Does Use of Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) in Men with Prostate Cancer Increase the Risk of Sarcopenia?

Effects of androgen deprivation therapy on elderly men with high-risk prostate cancer: PROSARC observational study

INTRODUCTION

Prostatic carcinoma (PC) is a frequent neoplasm in elderly patients. Although androgen deprivation is associated with survival benefits, it is also related to adverse effects such as osteoporosis, frailty, or sarcopenia, which can negatively affect the patient's quality of life. This study aims to quantify and evaluate the prevalence of osteoporosis, frailty, or sarcopenia in elderly PC patients before and after androgen deprivation. We present data from an interim analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PROSARC is a national (Spain) prospective observational study (May-2022-May-2025) still in progress in 2 hospitals. It includes patients with high-risk PC, aged ≥70 years, non-candidates for local treatment and scheduled to start androgen deprivation therapy. The following variables are analyzed: comorbidity, frailty (Fried frailty phenotype criteria), osteoporosis, sarcopenia (EWGSOP2), fat mass and muscle mass, before treatment and after 6 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

A 6-month follow-up was completed by 12/25 included patients (mean age, 84 years), with a high baseline prevalence of pre-frailty/frailty (67.7%), sarcopenia (66.7%) and osteoporosis (25%). Treatment did not significantly alter these variables or comorbidity. We observed changes in body mass index (p=0.666), decreased mean value of appendicular muscle mass (p=0.01) and increased percentage of fat mass (p=0.012).

CONCLUSION

In patients with high-risk PC, advanced age and a considerable prevalence of osteoporosis, frailty and sarcopenia, androgen deprivation (ADT; 6 months) produces decreased muscle mass without impact on the incidence of the known adverse effects of androgen deprivation.

Resistance Exercise Training, a Simple Intervention to Preserve Muscle Mass and Strength in Prostate Cancer Patients on Androgen Deprivation Therapy

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) forms the cornerstone in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer. However, by suppressing testosterone ADT results in a decrease of skeletal muscle mass. In this narrative review, we explore the magnitude and mechanisms of ADT-induced muscle mass loss and the consequences for muscle strength and physical performance. Subsequently, we elucidate the effectiveness of supervised resistance exercise training as a means to mitigate these adverse effects. Literature shows that resistance exercise training can effectively counteract ADT-induced loss of appendicular lean body mass and decline in muscle strength, while the effect on physical performances is inconclusive. As resistance exercise training is feasible and can be safely implemented during ADT (with special attention for patients with bone metastases), it should be incorporated in standard clinical care for prostate cancer patients (starting) with ADT.

Influence of Androgen Deprivation Therapy on the Development of Sarcopenia in Patients with Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

The changes in body composition during androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients suffering from prostate cancer (PCa) are recognized by professionals more often as biomarker for effective treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of ADT on the sarcopenia development in PCa. The following databases were used: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus databases. Out of 2183 studies, 7 were included in this review. The fixed-effect model was used in the meta-analysis. A significant increase in SATI (Subcutaneous Adipose Tissue Index) of 0.32 (95% CI: 0.13-0.51) p = 0.001, decrease in SMI (Skeletal Muscle Index) of -0.38 (95% CI: -0.57 to -0.19) p < 0.0001, and SMD (Skeletal Muscle Density) of -0.46 (95% CI: -0.69 to -0.24) p < 0.0001 were observed. No statistical association was visible between ADT and changes in BMI (Body Mass Index), 0.05 (95% CI: -0.18-0.28), p = 0.686, and VATI (Visceral Adipose Tissue Index): 0.17 (95% CI: -0.02 to 0.37), p = 0.074. In conclusion, the ADT significantly contributes to the body composition changes and sarcopenia development.

The trajectory of sarcopenia following diagnosis of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Sarcopenia is a common skeletal muscle disorder in older people. Here we explore the prevalence of sarcopenia and its impact on men with prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for relevant studies with an explicit definition of sarcopenia in men with prostate cancer which were published between years 2000 and 2022. Prevalence of sarcopenia and its association with time to biochemical recurrence (BCR), progression-free survival (PFS), non-cancer mortality, overall survival (OS), and treatment-related complications in men with prostate cancer were explored. The summary prevalence, hazard ratios (HRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies comprising 3,616 patients with early and advanced prostate cancer were included. The prevalence of sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity was 43.8% (95% CI 19.2%-68.5%) and 24.0% (95% CI 5.0%-43.1%), respectively. Sarcopenia was not associated with a shorter time to BCR (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64-1.23, p = 0.48), a shorter PFS (HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.73-1.97, p = 0.48), or a shorter OS (HR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90-1.85, p = 0.16). In contrast, sarcopenia was significantly associated with a higher non-cancer mortality (HR 1.85, 95% CI 1.23-2.80, p = 0.003). In four out of five studies eligible for assessment, sarcopenia was not associated with an increased risk of treatment-related complications.

