Successful Treatment of Metastatic Androgen-Independent Prostate Carcinoma in a Transsexual Patient

Prostate cancer in transgender women: A propensity score-matched analysis of disease severity and survival

BACKGROUND

Despite the rise in gender-affirming care, our understanding of prostate cancer (PCa) in transgender women (TGW) remains in its infancy. Health disparities and lack of PCa awareness and screening are possible barriers to providing quality care for this population. In addition, the implication of hormonal manipulation for the aggressiveness of PCa in TGW is yet to be determined. Here, this study sought to compare oncological characteristics and survival outcomes between transgender and cisgender (CG) patients with PCa via two national data sets.

METHODS

The Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure database (1999-2020) and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database (2010-2017) were reviewed. Demographic and clinical details were analyzed. Logistic regression analysis was performed on propensity score-matched groups to identify predictors of high-risk disease and metastasis in patients with PCa. Groups were matched 5:1 (CG:TGW) on the basis of age, race, year of diagnosis, and Charlson Comorbidity Index score. Primary outcomes included metastatic presentation, high-risk localized disease, overall survival (OS), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM).

RESULTS

A total of 1194 patients were included (199 TGW; 995 CG). Associations between transgender identity and metastatic presentation (odds ratio [OR], 0.38; p = .2), high-risk localized disease (OR, 1.19; p = .50), or PCSM (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; p = .3) were not detected. Transgender identity was associated with improved OS (HR, 0.67; p = .014).

CONCLUSIONS

PCa-specific outcomes seem comparable between TGW and CG men, although the study was underpowered to detect modest differences. Further investigation into the incidence and outcomes of PCa in TGW is warranted.

Gynecologic Care of Transgender and Gender-Diverse People

The visibility and care of transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) people is an important component of gynecology. Transmasculine individuals require routine gynecologic and preventative care. Guidelines can be extrapolated from the cisgender female population, and using affirming language, acknowledging the challenges patients face with pelvic examination, and discussing individual gynecologic needs are important components of care. Transmasculine patients may seek hysterectomy for gender affirmation from gynecologists. Unique nuances exist in the considerations needed when preparing for hysterectomy, and patients should be thoroughly counseled with regard to concurrent vaginectomy or oophorectomy or both. Transfeminine patients often seek gynecologic care after gender-affirming surgery, and, unlike transmasculine patients, the gynecology visit is often very affirming and welcomed by patients. Becoming familiar with the perioperative and delayed postoperative care needs of transfeminine patients undergoing vaginoplasty can help improve the care provided by gynecologists. In general, prospective data on the outcomes of gender-affirming care in large cohorts of TGD patients are limited, but the body of literature is growing. Gynecologists remain central to the care of TGD patients, the academic advancement of the field of transgender health, and the advocacy needed to support this vulnerable patient population.

Prostate Cancer in Transgender Women: Epidemiology, Clinical Characteristics, and Management Challenges

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To systematically review the evidence on prostate cancer (PCa) in transgender women (TGW).

RECENT FINDINGS

A total of 25 studies were included. Fourteen articles were case reports or case series describing 21 TGW with PCa; 11 papers focused primarily on assessing the incidence or screening of PCa in TGW. The median (range) age of patients with PCa was 63 (45-78) years. Median (range) PSA at diagnosis was 7.5 (0.4-1710) ng/mL. Prostate biopsy detected ISUP 3-5 in 10 (67%) cases. T3-4 stages were described in 7 (64%) patients. Three (14.3%) cases of nodal involvement and 2 (9.5%) of metastases were reported at diagnosis. First-line therapy included radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy ± androgen deprivation therapy in 14 (74 %) subjects. Median (range) follow-up was 24 (2-120) months. A good response to first-line therapy was recorded in 8 (47.1%) cases. Median (range) incidence of PCa in TGW was 44.1 (4.34-140) cases per 100,000 person-years. PCa was significantly less frequent in TGW than in cisgender males (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.9). Risk of death after PCa diagnosis was significantly higher in TGW compared to cisgender males (HR 1.91, 95% CI 1.06-3.45). TGW had lower lifetime PSA rates (48% vs. 64.6%, p = 0.048) than cisgender males. Few cases of PCa in TGW are currently reported. PCa seems significantly less frequent in TGW than in cisgender males; however, some data suggest a possible higher mortality in this cohort. TGW appear to have less access to PSA testing than cisgender men.

