Osteoporosis management program decreases incidence of hip fracture in patients with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy

Outcomes and Risks Associated With Subsequent Contralateral Hip Fractures

BACKGROUND

Hip fractures constitute a major public health problem for older individuals. They are associated with functional deterioration, limited mobility, and increased mortality, while contributing to economic and social hardships that are compounded by a second hip fracture. With the aging US population and increasing rates of hip fractures, it is essential to understand factors surrounding subsequent contralateral hip fractures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This descriptive study was a retrospective review of patients 60 years and older who were identified in the institutional geriatric hip fracture database as having had an initial and subsequent contra-lateral hip fracture, with the second treated at our tertiary referral center.

RESULTS

The incidence of subsequent hip fracture was 13.2%. The mean time to second hip fracture was 3.5 years after the initial injury. The first fracture tended to be a femoral neck fracture, whereas the second injury was more likely to have an intertrochanteric pattern. There was a higher complication rate after a subsequent hip fracture. Patients taking osteoporosis and adjuvant medication prior to admission for the second fracture tended to have a lower 90-day mortality rate. Patients with a history of any fracture prior to the first hip fracture, with cancer, and with osteopenia had shorter intervals to the subsequent event.

CONCLUSION

Subsequent hip fractures carry high morbidity and mortality rates. Steps should be taken after the initial injury to optimize outcomes in the case of a subsequent event. Patients discharged after initial hip fracture should be maintained with osteoporosis medication. [Orthopedics. 202x;4x(x):xx-xx.].

Fracture risk and assessment in adults with cancer

Individuals with cancer face unique risk factors for osteoporosis and fractures. Clinicians must consider the additive effects of cancer-specific factors, including treatment-induced bone loss, and premorbid fracture risk, utilizing FRAX score and bone mineral densitometry when available. Pharmacologic therapy should be offered as per cancer-specific guidelines, when available, or local general osteoporosis guidelines informed by clinical judgment and patient preferences. Our objective was to review and summarize the epidemiologic burden of osteoporotic fracture risk and fracture risk assessment in adults with cancer, and recommended treatment thresholds for cancer treatment-induced bone loss, with specific focus on breast, prostate, thyroid, gynecological, multiple myeloma, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant. This narrative review was informed by PubMed searches to July 25, 2022, that combined terms for cancer, stem cell transplantation, fracture, bone mineral density (BMD), trabecular bone score, FRAX, Garvan nomogram or fracture risk calculator, QFracture, prediction, and risk factors. The literature informs that cancer can impact bone health in numerous ways, leading to both systemic and localized decreases in BMD. Many cancer treatments can have detrimental effects on bone health. In particular, hormone deprivation therapies for hormone-responsive cancers such as breast cancer and prostate cancer, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant for hematologic malignancies, adversely affect bone turnover, resulting in osteoporosis and fractures. Surgical treatments such as hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for gynecological cancers can also lead to deleterious effects on bone health. Radiation therapy is well documented to cause localized bone loss and fractures. Few studies have validated the use of fracture risk prediction tools in the cancer population. Guidelines on cancer-specific treatment thresholds are limited, and major knowledge gaps still exist in fracture risk and fracture risk assessment in patients with cancer. Despite the limitations of current knowledge on fracture risk assessment and treatment thresholds in patients with cancer, clinicians must consider the additive effects of bone damaging factors to which these patients are exposed and their premorbid fracture risk profile. Pharmacologic treatment should be offered as per cancer-specific guidelines when available, or per local general osteoporosis guidelines, in accordance with clinical judgment and patient preferences.

Attention to bone health in follow-up of gynaecological cancers in tertiary care

OBJECTIVE

Women with gynaecological cancers are at an increased risk of cancer treatment-induced bone loss, which impacts on their quality of life and overall survival. Clinical cancer follow-up reviews focus on cancer status and fail to attend to important health and quality-of-life issues. We questioned whether there was a care-gap between tertiary clinicians and primary care physicians in the management of bone health in this cohort. Significant care-gaps in relation to bone health have been demonstrated in other oncologic settings. The objective of this study was to determine the level of attention to bone health in the care of women living with and beyond gynaecological cancer at a tertiary referral centre for gynaecological oncology.

METHODS

Retrospective, observational cohort study of attention to bone health in the management and follow-up of gynaecological cancers.

