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

[Factors influencing the choice of androgen deprivation therapy for patients with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer : Results of the ProComD study]

BACKGROUND

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with a GnRH agonist or the GnRH antagonist degarelix is a central component in the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa). Little is currently known regarding the decision criteria. Knowledge of these could improve the success of treatment in the future.

OBJECTIVES

To identify factors influencing the treatment decision in patients with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer receiving ADT and to determine the incidence of concomitant disease in both treatment groups.

METHODS

The two-arm, prospective, non-interventional study "ProComD" was conducted from September 2014 to June 2019 at 80 study centers in Germany. After the therapy decision was made, patients with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer needing ADT were included in the study. Data were collected during routine visits.

RESULTS

Data from 413 patients were evaluated (degarelix N = 268; GnRH agonists N = 145). Key factors influencing the therapy decision for both treatment options included comorbidities (42% of all patients), compliance (64%), and age (81%). The source of information consulted most frequently regarding existing comorbidities was the patient's medical history conducted by the treating urologist themselves (65% in both groups). For patients with pre-existing cardiovascular diseases, the doctor's letter (45.8% degarelix vs. 38.9% GnRH agonists) or the medical history questionnaire (38.9% degarelix vs. 20% GnRH agonists) was additionally taken into account.

CONCLUSION

Comorbidities along with age and compliance are among the key factors influencing the treatment decisions made by urologists.

[Docetaxel or abiraterone in combination with androgen deprivation therapy for metastatic prostate cancer]

BACKGROUND

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone has long been the standard of care in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer (mCSPC). A paradigm shift in the treatment of patients with mCSPC has now been initiated by the results of three major phase 3 clinical trials (CHAARTED, STAMPEDE, LATITUDE): They demonstrated a significant advantage of ADT in combination with docetaxel or abiraterone/prednisone over ADT alone.

OBJECTIVES

This review presents the current evidence for the use of docetaxel or abiraterone/prednisone in combination with ADT and discusses-in the absence of directly comparing studies-which patients may have an advantage of ADT plus abiraterone/prednisone over ADT plus docetaxel or vice versa.

METHODS

A systematic review based on bibliographic literature search was conducted.

RESULTS

Both the combinations of ADT with docetaxel and with abiraterone/prednisone represent a major advance in the treatment of patients with mCSPC, in particular of patients with multiple metastases. Compared to chemotherapy, the use of abiraterone in addition to ADT avoids (rare) neutropenic complications and treatment-associated deaths. Long-term oral treatment with abiraterone/prednisone as a complementary therapy to ADT replaces short-term intravenous treatment (docetaxel).

CONCLUSION

In patients with mCSPC, ADT plus docetaxel or ADT plus abiraterone/prednisone is recommended. In particular in patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease, ADT should be considered with a GnRH (gonadotropin-releasing hormone) antagonist to reduce the risk of cardiotoxic side effects.

Is androgen deprivation therapy associated with cerebral infarction in patients with prostate cancer? A Korean nationwide population-based propensity score matching study

Purpose

Previous studies have suggested that androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is associated with cerebral infarction. However, conflicting results have been reported by other researchers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between ADT and cerebral infarction in patients with prostate cancer (PC) using big data.

Materials and Methods

Using information from the National Health Insurance Service database representative of the entire Korean adult PC population (n = 206 735), data regarding ADT and cerebral infarction between 2009 and 2016 were analyzed. Adjusted hazard ratios for cerebral infarction associated with ADT were estimated using propensity score‐matched Cox proportional hazards models and Kaplan‐Meier survival analyses.

Results

The final cohort comprised 36 146 individuals with PC, including 24 069 men (66.6%) who underwent ADT. During the mean follow‐up of 4.1 years, 2792 patients were newly diagnosed with cerebral infarction. In the unmatched cohort, there was a significant difference in the annual incidence of cerebral infarction between the ADT and non‐ADT groups (22.8 vs 14.6 per 1000 person‐years, respectively). However, there was no significant difference between the ADT and non‐ADT groups in the matched cohort (14.9 vs 14.6 per 1000 person‐years). The adjusted hazard ratio for cerebral infarction for PC patients who underwent ADT was 1.045 (95% CI 0.943‐1.159; P = 0.401) compared with those who did not undergo ADT. In addition, the cumulative duration of ADT was also not associated with an increased risk for cerebral infarction. However, older age, hypertension, diabetes, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, renal disease, dementia, and atrial fibrillation were revealed to be factors contributing to cerebral infarction.

Conclusion

This nationwide population‐based study revealed that ADT was not associated with cerebral infarction after adjusting for potential confounders.

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.