Cancer screening and management in the transgender population: Review of literature and special considerations for gender affirmation surgery

BACKGROUND

Literature focused on cancer screening and management is lacking in the transgender population.

AIM

To action to increase contributions to the scientific literature that drives the creation of cancer screening and management protocols for transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) patients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of PubMed on January 5th, 2022, with the following terms: "TGNC", OR "transgender", OR "gender non-conforming", OR "gender nonbinary" AND "cancer screening", AND "breast cancer", AND "cervical cancer", AND "uterine cancer", AND "ovarian cancer", AND "prostate cancer", AND "testicular cancer", AND "surveillance", AND "follow-up", AND "management". 70 unique publications were used. The findings are discussed under "Screening" and "Management" categories.

RESULTS

Screening: Current cancer screening recommendations default to cis-gender protocols. However, long-term gender-affirming hormone therapy and loss to follow-up from the gender-specific specialties contribute to a higher risk for cancer development and possible delayed detection. The only known screening guidelines made specifically for this population are from the American College of Radiology for breast cancer. Management: Prior to undergoing Gender Affirmation Surgery (GAS), discussion should address cancer screening and management in the organs remaining in situ. Cancer treatment in this population requires consideration for chemotherapy, radiation, surgery and/or reconstruction. Modification of hormone therapy is decided on a case-by-case basis. The use of prophylactic vs aesthetic techniques in surgery is still debated.

CONCLUSION

When assessing transgender individuals for GAS, a discussion on the future oncologic risk of the sex-specific organs remaining in situ is essential. Cancer management in this population requires a multidisciplinary approach while the care should be highly individualized with considerations to social, medical, surgical and gender affirming surgery related specifications. Special considerations have to be made during planning for GAS as surgery will alter the anatomy and may render the organ difficult to sample for screening purposes. A discussion with the patient regarding the oncologic risk of remaining organs is imperative prior to GAS. Other special considerations to screening such as the conscious or unconscious will to unassociated with their remaining organs is also a key point to address. We currently lack high quality studies pertinent to the cancer topic in the gender affirmation literature. Further research is required to ensure more comprehensive and individualized care for this population.

Prostate cancer in transgender women: considerations for screening, diagnosis and management

Transgender individuals represent 0.55% of the US population, equivalent to 1.4 million transgender adults. In transgender women, feminisation can include a number of medical and surgical interventions. The main goal is to deprive the phenotypically masculine body of androgens and simultaneously provide oestrogen therapy for feminisation. In gender-confirming surgery (GCS) for transgender females, the prostate is usually not removed. Due to limitations of existing cohort studies, the true incidence of prostate cancer in transgender females is unknown but is thought to be less than the incidence among cis-gender males. It is unclear how prostate cancer develops in androgen-deprived conditions in these patients. Six out of eleven case reports in the literature presented with metastatic disease. It is thought that androgen receptor-mediated mechanisms or tumour-promoting effects of oestrogen may be responsible. Due to the low incidence of prostate cancer identified in transgender women, there is little evidence to drive specific screening recommendations in this patient subpopulation. The treatment of early and locally advanced prostate cancer in these patients warrants an individualised thoughtful approach with input from patients' reconstructive surgeons. Both surgical and radiation treatment for prostate cancer in these patients can profoundly impact the patient's quality of life. In this review, we discuss the evidence surrounding screening and treatment of prostate cancer in transgender women and consider the current gaps in our knowledge in providing evidence-based guidance at the molecular, genomic and epidemiological level, for clinical decision-making in the management of these patients.

Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening in Transgender Patients

CONTEXT

Approximately 0.4-1.3% of the worldwide population is transgender. Although the exact prevalence is unknown, there is an increase in open identification as transgender. Among transgender women (TW), the prostate is retained even after gender-affirmation surgery, thus necessitating ongoing screening for prostate cancer (CaP). However, little is known about CaP screening in this population.