DISCUSSION

Sarcopenia increases the risk of death from other causes in men with prostate cancer. Patients with prostate cancer should be assessed and managed for sarcopenia in everyday clinical practice.

Low muscle mass, malnutrition, sarcopenia, and associations with survival in adults with cancer in the UK Biobank cohort

BACKGROUND

Low muscle mass (MM) is a common component of cancer-related malnutrition and sarcopenia, conditions that are all independently associated with an increased risk of mortality. This study aimed to (1) compare the prevalence of low MM, malnutrition, and sarcopenia and their association with survival in adults with cancer from the UK Biobank and (2) explore the influence of different allometric scaling (height [m2 ] or body mass index [BMI]) on low MM estimates.

METHODS

Participants in the UK Biobank with a cancer diagnosis within 2 years of the baseline assessment were identified. Low MM was estimated by appendicular lean soft tissue (ALST) from bioelectrical impedance analysis derived fat-free mass. Malnutrition was determined using the Global Leadership in Malnutrition criteria. Sarcopenia was defined using the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People criteria (version 2). All-cause mortality was determined from linked national mortality records. Cox-proportional hazards models were fitted to estimate the effect of low MM, malnutrition, and sarcopenia on all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

In total, 4122 adults with cancer (59.8 ± 7.1 years; 49.2% male) were included. Prevalence of low MM (8.0% vs. 1.7%), malnutrition (11.2% vs. 6.2%), and sarcopenia (1.4% vs. 0.2%) was higher when MM was adjusted using ALST/BMI compared with ALST/height2 , respectively. Low MM using ALST/BMI identified more cases in participants with obesity (low MM 56.3% vs. 0%; malnutrition 50% vs. 18.5%; sarcopenia 50% vs. 0%). During a median 11.2 (interquartile range: 10.2, 12.0) years of follow up, 901 (21.7%) of the 4122 participants died, and of these, 744 (82.6%) deaths were cancer-specific All conditions were associated with a higher hazard of mortality using either method of MM adjustment: low MM (ALST/height2 : HR 1.9 [95% CI 1.3, 2.8], P = 0.001; ALST/BMI: HR 1.3 [95% CI 1.1, 1.7], P = 0.005; malnutrition (ALST/height2 : HR 2.5 [95% CI 1.1, 1.7], P = 0.005; ALST/BMI: HR 1.3 [95% CI 1.1, 1.7], P = 0.005; sarcopenia (ALST/height2 : HR 2.9 [95% CI 1.3, 6.5], P = 0.013; ALST/BMI: HR 1.6 [95% CI 1.0, 2.4], P = 0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

In adults with cancer, malnutrition was more common than low MM or sarcopenia, although all conditions were associated with a higher mortality risk, regardless of the method of adjusting for MM. In contrast, adjustment of low MM for BMI identified more cases of low MM, malnutrition, and sarcopenia overall and in participants with obesity compared with height adjustment, suggesting it is the preferred adjustment.

Sarcopenia in urologic oncology: Identification and strategies to improve patient outcomes

Sarcopenia is the loss of muscle mass and function related to aging, undereating, disease conditions, or inactivity. Pre-existing sarcopenia diminishes the functional reserve of patients with cancer which increases their risk for frailty, cancer cachexia, and worse outcomes from treatments. The pathogenesis of sarcopenia is multi-factorial: opening opportunities for clinicians to work across disciplines to improve patient outcomes and quality of life. The purpose of this essay is to describe sarcopenia, discuss clinical screening and assessment for sarcopenia, and highlight potential interventions to manage sarcopenia in the urologic oncology population.

