue, quality of life, fitness measures, body composition, biological outcomes, and program adherence. Cost information will be obtained using patient diary-based self-report and utilities via the EQ-5D.

DISCUSSION

To disseminate publicly funded exercise programs widely, clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness have to be demonstrated. The goals of this trial are to provide these data along with an increased understanding of adherence to exercise among men with prostate cancer receiving ADT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov (Registration # NCT02834416 ). Registration date was June 2, 2016.

Adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer treated with radiation therapy

Radiation therapy is a commonly used curative modality for prostate cancer. The addition of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) increases the curative potential of prostate radiotherapy (RT) in multiple subsets of patients. In addition to having an independent cytotoxic effect, current evidence suggests that androgen deprivation synergistically works with radiation therapy by preventing DNA repair. Given the wide-ranging toxicities of this therapy, clinicians must judiciously choose which patients may benefit from ADT and also consider the appropriate length of treatment. With recent advances in RT delivery, higher doses of radiation are currently used when compared with the dose used in historic trials, leading to the unanswered question of how RT dose interacts with ADT. Current and future clinical studies are attempting to further define the appropriate indications and patient populations for which ADT represents a clinically appropriate addition to prostate RT.

Are all gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists equivalent for the treatment of prostate cancer? A systematic review

To review direct comparative studies of the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists goserelin, triptorelin, and leuprorelin for the treatment of prostate cancer, and identify whether there are meaningful clinical differences between these agents. In June 2017, the following searches were performed independently by two reviewers in PubMed: (i) 'prostate cancer' and 'triptorelin' and 'leuprorelin', (ii) 'prostate cancer' and 'triptorelin' and 'goserelin', and (iii) 'prostate cancer' and 'goserelin' and 'leuprorelin', without time restriction. Duplicates were deleted. Relevant conference abstracts were also screened. A total of 16 direct comparative trials were identified: 12 reported on efficacy outcomes, four on safety/tolerability, and five on the convenience of administration/user perceptions. These studies are restricted in terms of patient numbers, formulations assessed, and endpoints measured; none were adequately powered for survival outcome measures. Studies reporting on efficacy endpoints did not show major differences in the ability of these GnRH agonists to reduce levels of testosterone or prostate-specific antigen. Some studies suggest differences in short- or long-term testosterone control, the rate of injection site adverse events, and patient/healthcare professional perceptions, but definitive conclusions cannot be drawn from the existing evidence. Few direct comparative trials of GnRH agonists have been conducted. Whilst GnRH agonists provide a similar castration effect, there is not enough evidence to show that GnRH agonists are equivalent.

Radiotherapy and Hormone Treatment in Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer has the highest incidence of any type of cancer in Germany; an estimated 67 000 new diagnoses of prostate cancer will be made in 2016. In the current German S3 guideline for the treatment of prostate cancer, radiotherapy-sometimes in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)-is one of the two recommended options for treatment with curative intent (the other is radical prostatectomy). There have been many publications on this subject, yet it is still often unclear in routine practice how ADT should be administered, and for how long.

METHODS

This review is based on publications retrieved by a selective literature search, with special attention to controlled trials.

RESULTS

For low risk patients, radiotherapy without ADT is indicated (evidence level 1). Patients with localized prostate cancer and an intermediate risk benefit from radiotherapy combined with a four-to-six-month course of ADT. In this situation, a higher radiation dose might be an effective substitute for ADT (evidence level 1-2). For patients at high risk, radiotherapy combined with long-term hormonal treatment is the standard therapy, as it significantly improves all oncological end points (evidence level 1). For example, in the largest randomized and controlled trial, this form of treatment reduced cancer-specific mortality from 19% to 9% . Higher radiation doses of 66-74 Gy and longer ADT can improve local control at the cost of increased urethral toxicity.

CONCLUSION

Androgen deprivation combined with external beam radiotherapy is a curative standard option for patients with prostate cancer who are at high risk of recurrence. The modern radiotherapeutic techniques that are now available, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy, enable a further improvement of the risk/benefit ratio.

Current and future strategies for the nutritional management of cardiometabolic complications of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is used widely as part of a combined modality for the treatment of prostate cancer. However, ADT has also been associated with the development of cardiometabolic complications that can increase mortality from cardiovascular events. There is emerging evidence to suggest that ADT-related cardiometabolic risk can be mitigated by diet and lifestyle modification. While the clinical focus for a nutritional approach for achieving this effect is unclear, it may depend upon the timely assessment and targeting of dietary changes to the specific risk phenotype of the patient. The present review aims to address the metabolic origins of ADT-related cardiometabolic risk, existing evidence for the effects of dietary intervention in modifying this risk, and the priorities for future dietary strategies.