OBJECTIVE

To assess our current understanding of CaP incidence and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in TW.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We performed a nonsystematic narrative review of all PubMed publications through June 2022 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Given the limited primary research on this subject, case reports were also included. Studies were reviewed to understand PSA screening practices and reports of CaP in this population, as applicable.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

There is no consensus regarding PSA screening in TW from any of the major societies, and TW are largely absent from guidelines. Case report data suggest that TW with CaP may have more aggressive disease, and these cancers may have been pre-existing prior to present before gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) or be castrate-resistant.

CONCLUSIONS

We are in the infancy of our understanding of PSA screening in TW. Important avenues for future research include understanding the risks/benefits of PSA screening in TW, how best to mitigate potential negative psychological effects of PSA screening in TW, establishing baseline PSA values for those on GAHT (and determining what values should be considered "elevated"), establishing when to initiate PSA screening for those on GAHT, and establishing the accuracy of biomarkers for those undergoing GAHT.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We examined patterns of prostate cancer screening for transgender women. Little is known about prostate cancer incidence or screening in this population. Additional research is needed to establish guidelines for screening in this population.

The state of PSA counseling in male-to-female transgender patients in the U.S

BACKGROUND

Morbidity and mortality from prostate cancer (PCa) are known to vary heavily based on socioeconomic and demographic risk factors. We sought to describe prescreening PSA (prostate-specific antigen) counseling (PPC) rates amongst male-to-female transgender (MtF-TG) patients and non-TG patients using the behavioral risk factor surveillance system (BRFSS).

METHODS

We used the survey data from 2014, 2016, and 2018 BRFSS and included respondents aged 40-79 years who completed the "PCa screening" and "sexual orientation and gender identity" modules. We analyzed differences in age, education level, income level, marital status, and race/ethnicity using Pearson's χ² tests. The association of PPC with MtF-TG status and other patient characteristics was evaluated using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 175,383 respondents were included, of which 0.3% identified as MtF-TG. Overall, 62.4% of respondents reported undergoing PPC. On univariate analysis, PPC rates were lower among MtF-TG respondents when compared to the non-TG group (58.3% vs. 62.4%, p = 0.03). MtF-TG respondents were also more likely to report lower education level (p < 0.01), lower-income level (p < 0.01), and were less likely to be white (p < 0.01) than non-TG respondents. However, multivariate analysis adjusting for these respondent features demonstrated an association between higher income and higher education levels with increased odds of PPC, but no association was demonstrated between MtF-TG status and PPC rates. PPC rates for the MtF-TG and non-TG populations did not change significantly over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Although PPC was less frequently reported among MtF-TG respondents than in the non-TG group on univariate analysis, this association was not demonstrated when controlling for confounders, including education and income levels. Instead, on multivariate analysis, low education and income levels were more predictive of PPC rates. Further research is needed to ensure equivalent access to prescreening counseling for patients across the socioeconomic and gender identity spectrum.

Every urologist and oncologist should know about treating sexual and gender minority prostate cancer patients: translating research findings into clinical practice

In 2016, the NIH designated sexual and gender minorities (SGM) a health disparity population. The next year, the American Society of Clinical Oncology highlighted the need to improve the suboptimal cancer and survivorship care received by SGM populations. There are currently no evidence-based training programs in culturally competent care of prostate cancer patients who are gay, bisexual and/or transgender. In this selective review, we summarize findings from the largest quantitative studies focused on sexual minority prostate cancer survivors and from 65 interviews with NIH staff, clinicians, and cancer clinics in 11 US cities. The report is divided into three parts and uses a question and answer format to address 21 questions relevant to clinicians providing care to SGM prostate cancer patients. First, we identify population-specific issues that are culturally relevant in the care of SGM patients with prostate cancer. While a body of research has emerged on sexual minority prostate cancer patients, the literature on gender minorities is limited to single case reports and inadequate to inform practice. This review covers definitions, population size, cultural and historical context, sexual behavior, population invisibility, sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) in the electronic medical record, disparities and evidence of discrimination in treatment provision. The second part focuses on promoting evidence-informed, patient-centered care. This includes current practices in assessing sexual orientation, management of disclosure of sexual orientation, how to address common problems sexual minority men experience post-treatment, common questions sexual minority patients have, management of urinary incontinence, HIV and STI risk during and post-treatment, and sub-groups of sexual minority patients with worse outcomes. It then identifies how male partners differ in prostate cancer support, current research on rehabilitation for sexual minority men, issues in advanced prostate cancer, and things to avoid with minority patients. Finally, we examine the cultural divide between provider and patient, advocating for cultural humility when working with minority patients. Training programs and continuing education can help providers both to become more aware of their own cultural assumptions, informed about health disparities, and able to provide quality care, and to make clinics more welcoming to SGM patients.