RESULTS

This study shows that there has been suboptimal attention from the carers at a cancer centre to bone health during the oncological follow up of women undergoing treatment for gynaecological cancer. In those at particular risk of cancer treatment-induced bone loss (iatrogenic menopause and/or external beam pelvic radiotherapy), 52% of women had no reference to bone health in their notes, and 57% had no assessment of bone mineral density.

CONCLUSION

Tertiary cancer carers may underestimate the importance of bone health or believe that it falls outside the remit of their gynaecologic oncology service. Further research is needed to explore whether these findings are indicative of a true care gap and to gain insight into possible corrective measures.

Models of care for osteoporosis: A systematic scoping review of efficacy and implementation characteristics

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis affects over half of adults over 50 years worldwide. With an ageing population, osteoporosis, fractures and their associated costs are increasing. Unfortunately, despite effective therapies, many with osteoporosis remain undiagnosed and untreated. Models of care (MoC) to improve outcomes include fracture liaison services, screening, education, and exercise programs, however efficacy for these is mixed. The aim of this study is to summarise MoC in osteoporosis and describe implementation characteristics and evidence for improving outcomes.

METHODS

This systematic scoping review identified articles via Ovid Medline and Embase, published in English between 01/01/2009 and 15/06/2021, describing MoC for adults aged ≥18 years with, or at risk of, osteoporosis and / or health professionals caring for this group. All included at least one of clinical, consumer or clinician outcomes, with fractures and bone mineral density (BMD) change the primary clinical outcomes. Exclusion criteria were studies assessing pharmaceuticals or procedures without other interventions, or insufficient operational details. All study designs were included, with no comparator necessary. Title and abstract were reviewed by two reviewers. Full text review and data extraction was performed by these reviewers for 20% of article and, thereafter by a single author. As the review was predominantly descriptive, no comparator statistics were used.

FINDINGS

314 articles were identified describing 289 MoC with fracture liaison services (n=89) and education programs (n=86) predominating. The population had prior fragility fracture in 77 studies, the median (IQR) patient number was 210 (87, 667) and the median (IQR) follow-up duration for outcome assessment was 12 (6, 12·5) months. Fracture reduction was reported by 65 studies, with 16 (37%) graded as high quality, and 19 / 47 studies with a comparator group found a reduction in fractures. BMD change was reported by 73 studies, with 41 finding improved BMD. Implementation characteristics including reach, fidelity and loss to follow-up were under-reported, and consumer and clinician perspectives rare.

INTERPRETATION

This comprehensive review of MoC for osteoporosis demonstrated inconsistent evidence for improving outcomes despite similar types of models. Future studies should include implementation outcomes, consumer and clinician perspectives, and fracture or BMD outcomes with sufficient duration of follow-up. Authors should consider pragmatic trial designs and co-design with clinicians and consumers.

The skeletal impact of cancer therapies

Both cancer and therapies used in the treatment of cancer can have significant deleterious effects on the skeleton, increasing the risks for both bone loss and fracture development. While advancements in cancer therapies have resulted in enhanced cancer survivorship for patients with many types of malignancies, it is increasingly recognized that efforts to reduce bone loss and limit fractures must be considered for nearly all patients undergoing cancer therapy in order to diminish the anticipated future skeletal consequences. To date, most studies examining the impact of cancer therapies on skeletal outcomes have focused on endocrine-associated cancers of the breast and prostate, with more recent advances in our understanding of bone loss and fracture risk in other malignancies. Pharmacologic efforts to limit the adverse effects of cancer therapies on bone have nearly universally employed anti-resorptive approaches, although studies have frequently relied on surrogate outcomes such as changes in bone mineral density or bone turnover markers, rather than on fractures or other skeletal-related events, as primary study endpoints. Compounding current deficiencies for the provision of optimal care is the recognition that despite clearly written and straightforward society-based guidelines, vulnerable eligible patients are very often neither identified nor provided with appropriate treatments to limit the skeletal impact of their cancer therapies.

The implications of baseline bone-health assessment at initiation of androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To assess bone-density testing (BDT) use amongst prostate cancer survivors receiving androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), and downstream implications for osteoporosis and fracture diagnoses, as well as pharmacological osteoporosis treatment in a national integrated delivery system.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We identified 17 017 men with prostate cancer who received any ADT between 2005 and 2014 using the Veterans Health Administration cancer registry and administrative data. We identified claims for BDT within a 3-year period of ADT initiation. We then used multivariable regression to examine the association between BDT use and incident osteoporosis, fracture, and use of pharmacological treatment.