Bioimpedance phase angle and sarcopenia in older patients with prostate cancer

AIM

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the factors associated with the bioimpedance phase angle (PhA) in older patients with prostate cancer, and to determine the optimal cutoff for the PhA in patients with sarcopenia and prostate cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective cross-sectional analysis enrolled patients with prostate cancer aged ≥60 years. Appendicular skeletal muscle mass and PhA estimated by bioimpedance analysis, grip strength, the five-time chair stand test, gait speed, the Short Physical Performance Battery, the 2-min walk test and the International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form were obtained at enrollment. The diagnosis of sarcopenia was based on the 2019 consensus of the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia.

RESULTS

In total, 119 male participants (mean age = 70.7 ± 6.1 years) were available for analysis. A multivariable linear regression model revealed that age, body mass index and the maximal grip strength value were associated with the PhA. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value of the PhA for sarcopenia diagnosis was 0.77 (95% confidence interval 0.64-0.90, P < 0.001), with a PhA cutoff value of 4.87°.

CONCLUSIONS

PhA estimated by bioimpedance analysis may be utilized as useful clinical biomarker for reflecting muscle strength and sarcopenia in older patients with prostate cancer. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2022; ••: ••-••.

Interventions for Improving Body Composition in Men with Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to investigate the most effective intervention for improving body composition outcomes in prostate cancer patients during or after treatment.

METHODS

A systematic search was undertaken in multiple databases from inception to December 2020. Randomized clinical trials examining the effects of exercise/physical activity and/or nutrition interventions on body composition and body weight measures in prostate cancer patients were included. The primary endpoints were both whole-body and regional fat mass and lean mass measures, with body weight and BMI as secondary outcomes. A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was undertaken to examine the clustering effect of intervention modalities or control groups on the outcomes of interest. The study protocol is publicly available on PROSPERO (CRD42020202339).

RESULTS

Fifty articles describing 47 trials (n = 3207) were included. Resistance training and combined resistance and aerobic exercise were the most effective interventions to reduce body fat percentage (-0.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.4% to -0.3%) and fat mass (-0.5 kg; 95% CI, -0.9 to -0.1 kg), respectively. For whole-body and regional lean mass, combined resistance and aerobic exercise + healthy diet (0.6 kg; 95% CI, 0.1 to 1.0 kg) and resistance training alone (0.7 kg, 95% CI: 0.4 to 1.0 kg) were the best intervention, respectively. A low-fat diet was the most effective for reducing body weight immediately after or at follow-up, while no intervention promoted significant reductions in BMI.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that a resistance-based exercise program alone or combined with a general healthy diet are the most effective interventions for improving overall body composition in men with prostate cancer.

Obesity and low levels of physical activity impact on cardiopulmonary fitness in older men after treatment for prostate cancer

The purpose of this study was to compare fitness parameters and cardiovascular disease risk of older and younger men with prostate cancer (PCa) and explore how men's fitness scores compared to normative age values. 83 men were recruited post-treatment and undertook a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET), sit-to-stand, step-and-grip strength tests and provided blood samples for serum lipids and HbA1c. We calculated waist-to-hip ratio, cardiovascular risk (QRISK2), Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and Godin leisure-time exercise questionnaire [GLTEQ]. Age-group comparisons were made using normative data. Men > 75 years, had lower cardiopulmonary fitness, as measured by VO₂ Peak (ml/kg/min) 15.8 + 3.8 p < 0.001, and lower grip strength(28.6+5.2 kg p < 0.001) than younger men. BMI ≥30kg/m² and higher blood pressure all contributed to a QRisk2 score indicative of 20% chance of cardiovascular risk within 10 years (mean: 36.9-6.1) p < 0.001. Age, BMI and perceived physical activity were significantly associated with lower cardiopulmonary fitness. Men with PCa > 75 years had more cardiovascular risk factors compared to normative standards for men of their age. Although ADT was more frequent in older men, this was not found to be associated with cardiopulmonary fitness, but obesity and low levels of physical activity were. Secondary prevention should be addressed in men with PCa to improve men's overall health.

Bone health effects of androgen-deprivation therapy and androgen receptor inhibitors in patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Background

Osteoporosis is a skeletal disorder characterized by compromised bone strength, resulting in increased fracture risk. Patients with prostate cancer may have multiple risk factors contributing to bone fragility: advanced age, hypogonadism, and long-term use of androgen-deprivation therapy. Despite absence of metastatic disease, patients with nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer receiving newer androgen receptor inhibitors can experience decreased bone mineral density. A systematic approach to bone health care has been hampered by a simplistic view that does not account for heterogeneity among prostate cancer patients or treatments they receive. This review aims to raise awareness in oncology and urology communities regarding the complexity of bone health, and to provide a framework for management strategies for patients with nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer receiving androgen receptor inhibitor treatment.