Prostate cancer in transgender women: what does a urologist need to know?

OBJECTIVE

To review of the existing literature, current guidelines and standard of practice related to prostate cancer in transgender women, as the transgender population share many of the same healthcare needs as their cisgender counterparts, but may have additional specialist needs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a non-systematic review of the literature, current guidelines and standard of practice related to prostate cancer in transgender women.

RESULTS

Our search revealed 10 case reports of prostate cancer in transgender women, four specialist opinion papers, six cohort studies, and four systematic reviews. The information in these publications were assimilated to produce a review of prostate cancer in transgender women.

CONCLUSION

The risk of prostate cancer in transgender women who are not on gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) or who have not had gender-affirming surgery (GAS) and gender non-conforming individuals (who may never commence GAHT or have GAS) is the same as that in the cis male population. In these patients, healthcare professionals need to be able to discuss screening, diagnostic and treatment options considering future wishes for gender-affirming treatment. Prostate cancer incidence in transgender women on GAHT or following GAS is lower than age-matched cis-male counterparts, but diagnosis and treatment is more nuanced. The present review discusses the existing literature about development and incidence of prostate cancer in this population, and makes recommendations about screening, the usefulness of diagnostic tools e.g. prostate-specific antigen and magnetic resonance imaging, and considerations when formulating treatment. Potential directions for future research are discussed, which will hopefully lead to development of robust evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer in transgender women.

Histologic Findings in Surgical Pathology Specimens From Individuals Taking Feminizing Hormone Therapy for the Purpose of Gender Transition: A Systematic Scoping Review

CONTEXT.—

Transgender women experience health disparities in all areas of medicine. Within surgical pathology, knowledge gaps relating to the concepts of transgender care exist. Medical transition for transgender women and transfeminine persons may involve hormone therapy and/or surgery to feminize the body. Understanding the common histologic changes in specimens from feminizing surgeries, as well as other specimens from patients on feminizing hormone therapy, will aid surgical pathologists in providing better care to this unique patient population.

OBJECTIVE.—

To summarize histologic findings in surgical pathology specimens from transgender women taking feminizing hormones.

DATA SOURCES.—

A systematic review of the OVID Medline and PubMed databases was performed to identify all studies describing histologic findings in surgical pathology specimens from transgender women from 1946 to 2019.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Much of the literature to date describing histologic findings in transgender women comes from the examination of genitourinary specimens removed during feminizing surgeries. Common benign changes associated with feminizing hormone therapy include the development of acini and lobules in the breast, testicular tubular changes, and squamous metaplasia of the prostate and urethra. Neoplastic cases include breast adenocarcinoma and fibroepithelial lesions, testicular germ cell tumors, prostatic adenocarcinoma, anal squamous cell carcinoma, pituitary adenomas, and meningiomas. Additional studies assessing the findings in other organ systems as well as population-based studies assessing rates of neoplasia are needed. However, future research relies on engagement within the surgical pathology community as well as collaboration with clinicians and patients to achieve optimal results.