Select men benefit from androgen deprivation therapy delivered with salvage radiation therapy after prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Which men benefit most from adding androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to salvage radiation therapy (SRT) after prostatectomy has not clearly been defined; therefore, we evaluated the impact of ADT to SRT on failure-free survival (FFS) in men with a rising or persistent PSA after prostatectomy.

METHODS

We identified 332 men who received SRT after prostatectomy from 1987 to 2010. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) identified favorable, intermediate and unfavorable groups based on the risk of failure after SRT alone. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests compared FFS with and without ADT.

RESULTS

Forty-three percent received SRT alone and 57% received SRT with ADT (median 6.6 months (interquartile range (IQR) 5.8-18.1) ADT). Median SRT dose was 70 Gy (IQR 70-70), and median follow-up after SRT was 6.7 years (IQR 4.5-10.8). On Cox's proportional hazard regression, ADT improved FFS (adjusted hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval: 0.42-0.86; P=0.006). RPA classified unfavorable disease as negative surgical margins (SMs) and preradiation PSA of ⩾0.5 ng ml^-1. Favorable disease had neither adverse factor, and intermediate disease had one adverse factor. The addition of ADT to SRT improved 5-year FFS for men with unfavorable disease (70.3% vs 23.4%; P<0.001) and intermediate disease (69.8% vs 48.0%; P=0.003), but not for men with favorable disease (81.2% vs 78.0%; P=0.971).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of ADT to SRT appears to improve FFS for men with a preradiation PSA of ⩾0.5 ng ml^-1 or with negative SM at prostatectomy. Men with involved surgical margins and PSA <0.5 ng ml^-1 appear to be at a lower risk of failure after SRT alone and may not derive as much benefit from the administration of ADT with SRT. These results are hypothesis-generating only, and further prospective data are required to see if ADT can safely be omitted in this select group of men.

Approach to Androgen Deprivation in the Prostate Cancer Patient with Pre-existing Cardiovascular Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a mainstay of treatment for advanced prostate cancer. Several studies have reported an association between ADT and an increase in cardiovascular events, especially in those receiving gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists compared to GnRH antagonists. We review the body of literature reporting the association of ADT and cardiovascular morbidity, and discuss the proposed mechanism of cardiovascular disease due to ADT including metabolic changes that may promote atherosclerosis and local hormonal effects that may increase plaque rupture and thrombosis.

RECENT FINDINGS

GnRH agonists appear to increase the risk of cardiovascular morbidity by 20-25% in men on these agents compared those who do not receive ADT. GnRH antagonists may appear to have halve this risk while improving PSA progression-free survival. GnRH antagonists may be superior to GnRH agonists for patients with significant cardiovascular disease, significant metastatic disease burden, or severe lower urinary tract symptoms.

Radiation with or without Antiandrogen Therapy in Recurrent Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Salvage radiation therapy is often necessary in men who have undergone radical prostatectomy and have evidence of prostate-cancer recurrence signaled by a persistently or recurrently elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level. Whether antiandrogen therapy with radiation therapy will further improve cancer control and prolong overall survival is unknown.

METHODS

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from 1998 through 2003, we assigned 760 eligible patients who had undergone prostatectomy with a lymphadenectomy and had disease, as assessed on pathological testing, with a tumor stage of T2 (confined to the prostate but with a positive surgical margin) or T3 (with histologic extension beyond the prostatic capsule), no nodal involvement, and a detectable PSA level of 0.2 to 4.0 ng per milliliter to undergo radiation therapy and receive either antiandrogen therapy (24 months of bicalutamide at a dose of 150 mg daily) or daily placebo tablets during and after radiation therapy. The primary end point was the rate of overall survival.

RESULTS

The median follow-up among the surviving patients was 13 years. The actuarial rate of overall survival at 12 years was 76.3% in the bicalutamide group, as compared with 71.3% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.59 to 0.99; P=0.04). The 12-year incidence of death from prostate cancer, as assessed by means of central review, was 5.8% in the bicalutamide group, as compared with 13.4% in the placebo group (P<0.001). The cumulative incidence of metastatic prostate cancer at 12 years was 14.5% in the bicalutamide group, as compared with 23.0% in the placebo group (P=0.005). The incidence of late adverse events associated with radiation therapy was similar in the two groups. Gynecomastia was recorded in 69.7% of the patients in the bicalutamide group, as compared with 10.9% of those in the placebo group (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of 24 months of antiandrogen therapy with daily bicalutamide to salvage radiation therapy resulted in significantly higher rates of long-term overall survival and lower incidences of metastatic prostate cancer and death from prostate cancer than radiation therapy plus placebo. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca; RTOG 9601 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00002874 .).