Methods

We searched peer-reviewed literature on the PubMed database using key words “androgen-deprivation therapy,” “androgen receptor inhibitors,” “bone,” “bone complications,” and “nonmetastatic prostate cancer” from 2000 to present.

Results

We discuss how androgen inhibition affects bone health in patients with nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer. We present data from phase 3 trials on the three approved androgen receptor inhibitors with regard to effects on bone. Finally, we present management strategies for maintenance of bone health.

Conclusions

In patients with nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, aging, and antiandrogen therapy contribute to bone fragility. Newer androgen receptor inhibitors were associated with falls or fractures in a small subset of patients. Management guidelines include regular assessment of bone density, nutritional guidance, and use of antiresorptive bone health agents when warranted.

Effects of High-Dose Vitamin D Supplementation on Phase Angle and Physical Function in Patients with Prostate Cancer on ADT

PURPOSE

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is commonly used to treat patients with advanced prostate cancer but is associated with functional decline. Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)-derived phase angle may reflect frailty and functional decline in cancer patients. High-dose vitamin D supplementation may improve phase angle values and physical function.

METHODS

We conducted an exploratory analysis from a phase II randomized controlled trial investigating the efficacy of high-dose vitamin D supplementation in prostate cancer patients (age ≥ 60 yrs). Fifty-nine patients were randomized to high-dose vitamin D (600 IU/day plus 50,000 IU/week) or low-dose: RDA for vitamin D (600 IU/day plus placebo weekly) for 24 weeks. Phase angle was measured by BIA. Physical function measures included handgrip strength, 6-minute walk test, Short Performance Physical Battery and leg extension. All testing was completed at baseline, week 12 and week 24.

RESULTS

Phase angle values were wider over the entire study in the high-dose vitamin D arm indicating healthier muscle cells. The low-dose vitamin D arm had phase angle values consistent with frailty cutoffs in older men (<5.7°).

CONCLUSION

Patients in the high-dose vitamin D arm experienced wider phase angle values over the course of the study which may indicate less frailty. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02064946.

Pathophysiology of Bone Loss in Patients with Prostate Cancer Receiving Androgen-Deprivation Therapy and Lifestyle Modifications for the Management of Bone Health: A Comprehensive Review

Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is a systemic therapy administered for the management of advanced prostate cancer (PCa). Although ADT may improve survival, long-term use reduces bone mass density (BMD), posing an increased risk of fracture. Considering the long natural history of PCa, it is essential to preserve bone health and quality-of-life in patients on long-term ADT. As an alternative to pharmacological interventions targeted at preserving BMD, current evidence recommends lifestyle modifications, including individualized exercise and nutritional interventions. Exercise interventions include resistance training, aerobic exercise, and weight-bearing impact exercise, and have shown efficacy in preserving BMD. At the same time, it is important to take into account that PCa is a progressive and debilitating disease in which a substantial proportion of patients on long-term ADT are older individuals who harbor axial bone metastases. Smoking cessation and limited alcohol consumption are commonly recommended lifestyle measures in patients receiving ADT. Contemporary guidelines regarding lifestyle modifications vary by country, organization, and expert opinion. This comprehensive review will provide an evidence-based, updated summary of lifestyle interventions that could be implemented to preserve bone health and maintain quality-of-life throughout the disease course of PCa.

Exercise and Nutritional Approaches to Combat Cancer-Related Bone and Muscle Loss

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this narrative review is to summarise recent literature on the effects of exercise and nutrition interventions alone or in combination on muscle and bone loss in people with cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is emerging evidence to support the inclusion of targeted exercise and nutrition strategies to counter loss of muscle and bone associated with cancer treatments. Although research in this field is advancing, the optimal exercise and nutrition prescription to combat cancer-related bone and muscle loss remain unknown. This review identifies specific components of nutrition and exercise interventions that are promising although require further exploration through studies designed to determine the effect on muscle and bone. A focused research effort is required to elucidate the full potential of exercise and nutrition intervention for people with cancer at risk of bone and muscle loss.