Prostate cancer in sexual minorities and the influence of HIV status

Prostate cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related death in men in the USA, but the effect of prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment on men in a sexual minority group, including men who have sex with men and transgender women, is poorly understood. Efforts to study this population are complicated, as cancer registries do not routinely collect information on sexual orientation. As a result, epidemiological data regarding this population have come from small studies that have included disparate rates of prostate cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment. Qualitative studies indicate that prostate cancer is experienced differently by sexual minorities, with distinct health-care needs that arise owing to differences in sexual practices, social support systems and relationships with the medical community. Notably, sexual minorities have been reported to experience poorer health-related quality of life outcomes than heterosexual men, and tend to have less robust social support systems, experience increased psychological distress caused by sexual dysfunction (areas of which are unmeasured after treatment), experience isolation within the health-care system and express increased levels of dissatisfaction with treatment. The incidence of prostate cancer actually seems to be decreased in men from sexual minorities living with HIV, despite there being no differences in screening and treatment, with poor cancer-specific mortality. Although the literature on patients with prostate cancer in men from sexual minority groups has historically been sparse, peer-reviewed research in this area has grown considerably during the past decade and has become an important field of study.

Understanding Prostate Cancer in Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men and Transgender Women: A Review of the Literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

a)Prostate cancer in sexual and gender minorities is an emerging medical and public health concern. The purpose of this review is to summarize the state of the science on prostate cancer in gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM) and transgender women (TGW). We undertook a literature review of all publications on this topic through February 2017. With 88 unique papers (83) on prostate cancer in GBM and 5 case reports of prostate cancer in TGW), a small but robust literature has emerged.

RECENT FINDINGS

b)The first half of this review critiques the literature to date, identifying gaps in approaches to study. The second half summarizes the key findings in eleven areas. In light of this admittedly limited literature, GBM appear to be screened for prostate cancer less than other men, but they are diagnosed with prostate cancer at about the same rate.

SUMMARY

c)Compared to other men, GBM have poorer urinary, bowel, and overall quality-of-life outcomes but better sexual outcomes after treatment; all these findings need more research. Prostate cancer in TGW remains rare and under researched, as the literature is limited to single-case clinical reports.

Transfeminine Hormone Therapy

Transgender women often seek hormone therapy to attain feminine physical features congruent with their gender identity. The aim of feminizing hormone therapy (FHT) is to provide suppression of endogenous testosterone and to maintain estradiol levels within the normal female range. Overall, FHT is safe if provided under supervision of an experienced health care provider and has been shown to improve quality of life. Data on care of transgender women are scarce and high-quality evidence-based recommendations are lacking. This article aims to review the published literature on FHT and provide guidance to clinicians caring for transgender women.

Gender-affirming hormone therapy and the risk of sex hormone-dependent tumours in transgender individuals-A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cancers are a leading cause of death worldwide, and transgender individuals are no exception. The effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) on sex hormone-dependent tumours are unclear. Therefore, this review seeks to determine whether tumour risk in transgender individuals differs from the general population, to guide clinical screening recommendations.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review based on the PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO databases were searched for studies examining tumour incidence, prevalence or cancer-related mortality in transgender individuals. All English peer-reviewed publications were included if histological type and temporal relation to GAHT were reported. Case reports were included if there were ≥2 cases of the same histological type.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 307 studies. Excluding those that did not meet inclusion criteria, 43 studies (7 cohort studies, 2 cross-sectional studies and 34 case reports) were reviewed. Retrospective cohort studies suggest no increase in risk of tumour development in transgender individuals receiving GAHT compared to the general population. Notably, the mean ages of cohorts were young and were treated with GAHT for insufficient durations to assess tumour risk. Case reports raise potential associations between high-dose oestradiol and anti-androgen therapy with prolactinoma and meningioma, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Further longitudinal studies are required to assess the risk of GAHT and hormone-dependent tumour development. Until further evidence is available, tumour screening should be based on guidelines for the general population and the presence of organs in transgender individuals rather than gender identity or hormonal therapy status.

Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline

OBJECTIVE

To update the "Endocrine Treatment of Transsexual Persons: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline," published by the Endocrine Society in 2009.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants include an Endocrine Society-appointed task force of nine experts, a methodologist, and a medical writer.

EVIDENCE

This evidence-based guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to describe the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. The task force commissioned two systematic reviews and used the best available evidence from other published systematic reviews and individual studies.