RESULTS

We found that a minority of patients received BDT (n = 2 502, 15%); however, the rate of testing increased to >20% by the end of the study period. Men receiving BDT were older at diagnosis and had higher-risk prostate cancer (both P < 0.001). Osteoporosis and fracture diagnoses, use of vitamin D ± calcium, and bisphosphonates were all more common in men who received BDT. After adjustment, BDT, and to a lesser degree ≥2 years of ADT, were both independently associated with incident osteoporosis, fracture, and osteoporosis treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

BDT is rare amongst patients with prostate cancer treated with ADT in this integrated delivery system. However, BDT was associated with substantially increased treatment of osteoporosis indicating an underappreciated burden of osteoporosis amongst prostate cancer survivors initiating ADT. Optimising BDT use and osteoporosis management in this at-risk population appears warranted.

Mind the (treatment) gap: a global perspective on current and future strategies for prevention of fragility fractures

This narrative review considers the key challenges facing healthcare professionals and policymakers responsible for providing care to populations in relation to bone health. These challenges broadly fall into four distinct themes: (1) case finding and management of individuals at high risk of fracture, (2) public awareness of osteoporosis and fragility fractures, (3) reimbursement and health system policy and (4) epidemiology of fracture in the developing world. Findings from cohort studies, randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, in addition to current clinical guidelines, position papers and national and international audits, are summarised, with the intention of providing a prioritised approach to delivery of optimal bone health for all. Systematic approaches to case-finding individuals who are at high risk of sustaining fragility fractures are described. These include strategies and models of care intended to improve case finding for individuals who have sustained fragility fractures, those undergoing treatment with medicines which have an adverse effect on bone health and people who have diseases, whereby bone loss and, consequently, fragility fractures are a common comorbidity. Approaches to deliver primary fracture prevention in a clinically effective and cost-effective manner are also explored. Public awareness of osteoporosis is low worldwide. If older people are to be more pro-active in the management of their bone health, that needs to change. Effective disease awareness campaigns have been implemented in some countries but need to be undertaken in many more. A major need exists to improve awareness of the risk that osteoporosis poses to individuals who have initiated treatment, with the intention of improving adherence in the long term. A multisector effort is also required to support patients and their clinicians to have meaningful discussions concerning the risk-benefit ratio of osteoporosis treatment. With regard to prioritisation of fragility fracture prevention in national policy, there is much to be done. In the developing world, robust epidemiological estimates of fracture incidence are required to inform policy development. As the aging of the baby boomer generation is upon us, this review provides a comprehensive analysis of how bone health can be improved worldwide for all.

Prevalence of Cardiovascular Disease and Osteoporosis During Androgen Deprivation Therapy Prescription Discordant to EAU Guidelines: Results From a Multicenter, Cross-sectional Analysis From the CHOsIng Treatment for Prostate canCEr (CHOICE) Study

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and osteoporosis in patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer (PCa) but not adherent to European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The CHOosIng Treatment for Prostate CanCEr (CHOICE) study was an Italian multicenter, cross-sectional study conducted from December 2010 to January 2012. A total of 1386 patients treated with ADT for PCa (first prescription or renewal of ADT) were selected. According to EAU guidelines, the cohort was categorized in discordant ADT (Group A) and concordant ADT (Group B). The prevalence of CVD and osteoporosis after ADT was recorded.

RESULTS

The final cohort included 1075 patients. According to EAU guidelines adherence, 285 (26.51%) and 790 (73.49%) were considered discordant and concordant, respectively. The proportion of men with Charlson Comorbidity Index  > 2 at baseline was statistically similar in Group A (81.8%) compared to Group B (80.8%) (P = .96). The number of complications reported at enrollment was as follows: cardiovascular in 351 (32.7%), endocrine in 166 (15.4%), sexual in 498 (46.3%), osteoporosis in 181 (16.8%), and gynecomastia in 274 (25.5%) subjects. At the multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for confounding factors, discordant ADT was associated with greater risk of cardiovascular complications (odds ratio: 2.07; P < .01) and osteoporosis (odds ratio: 1.75; P = .04).

CONCLUSION

About one-third of patients with PCa received inappropriate ADT and showed a greater risk of CVD and osteoporosis. These results could be useful for setting better policy strategies to limit the inappropriateness of ADT prescription.