Screening and Treating Prostate Cancer in the Older Patient: Decision Making Across the Clinical Spectrum

Treatment of the growing geriatric patient population is increasingly being recognized as a necessary priority of the oncology community. As the most common cancer among men in developed countries, prostate cancer afflicts a sizable portion of elderly men. Caring for this population requires knowledge of aspects of disease presentation, screening strategies, treatment approaches, and survivorship care considerations unique to the geriatric population. In this article, we review characteristics of prostate cancer screening and treatment decision making for localized disease in elderly men, including a discussion of the biology of disease in the elderly population. We also review best practices for providing treatment for localized and recurrent disease in an elderly population, including engaging in a basic geriatric assessment to determine fitness for treatment, eliciting information about patient preferences and support systems, and balancing treatment decisions in the context of these factors using the resources of a multidisciplinary care team. We then consider complications of prostate cancer survivorship related to systemic treatment in the elderly population of men with this disease. Finally, we emphasize the importance of engaging patients in treatment decision making across the spectrum of disease to personalize treatment plans and provide optimal care.

Weighing Risk of Cardiovascular Mortality Against Potential Benefit of Hormonal Therapy in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer

Background

The purpose of this study is to determine the optimal strategy for men with newly diagnosed intermediate-risk prostate cancer by age and cardiac risk.

Methods

A Markov model was calibrated to the EORTC 22991 trial, which randomly assigned men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer to radiation therapy (RT) with or without six months of hormonal therapy (HT). We compared quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in men age 50, 60, and 70 years by age decile and cardiac risk group. Competing risks of cardiovascular mortality were estimated from the published literature. Sensitivity analyses were used to assess the impact of varying model assumptions.

Results

HT was associated with a net decrease of 0.3 to 0.4 QALYs in men with a history of myocardial infarction. However, for all other men, HT improved QALYs (range = 0.4-2.6 QALYs). Younger men with fewer cardiac risk factors experienced the largest benefit from HT. In sensitivity analyses, the model was only found to be sensitive to the probability of biochemical failure. Men at low risk for biochemical failure (≤8.7% at five years) did not benefit from HT. Further, the benefits of HT did not begin to manifest until after 7.3 years of follow-up.

Conclusions

The optimal choice of therapy depends upon age, cardiac risk, and disease recurrence risk. Young men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer with no cardiac risk factors benefit most from HT. Men with a history of myocardial infarction who are at very low risk for biochemical failure may be negatively impacted by the addition of HT.

Integrating diet and exercise into care of prostate cancer patients on androgen deprivation therapy

Improved diagnosis and treatment regimens have resulted in greater longevity for men with prostate cancer. This has led to an increase in both androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use and duration of exposure, and therefore to its associated adverse effects, such as sexual dysfunction, osteoporosis, reduced muscle mass, increased fat mass, and increased incidence of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Given that the adverse effects of ADT are systemic, often debilitating, and difficult to treat, efforts continue in the development of new strategies for long-term management of prostate cancer. The PubMed database was searched to select trials, reviews, and meta-analyses in English using such search terms as "prostate cancer" and "androgen deprivation therapy", "cardiovascular risk", "lean body mass", "exercise", and "diet". The initial searches produced 379 articles with dates 2005 or more recent. Articles published after 2004 were favored. This review utilizes the latest data to provide a status update on the effects of exercise and diet on patients with prostate cancer, focusing on ADT-associated side effects, and it discusses the evidence for such interventions. Since the evidence of large-scale trials in patients with prostate cancer is missing, and an extrapolation of supporting data to all patient subgroups cannot be provided, individualized risk assessments remain necessary before the initiation of exercise and diet programs. Exercise, diet, and nutritional supplementation interventions have the potential to provide effective, accessible, and relatively inexpensive strategies for mitigating ADT-associated toxicities without introducing additional adverse effects.

[Cardiovascular risks with prostate cancer hormonal treatment: rationale for a department of oncocardiology]

Prostate cancer, the most frequent cancer in man, is an adenocarcinoma sensible to chemical castration in more than 80% of cases due to its hormonal dependency. Androgen deprivation is the treatment for advanced cancer and can be associated with radiotherapy locally or in locally advanced situations. Multidisciplinary therapeutic choice depends on patient age and co-morbidities and clinical stage. The impact of hormonal treatment confers varied side effects and cardiovascular effects are now better known. Responsible mechanisms of this cardiotoxicity are at the same time direct but also indirect by metabolic thermogenic effects. Analysis of these clinical or biological effects, their correlations to the used type of hormonal treatment and the possible precautions of prescription will be detailed in this analysis of the literature. The collaboration of the oncologist or the urologist with the cardiologist becomes necessary and the existence of a unit of oncocardiology could improve the evaluation of the risk-benefit balance and the tolerance of the treatment.