CONSENSUS PROCESS

Group meetings, conference calls, and e-mail communications enabled consensus. Endocrine Society committees, members and cosponsoring organizations reviewed and commented on preliminary drafts of the guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Gender affirmation is multidisciplinary treatment in which endocrinologists play an important role. Gender-dysphoric/gender-incongruent persons seek and/or are referred to endocrinologists to develop the physical characteristics of the affirmed gender. They require a safe and effective hormone regimen that will (1) suppress endogenous sex hormone secretion determined by the person's genetic/gonadal sex and (2) maintain sex hormone levels within the normal range for the person's affirmed gender. Hormone treatment is not recommended for prepubertal gender-dysphoric/gender-incongruent persons. Those clinicians who recommend gender-affirming endocrine treatments-appropriately trained diagnosing clinicians (required), a mental health provider for adolescents (required) and mental health professional for adults (recommended)-should be knowledgeable about the diagnostic criteria and criteria for gender-affirming treatment, have sufficient training and experience in assessing psychopathology, and be willing to participate in the ongoing care throughout the endocrine transition. We recommend treating gender-dysphoric/gender-incongruent adolescents who have entered puberty at Tanner Stage G2/B2 by suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists. Clinicians may add gender-affirming hormones after a multidisciplinary team has confirmed the persistence of gender dysphoria/gender incongruence and sufficient mental capacity to give informed consent to this partially irreversible treatment. Most adolescents have this capacity by age 16 years old. We recognize that there may be compelling reasons to initiate sex hormone treatment prior to age 16 years, although there is minimal published experience treating prior to 13.5 to 14 years of age. For the care of peripubertal youths and older adolescents, we recommend that an expert multidisciplinary team comprised of medical professionals and mental health professionals manage this treatment. The treating physician must confirm the criteria for treatment used by the referring mental health practitioner and collaborate with them in decisions about gender-affirming surgery in older adolescents. For adult gender-dysphoric/gender-incongruent persons, the treating clinicians (collectively) should have expertise in transgender-specific diagnostic criteria, mental health, primary care, hormone treatment, and surgery, as needed by the patient. We suggest maintaining physiologic levels of gender-appropriate hormones and monitoring for known risks and complications. When high doses of sex steroids are required to suppress endogenous sex steroids and/or in advanced age, clinicians may consider surgically removing natal gonads along with reducing sex steroid treatment. Clinicians should monitor both transgender males (female to male) and transgender females (male to female) for reproductive organ cancer risk when surgical removal is incomplete. Additionally, clinicians should persistently monitor adverse effects of sex steroids. For gender-affirming surgeries in adults, the treating physician must collaborate with and confirm the criteria for treatment used by the referring physician. Clinicians should avoid harming individuals (via hormone treatment) who have conditions other than gender dysphoria/gender incongruence and who may not benefit from the physical changes associated with this treatment.

Sex Differences and Bone Metastases of Breast, Lung, and Prostate Cancers: Do Bone Homing Cancers Favor Feminized Bone Marrow?

Sex-associated differences in bone metastasis formation from breast, lung, and prostate cancer exist in clinical studies, but have not been systematically reviewed. Differences in the bone marrow niche can be attributed to sexual dimorphism, to genetic variations that affect sex hormone levels, or to the direct effects of sex hormones, natural or exogenously delivered. This review describes the present understanding of sex-associated and sex hormone level differences in the marrow niche and in formation of bone metastasis during the transition of these three cancers from treatable disease to an often untreatable, lethal metastatic one. Our purpose is to provide insight into some underlying molecular mechanisms for hormonal influence in bone metastasis formation, and to the potential influence of sexual dimorphism, genetic differences affecting sex assignment, and sex hormone level differences on the bone niche and its favorability for metastasis formation. We reviewed publications in PubMed and EMBASE, including full length manuscripts, case reports, and clinical studies of relevance to our topic. We focused on bone metastasis formation in breast, lung, and prostate cancer because all three commonly present with bone metastases. Several clear observations emerged. For breast cancer bone metastasis formation, estrogen receptor (ER) signaling pathways indicate a role for ER beta (ERβ). Estrogen influences the bone microenvironment, creating and conditioning a favorable niche for colonization and breast cancer progression. For lung cancer, studies support the hypothesis that females have a more favorable bone microenvironment for metastasis formation. For prostate cancer, a decrease in the relative androgen to estrogen balance or a “feminization” of bone marrow favors bone metastasis formation, with a potentially important role for ERβ that may be similar to that in breast cancer. Long-term estrogen administration or androgen blockade in males may feminize the bone marrow niche to one more favorable for bone metastases in prostate cancer. Administration of androgens in females, especially combined with mastectomy, may reduce risk of developing bone metastatic breast cancer. We conclude that it should be considered that females, those with female-leaning genetic variations, or hormonal states that feminize the bone marrow, may offer favorable sites for bone metastases.