Medical Therapy for Inappropriate Sexual Behaviors in a Teen With Autism Spectrum Disorder

Teens with autism spectrum disorder often exhibit sexual behaviors in public that are disturbing to parents, teachers, and peers. Some have proposed that such behaviors can be curtailed with hormonal suppression. There is information on the Internet suggesting that such medications work, and some reports in the peer-reviewed medical literature support these claims. Such medications can have serious side effects. In this paper, we present a case in which parents requested such treatment of their teenage son with autism spectrum disorder.

Recovery of serum testosterone following neoadjuvant and adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy in men treated with prostate brachytherapy

AIM: To investigate the time course of testosterone (T) recovery after cessation of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients treated with brachytherapy.

METHODS: One-hundred and seventy-four patients treated between June 1999 and February 2009 were studied. Patients were divided into a short-term usage group (≤ 12 mo, n = 91) and a long-term usage group (≥ 36 mo, n = 83) according to the duration of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist therapy. Median follow-up was 29 mo in the short-term group and was 60 mo in the long-term group.

RESULTS: Cumulative incidence rates of T recovery to normal and supracastrate levels at 24 mo after cessation were 28.8% and 74.6%, respectively, in the long-term usage group, whereas these values were 96.4% and 98.8% in the short-term usage group. T recovery to normal and supracastrate levels occurred significantly more rapidly in the short-term than in the long-term usage group (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Five years after cessation, 22.6% of patients maintained a castrate T level in the long-term usage group. On multivariate analysis, lower T levels (< 10 ng/dL) at cessation of ADT was significantly associated with prolonged T recovery to supracastrate levels in the long-term usage group (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION: Lower T levels at cessation of ADT were associated with prolonged T recovery in the long-term usage group. Five years after cessation of long-term ADT, approximately one-fifth of patients still had castrate T levels. When determining the therapeutic effect, especially biochemical control, we should consider this delay in T recovery.

[Prostate cancer treated with androgen deprivation therapy: Care and monitoring in daily practice]

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to identify measures implemented by urologists and radiation oncologists at the initiation of a 6-month formulation of luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist in patients with advanced PCa.

MATERIAL

This cross-sectional cohort survey was conducted during 6 months. Participants completed a questionnaire of 15 items on the first prescription of an androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), the parameters prescribed for monitoring and information provided to patients.

RESULTS

The median age of the 1100 enrolled patients was 75 years (range: 51-98 years); 245 patients (29.0%) were metastatic and 411 (39.4%) had a Gleason score ≥ 8. Prior to the treatment initiation, the dosage of the total testosterone was not very often performed (4.8%). Associated comorbidities such as arterial hypertension (53.6%) and hypercholesterolemia (31.8%) did not constitute a barrier to the initiation of ADT, alone (60.5%) or combined with anti-androgens (61%). According to the recommendations of the French Association of Urology (AFU), fasting glycemia was required in 427 patients (41.1%), lipid profile in 380 (36.1%), a blood count in 219 (21.1%) and bone densitometry in 111 (10.8%). The advice given to patients involved diet and lifestyle rules (61%). The potential risks of adverse events (AEs) mentioned were mainly hot flashes (95.5%).

CONCLUSION

Some recommendations seem insufficiently followed by the French specialists on information and monitoring procedures of ADT, especially in the cardiovascular field.

Androgen-deprivation-associated bone disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) remains a common treatment for prostate cancer, even in the nonmetastatic setting and in scenarios without evidence of efficacy. Increasing attention has focused on its adverse effects, of which bone disease in the form of osteoporosis and fractures has been one of the major concerns. Recently published articles are reviewed, focusing on ADT effects on bone and management of ADT-associated bone disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

A range of strategies directed at ADT-associated bone disease are available, including antiresorptive agents such as denosumab and bisphosphonates, as well as complementary approaches such as calcium and vitamin D supplementation, exercise regimens, and multifaceted interventions incorporating several approaches. Most interventions used bone mineral density as a surrogate outcome, despite compelling evidence that it inadequately captures fracture risk.

SUMMARY

The antiresorptive agents are clearly able to preserve bone mineral density in men on ADT, whereas other approaches have modest to no benefits. Unfortunately, despite intense research interest in this area, no approach has yet demonstrated a definitive and convincing reduction in clinically relevant fracture outcomes. This emphasizes the importance of restricting the use of ADT to settings in which its benefits are clearly established, in order to limit unnecessary complications.

