Canadian Urological Association best practice report: Bone health in prostate cancer

Validation of JSBMR's CTIBL manual for Japanese men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer causes cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL), increases the fracture risk 2-3 times, and worsens life prognoses. The Japan Society of Bone and Mineral Research (JSBMR) created a CTIBL treatment manual in 2020; however, no study has validated its use in patients with ADT/CTIBL prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study classified 124 patients with prostate cancer without bone metastasis who received ADT into high- and low-risk groups using the JSBMR CTIBL algorithm. Comparisons were made with the period to incident vertebral fracture and the existing International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) classification.

RESULTS

The median age was 74 years; the median observation period was 81 months. At 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 years, the prevalence of incident vertebral fractures was, respectively, 3.3%, 10.7%, 17.9%, 21.4%, and 31.2% in the entire population; 13%, 27%, 36%, 42%, and 58% in the high-risk group (19%); and 1%, 7%, 14%, 17%, and 25% in the low-risk group (81%). The hazard ratio between the two groups was 3.57 (p = 0.0004). Based on multivariate analysis, age, previous vertebral fracture and femoral neck bone density were significant risk factors for incidental vertebral fracture. The JSBMR had a hazard ratio of 3.26 (p = 0.04) relative to 1.13 (p = 0.84) for the IOF, indicating the JSBMR classification performed better.

CONCLUSION

Taking preventive measures against fractures is necessary, including starting bone-modifying agents early in patients with a high fracture risk. The JSBMR CTIBL manual may be useful for this purpose.

Safety and Efficacy of Carbon-Ion Radiotherapy for Elderly Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) is a high-dose intensive treatment, whose safety and efficacy have been proven for prostate cancer. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of CIRT in elderly patients with prostate cancer. Patients aged 75 years or above at the initiation of CIRT were designated as the elderly group, and younger than 75 years as the young group. The overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), biochemical control rate (BCR), biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS), and adverse events were compared between the elderly and young patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with CIRT. The elderly group comprised 173 of 927 patients treated for high-risk prostate cancer between April 2000 and May 2018. The overall median age was 69 (range: 45−92) years. The median follow-up period was 91.9 (range: 12.6−232.3) months. The 10-year OS, DSS, BCR, and BRFS rates in the young and elderly groups were 86.9%/71.5%, 96.6%/96.8%, 76.8%/88.1%, and 68.6%/64.3%, respectively. The OS (p < 0.001) was longer in the younger group and the BCR was better in the elderly group (p = 0.008). The DSS and BRFS did not differ significantly between the two groups. The rates of adverse events between the two groups did not differ significantly and no patient had an adverse event of Grade 4 or higher during the study period. CIRT may be as effective and safe in elderly patients as the treatment for high-risk prostate cancer.

Implementing and Evaluating the Impact of BoneRx: A Healthy Bone Prescription for Men with Prostate Cancer Initiating Androgen Deprivation Therapy

Background: The initiation of Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) results in rapid and profound hypogonadism, resulting in significant bone and muscle loss, increasing the risk for osteoporosis (OP), falls, and fractures. Despite this, there exist very low rates of guideline adherent care regarding bone health in this population. We developed and implemented a healthy bone prescription tool entitled BoneRx to facilitate the uptake of guideline-concordant bone health care into practice and increase patient awareness and promote the uptake of health bone behaviours (HBBs). Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional pre-BoneRx implementation (n = 143) vs. post-implementation (n = 149) cohort study to evaluate the impact on (i) bone health care, patient engagement in HBB, and patient knowledge and health beliefs regarding OP. Results: There was a significant difference pre- vs. post BoneRx implementation on receipt of baseline BMD (34.7% vs. 59.5%, p < 0.0001) and bone health counselling (32.4% vs. 59.9%, p < 0.0001). More participants in the post-BoneRx implementation cohort reported taking vitamin D supplements 57% vs. 81% (p < 0.001) and calcium supplements 39% vs. 61% (p < 0.001). Physical activity levels also significantly increased (p = 0.021). No differences were detected in OP knowledge or feelings of OP susceptibility, seriousness, or health motivation. Conclusion: BoneRx is a simple, cost-effective, and acceptable strategy that could improve the care of PCa survivors receiving ADT.