The Development of Prostate Adenocarcinoma in a Transgender Male to Female Patient: Could Estrogen Therapy Have Played a Role?

BACKGROUND

Prostate adenocarcinoma (PCa) is a rare diagnosis in the male to female transgender (MtFT) population with only a few case reports published in the current medical literature. Long standing beliefs of androgen suppression conferring a protective effect against prostate cancer development have been challenged by the literature citing adenocarcinoma development in the prostate of rodent models following combined estrogen and testosterone treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We herein present a MtFT patient who presented with high grade PCa following 20 years of exogenous estrogen therapy.

RESULTS

Immunohistochemical (IHC) localization of estrogen receptor alpha (ER-α) and progesterone receptor (PR) demonstrated positive staining in stromal cells; while, androgen receptor (AR) demonstrated positive staining in malignant glands and weak scattered staining in adjacent stroma.

CONCLUSION

This pattern of staining raises concern for a possible contributing role of exogenous estrogen therapy in tumorigenesis. As awareness of gender dysphoria and acceptance of gender reassignment surgery has seen a recent increase, the unique needs of this population must be recognized. Prostate 77:824-828, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Cancer in Transgender People: Evidence and Methodological Considerations

Transgender people comprise a diverse group of individuals whose gender identity or expression differs from that originally assigned to them at birth. Some, but not all, transgender people elect to undergo medical gender affirmation, which may include therapy with cross-sex hormones and/or surgical change of the genitalia and other sex characteristics. As cross-sex hormones administered for the purposes of gender affirmation may be delivered at high doses and over a period of decades, the carcinogenicity of hormonal therapy in transgender people is an area of considerable concern. In addition, concerns about cancer risk in transgender patients have been linked to sexually transmitted infections, increased exposure to well-known risk factors such as smoking and alcohol use, and the lack of adequate access to screening. Several publications have identified cancer as an important priority in transgender health research and called for large-scale studies. The goals of this article are to summarize the evidence on factors that may differentially affect cancer risk in transgender people, assess the relevant cancer surveillance and epidemiologic data available to date, and offer an overview of possible methodological considerations for future studies investigating cancer incidence and mortality in this population.

Endocrine care of transpeople part II. A review of cross-sex hormonal treatments, outcomes and adverse effects in transwomen

The treatment of transwomen relies on the combined administration of anti-androgens or GnRH analogues to suppress androgen production and thereby reduce male phenotypic characteristics together with oestrogens to develop female characteristics. In transwomen, synthetic oestrogens such as ethinyl oestradiol, as well as conjugated equine oestrogens (CEE), should be avoided to minimize thromboembolic risks especially in older transwomen and in those with risk factors. Currently, available short- and long-term safety studies suggest that cross-sex hormonal therapy (CHT) can be considered safe in transwomen improving the well-being and quality of life of these individuals. Long-term monitoring should aim to decrease cardiovascular risks and should include prostate and breast cancer screenings.

Hormone therapy in transgender adults is safe with provider supervision; A review of hormone therapy sequelae for transgender individuals

INTRODUCTION

Some providers report concern for the safety of transgender hormone therapy (HT).

METHODS

This is a systematic literature review of HT safety for transgender adults.

RESULTS

Current literature suggests HT is safe when followed carefully for certain risks. The greatest health concern for HT in transgender women is venous thromboembolism. HT among transgender men appears to cause polycythemia. Both groups experienced elevated fasting glucose. There is no increase in cancer prevalence or mortality due to transgender HT.

CONCLUSION

Although current data support the safety of transgender HT with physician supervision, larger, long-term studies are needed in transgender medicine.