Functional and metabolic complications of androgen deprivation therapy

Prostate cancer is the most common non-cutaneous cancer in men worldwide. Several different treatment strategies are available including minimally invasive procedures for localized tumors such as radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy, and androgen deprivation therapy, among others. All these strategies can be given as mono-therapy or as combination therapy. For this review, we will focus on the side effects of androgen deprivation therapy, independent of the other treatment modalities. Some of the most common affections are loss of bone mineral density, weight gain and obesity, myocardial infarction and sudden death, metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, loss of libido and erectile dysfunction, fatigue, cognitive decline, vasomotor flushing, to mention a few. All these alterations can have an impact on quality of life and even lead to more serious complications such as fractures and cardiovascular complications. We present recommendations for prevention, early recognition and treatment. The different modalities for androgen deprivation therapy have particular side-effects profiles and indications should be made in an individualized manner. Androgen deprivation therapy is a useful tool for some patients with prostate cancer but every effort should be made to avoid related complications. The use of guidelines and educational programs for both, patients and urologists, are extremely useful strategies.

German medical students' interest in and knowledge about human sexuality in 1972 and 2012

INTRODUCTION

During the 1970s, a growing number of medical schools began to recognize the importance of medical education concerning human sexuality. Currently, most medical schools provide at least some instruction in human sexuality.

AIM

In light of this development, the present study aimed to compare the interest in and knowledge about human sexuality of medical students from two different time periods.

METHODS

The answers to a self-constructed questionnaire of 236 students in 1972 were compared with those of 259 students in 2012. Students were asked whether they were interested in education regarding human sexuality and which specific topics they felt should be included in the medical curriculum. The students' knowledge in the following domains was assessed: sexual development, sexual behavior, sexual physiology and psychology, and sexual medicine.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The two cohorts were compared with regard to those specific sexuality-related topics in which the students were most and least interested in. Furthermore, the number of correct responses to the knowledge questions was compared.

RESULTS

While in 1972, 99.2% of the students were interested in medical education about human sexuality, in 2012, 80.3% showed an interest. The connection of disorders from different medical disciplines with sexuality was rated as most interesting by both the students from 1972 and 2012. Medical students from 2012 gave 50.3% correct answers to the knowledge questions, whereas students from 1972 correctly answered 46.3% of the questions.

CONCLUSIONS

Although interest in education concerning human sexuality has decreased, the majority of students view it as an important topic. Nevertheless, medical students still lack knowledge about important aspects of human sexuality (e.g., psychosexual development and relative safety of different contraceptives). Therefore, more time should be dedicated to education concerning human sexuality and its cultural, societal, and health aspects in particular.

Bone health care for patients with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy

Patients with prostate cancer often receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) as part of their treatment regimen. However, treatment with ADT causes multiple side effects, including reduced bone mineral density (BMD), lower lean body mass, and a higher risk for fractures. Several organizations provide clinical practice guidelines for osteoporosis screening, prevention, and treatment in this population, but adherence to these guidelines remains low. Areas for improvement in provider adherence include baseline and follow-up BMD testing, as well as counseling regarding healthy bone behaviors such as calcium/vitamin D intake, lifestyle changes, and physical exercise. Comparison of osteoporosis care in breast cancer and non-oncology populations shows that suboptimal bone health care is not isolated to prostate cancer. A summary of the literature examining improvements in patient adherence and provider delivery of bone health care is included in this review, but high-quality studies are lacking. Patients may be the most receptive to written educational information delivered at or near the time of ADT initiation. Involvement of a primary care practitioner and oncologist in care delivery is associated with higher BMD test use. Institution-level programs that automatically initiate osteoporosis screening and management may be effective at reducing the incidence of hip fracture. Lastly, suggestions are provided for future approaches to knowledge translation and quality of care studies to improve bone health.

Osteoporosis and cancer

Cancer is a major risk factor for bone loss and fractures. This is due both to direct effects of cancer cells on the skeleton and to deleterious effects of cancer-specific therapies on bone cells. Marked improvements in survival for many cancers mean that strategies to limit bone loss and reduce fracture risk must be incorporated into the care plans for nearly all patients with cancer. The vast majority of effort thus far has focused on bone loss in patients with breast and prostate cancers, with comparatively few studies in other malignancies. Antiresorptive therapies have proven nearly universally effective for limiting bone loss in cancer patients, although few studies have been powered sufficiently to include fractures as primary endpoints, and patients are frequently neither identified nor treated according to published guidelines. Nonpharmacologic approaches to limit falls, particularly in elderly patients, are also likely important adjunctive measures for most cancer patients.