[Cardiovascular risk patients under androgen deprivation therapy: Lower risk with GnRH antagonists compared to LHRH agonists?]

An overview of hormonal directed pharmacotherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy in the male. Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) has been the mainstay in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer however, due to the outgrowth of castration-resistant cell population the disease inevitably progresses to an aggressive, difficult to handle stage.

AREAS COVERED

We have reviewed the literature regarding hormonal-directed therapy prostate cancer. New agents, namely abiraterone acetate, combined with prednisone, and next generation antiandrogens (enzalutamide, apalutamide and darolutamide) have shown considerable efficacy, not only in patients with metastatic but also in those with non-metastatic disease, either castration resistant (CRPC) or hormone sensitive (HSPC).

EXPERT OPINION

The addition of abiraterone and of the second-generation antiandrogens to our therapeutic armamentarium has improved prognosis ofprostate cancer in the last decade. Abiraterone is a viable option in patients with metastatic disease (hormone-sensitive and castration-resistant), whereas all next-generation antiandrogens have demonstrated efficacy in terms of metastasis-free and overall survival in non-metastatic CRPC. In addition, enzalutamide has also been found efficacious in mCRPC and mHSPC, while apalutamide in mHSPC. Currently there are no reliable data to indicate a potential superiority of one of these agents over the others in CRPC or HSPC as there are no relevant head to head studies . Sequencing hormone treatment modalities, chemotherapies and immunotherapies have not reached a consensus as yet. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to clearly define the role of novel antiandrogens in the treatment of prostate cancer. The choice of treatment should be individualized following discussion with the patient .

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.

[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.

[Cardiovascular side effects in patients undergoing androgen deprivation therapy: superiority of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists? An update]

BACKGROUND

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plays a crucial role in treatment of advanced prostate cancer (PCa). The additional application of new drugs results in prolonged overall survival, both in the hormone sensitive and castration resistant state. Consequently, the long-term use of ADT moves potential side effects into the focus of interest. In this context special consideration must be given to cardiovascular events.

OBJECTIVES

Review of current evidence on potential differences regarding the cardiovascular risk profile of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists compared to GnRH antagonists.

METHODS

Narrative review based on an expert consensus supported by a literature search in PubMed (MEDLINE) and the abstract databases of ASCO and ESMO was conducted for publications published between January 2015 and January 2021. Significant meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world data (RWD) revealing relevant results for clinical practice were taken into account. Selection of studies was performed based on the clinical relevance for everyday practice.

RESULTS

The search yielded three relevant meta-analyses, two prospective RCTs as well as three RWD publications that are of importance for clinical practice. Overall, a decreased incidence of cardiovascular events was reported for GnRH antagonists compared to GnRH agonists. Only one RWD publication described comparable rates of complications for both drug classes.

CONCLUSION

GnRH antagonists have a lower risk of treatment related cardiovascular events compared to GnRH agonists. Risks should be minimized by taking known cardiovascular risk factors into account before initiating therapy.

Cardiovascular Toxicities of Androgen Deprivation Therapy

OPINION STATEMENT

Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in men, and cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death in patients with prostate cancer. Androgen deprivation therapy, the cornerstone of prostate cancer treatment, has been associated with adverse cardiovascular events. Emerging data supports decreased cardiovascular risk of gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists compared to agonists. Ongoing clinical trials are assessing the relative safety of different modalities of androgen deprivation therapy. Racial disparities in cardiovascular outcomes in prostate cancer patients are starting to be explored. An intriguing inquiry connects androgen deprivation therapy with reduced risk of COVID-19 infection susceptibility and severity. Recognition of the cardiotoxicity of androgen deprivation therapy and aggressive risk factor modification are crucial for optimal patient care.

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.

[Cost effectiveness of GnRH antagonists in patients with prostate cancer and cardiovascular risk : Comparative analysis against Leuprorelin by the Number Needed to Treat]

BACKGROUND

Recent studies suggest that androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk for patients with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (PCa) and pre-existing CV disease. This risk seems to be different for the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists leuprolide and goserelin and GnRH antagonists, whereas the slightly more expensive GnRH antagonist shows a beneficial risk profile. The present study assesses the cost effectiveness of degarelix compared to leuprolide for PCa patients with increased CV risk.

METHODS

This analysis is based on a pooled analysis of six phase III, randomized, controlled trials comparing the GnRH agonists leuprolide and goserelin with the GnRH antagonist degarelix. For the combined endpoint of CV events or death a superiority of degarelix was determined with a Number-Needed-to-Treat of 12. From the perspective of German statutory health insurance, this evaluation estimates and compares the additional drug costs of degarelix treatment to the cost of one (avoided) CV event. The CV event costs were estimated via emergency treatment and transportation, inpatient treatment, and rehabilitation. The difference of these two cost pools divided by 12 yields the average saving per patient and year.

RESULTS

For every 12 PCa patients with CV history that are treated with GnRH antagonists to prevent one CV event, there will be additional drug costs in comparison with leuprolide treatment of € 3111 per year. Costs of € 8447 per year are prevented. Therefore, each patient with a history of CV who is treated with degarelix instead of a leuprolide generates savings of € 445 per patient and year.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to leuprolide, degarelix is cost effective for patients with increased CV risk.

[Antihormonal therapy in prostate cancer : Side effects]

Androgen deprivation is still standard therapy for prostate cancer, either as primary androgen deprivation therapy or with the use of secondary hormonal drugs including abiraterone and enzalutamide. However, especially the clinically occult side effects like metabolic changes or cardiovascular complications and effects on the psyche of the patient are often not recognized in daily practice. Active monitoring of such side effects is essential for prevention and early intervention. In addition, the efficacy of androgen deprivation therapies is limited by primary and secondary resistance. The underlying molecular mechanism including splice variants of the androgen receptor in contrast to mutations are usually reversible and should be regarded as a sign of efficacy of the current treatment. Therefore, the clever, timely use of androgen deprivation or even the use of a bipolar androgen therapy should enable reversal of resistance to again render tumor cells sensitive to androgen-deprivation therapy.