A review of the physical and metabolic effects of cross-sex hormonal therapy in the treatment of gender dysphoria

This review focuses on the effect that cross-gender sex steroid therapy has on metabolic and hormonal parameters. There is an emphasis on those changes that result in significant clinical effects such as the positive effects of the development of secondary sexual characteristics and negative effects such as haemostatic effects and thromboembolism in transwomen or dyslipidaemia in transmen. There is also a description of the current hormonal regimens used at the largest UK gender identity clinic. The overall safety of these treatments in the context of long-term outcome data is reviewed.

Metastatic prostate cancer in transsexual diagnosed after three decades of estrogen therapy

The incidence of prostate cancer in transsexual patients is very low with only few reported cases. Many years before presenting with prostate cancer, these patients receive hormone ablation as a part of their gender therapy. Their disease is already defined as castrate resistant, and the treatment and follow-up of such patients remains a challenge. We report a case of a male-to-female transgender woman who was diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer, 31 years post-feminization.

Endocrine treatment of transsexual persons: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to formulate practice guidelines for endocrine treatment of transsexual persons.

EVIDENCE

This evidence-based guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to describe the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence, which was low or very low.

CONSENSUS PROCESS

Committees and members of The Endocrine Society, European Society of Endocrinology, European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology, Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society, and World Professional Association for Transgender Health commented on preliminary drafts of these guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Transsexual persons seeking to develop the physical characteristics of the desired gender require a safe, effective hormone regimen that will 1) suppress endogenous hormone secretion determined by the person's genetic/biologic sex and 2) maintain sex hormone levels within the normal range for the person's desired gender. A mental health professional (MHP) must recommend endocrine treatment and participate in ongoing care throughout the endocrine transition and decision for surgical sex reassignment. The endocrinologist must confirm the diagnostic criteria the MHP used to make these recommendations. Because a diagnosis of transsexualism in a prepubertal child cannot be made with certainty, we do not recommend endocrine treatment of prepubertal children. We recommend treating transsexual adolescents (Tanner stage 2) by suppressing puberty with GnRH analogues until age 16 years old, after which cross-sex hormones may be given. We suggest suppressing endogenous sex hormones, maintaining physiologic levels of gender-appropriate sex hormones and monitoring for known risks in adult transsexual persons.

Long-term treatment of transsexuals with cross-sex hormones: extensive personal experience

CONTEXT

Transsexuals receive cross-sex hormone treatment. Its short-term use appears reasonably safe. Little is known about its long-term use. This report offers some perspectives.

SETTING

The setting was a university hospital serving as the national referral center for The Netherlands (16 million people).

PATIENTS

From the start of the gender clinic in 1975 up to 2006, 2236 male-to-female and 876 female-to-male transsexuals have received cross-sex hormone treatment. In principle, subjects are followed up lifelong.

INTERVENTIONS

Male-to-female transsexuals receive treatment with the antiandrogen cyproterone acetate 100 mg/d plus estrogens (previously 100 microg ethinyl estradiol, now 2-4 mg oral estradiol valerate/d or 100 microg transdermal estradiol/d). Female-to-male transsexuals receive parenteral testosterone esters 250 mg/2 wk. After 18-36 months, surgical sex reassignment including gonadectomy follows, inducing a profound hypogonadal state.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcome measures included morbidity and mortality data and data assessing risks of osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease.

RESULTS

Mortality was not higher than in a comparison group. Regarding morbidity, with ethinyl estradiol, there was a 6-8% incidence of venous thrombosis, which is no longer the case with use of other types of estrogens. Continuous use of cross-sex hormones is required to prevent osteoporosis. Androgen deprivation plus an estrogen milieu in male-to-female transsexuals has a larger deleterious effect on cardiovascular risk factors than inducing an androgenic milieu in female-to-male transsexuals, but there is so far no elevated cardiovascular morbidity/mortality. Low numbers of endocrine-related cancers have been observed in male-to-female transsexuals.

CONCLUSIONS

Cross-sex hormone treatment of transsexuals seems acceptably safe over the short and medium term, but solid clinical data are lacking.