Late Radiation and Cardiovascular Adverse Effects After Androgen Deprivation and High-Dose Radiation Therapy in Prostate Cancer: Results From the DART 01/05 Randomized Phase 3 Trial

PURPOSE

To present data on the late toxicity endpoints of a randomized trial (DART 01/05) conducted to determine whether long-term androgen deprivation (LTAD) was superior to short-term AD (STAD) when combined with high-dose radiation therapy (HDRT) in patients with prostate cancer (PCa).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between November 2005 and December 2010, 355 eligible men with cT1c-T3aN0M0 PCa and intermediate-risk and high-risk factors (2005 National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria) were randomized to 4 months of AD combined with HDRT (median dose, 78 Gy) (STAD) or the same treatment followed by 24 months of AD (LTAD). Treatment-related complications were assessed using European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0 scoring schemes. Multivariate analyses for late toxicity were done using the Fine-Gray method.

RESULTS

The 5-year incidence of grade ≥2 rectal and urinary toxicity was 11.1% and 8.2% for LTAD and 7.6% and 7.3% for STAD, respectively. Compared with STAD, LTAD was not significantly associated with a higher risk of late grade ≥2 rectal toxicity (hazard ratio [HR] 1.360, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.660-2.790, P=.410) or urinary toxicity (HR 1.028, 95% CI 0.495-2.130, P=.940). The multivariate analysis showed that a baseline history of intestinal comorbidity (HR 3.510, 95% CI 1.560-7.930, P=.025) and the rectal volume receiving >60 Gy (Vr60) (HR 1.030, 95% CI 1.001-1.060, P=.043) were the only factors significantly correlated with the risk of late grade ≥2 rectal complications. A history of previous surgical prostate manipulations was significantly associated with a higher risk of grade ≥2 urinary complications (HR 2.427, 95% CI 1.051-5.600, P=.038). Long-term AD (HR 2.090; 95% CI 1.170-3.720, P=.012) and a history of myocardial infarction (HR 2.080; 95% CI 1.130-3.810, P=.018) were significantly correlated with a higher probability of cardiovascular events.

CONCLUSION

Long-term AD did not significantly impact urinary or rectal radiation-induced toxicity, although it was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events. Longer follow-up is needed to measure the impact of AD on late morbidity and non-PCa mortality.

[Cardiovascular risk of androgen deprivation therapy for treatment of hormone-dependent prostate cancer : Differences between GnRH antagonists and GnRH agonists]

BACKGROUND

Several studies have indicated that reduction of testosterone levels in patients with prostate cancer undergoing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists can be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. The GnRH antagonists have a different mode of action compared with GnRH agonists and may be preferred in ADT for patients with cardiovascular disease.

OBJECTIVE

This review article discusses potential mechanisms underlying the development of cardiovascular events associated with ADT when using GnRH agonists and explains the differences in mode of action between GnRH agonists and GnRH antagonists. Additionally, relevant studies are presented and practical recommendations for the clinical practice are provided.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A literature search was performed. Full publications and abstracts published in the last 10 years up to September 2015 were considered to be eligible.

RESULTS

The GnRH antagonists were associated with a decreased risk of cardiovascular events compared with GnRH agonists in prostate cancer patients undergoing ADT and particularly in patients with cardiovascular risk factors or a history of cardiovascular disease. This decrease may be due to the different mode of action of GnRH antagonists compared with GnRH agonists.

CONCLUSION

Prostate cancer patients with either cardiovascular disease or an increased risk of experiencing a cardiovascular event undergoing ADT should be preferentially treated with GnRH antagonists.

Metabolic syndrome in prostate cancer: impact on risk and outcomes

Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is a fundamental element of treatment for nonlocalized prostate cancer and for patients with high-risk disease who are not candidates for radical treatment. ADT has been linked to metabolic syndrome, which involves changes in metabolic factors. While distinct from classic metabolic syndrome, this type does include changes in body composition, lipid profiles and insulin resistance. The constellation of risk factors may be associated with cardiovascular morbidity and the onset of diabetes mellitus. Physicians should discuss in detail the risk and benefits of ADT, as well as any needed lifestyle modifications with patients before beginning therapy.