A phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of gabapentin in the management of hot flashes in men (N00CB)

Hot flash clinical trial baseline measurements: how long is needed?

OBJECTIVES

Classically, hot flash studies included a baseline period of 1 week or longer. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of a 1-day baseline diary to a traditional 1-week diary.

METHODS

Raw data from 5 pilot studies and 15 phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs), all of which used a 1-week baseline period, were obtained. Descriptive statistics were used to describe day-by-day variations in hot flash frequencies and scores, during the baseline week. Additional analyses evaluated whether the conclusions from any of the individual pilot studies would have been changed if only a 1-day baseline period had been used. For the RCTs, p values were recalculated using mixed models, adjusting for the baseline value by including it as a covariate.

RESULTS

A total of 2573 participants were included. On average, participants had 8.5 hot flashes per day on day 1. Mean hot flash frequencies and scores on subsequent days (days 2-7) were within 6% of day 1 values. When comparing a 1-day to a 1-week baseline period, there was an absolute difference of only 0.29 hot flashes per day (SD 2.25). Reanalysis for each pilot study revealed that no individual study conclusions would have been altered by a shorter baseline. For the RCTs, a shorter baseline period changed the results of only 1 of 24 comparisons from statistically significant to not significant, or vice versa.

CONCLUSIONS

A 1-day hot flash diary appears to accurately reflect the true frequency and severity of baseline symptoms in appropriately sized cohorts.

Effect of Serelys Homme on the Incidence and Severity of Vasomotor Symptoms and Quality-of-Life Impairments in Patients Receiving Hormone Therapy and Radiation for Localized Prostate Cancer: Results of the ESCULAPE Phase 2 Prospective Study

Purpose

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) may cause vasomotor symptoms (VMS) including hot flushes and sweats, which affect quality of life (QoL). Serelys Homme is a nonhormonal and a natural origin product that could affect VMS in men undergoing ADT. We evaluated effectiveness and tolerance of Serelys Homme administration on VMS and QoL of patients undergoing combined ADT and radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

Methods and Materials

Between April 2017 and July 2019, 103 patients were screened, and 53 patients refused to participate in the study. Serelys Homme therapy consisted of a daily administration of 2 tablets for 6 months. Patients were evaluated with 4 questionnaires including the adapted Modified Rankin Scale (adapted-MRS), European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level Version (EQ 5D3L), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P), and Hot Flash Related Daily Interference Scale (HFRDIS) at day 0, day 90 (D90), and day 180 (D180). Statistical evaluation was performed using the Wilcoxon rank sign test. A 2-sided P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Among the 50 patients, 4 withdrew after inclusion. All patients (n = 46) received either postoperative or definitive radiation therapy combined with a short (n = 15) or long course (n = 31) of ADT. Serelys Homme administration significantly decreased the rate of patients who had ≥7 VMS and 3 to 6 VMS per day. The number of patients presenting with moderate or severe VMS was decreased at D90 (P = .005) and at D180 (P = .005). In addition, VMS duration was reduced at D90 (P = .002) and D180 (P < .001). Finally, at D90 and D180, 11.1% and 16.0% of patients, respectively, with initial severe or moderate VMS had a complete response without further symptoms. Among QoL parameters, fatigue decreased significantly. Effectiveness evaluated by doctors was rated as moderate or good to excellent VMS control in 20% and 60% of the patients, respectively. No side effects were recorded in the whole population.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated effectiveness and excellent tolerance of Serelys Homme. We observed a significant reduction of the frequency, duration, and intensity of hot flushes and sweats induced by ADT. Serelys Homme increased QoL scores. These encouraging results open the prospect to further studies and Serelys Homme use in patients undergoing ADT for prostate cancer.

Measuring symptoms and toxicities: a 35-year experience

PURPOSE

When conducting trials aimed at the improvement of cancer-related and/or cancer treatment-related toxicities, it is important to determine the best means of measuring patients' symptoms.

METHODS

The authors of this current manuscript have an extensive experience with the conduct of symptom-control clinical trials. This experience is utilized to provide insight into the best means of measuring symptoms caused by cancer and/or cancer therapy.

RESULTS

Patient-reported outcome data are preferable for measuring bothersome symptoms, for determining toxicities caused by treatment approaches, and offer more accurate and detailed information compared with health care practitioners recording their impressions of patient experiences. Well-validated patient friendly measures are recommended when they are available. When such are not readily available, face-valid, single-item numerical rating scales are effective instruments to document both treatment trial outcomes and cancer treatment side effects/toxicities.

CONCLUSION

The use of numerical rating scales are effective means of measuring symptoms caused by cancer, by cancer treatments, and/or alleviated by symptom control treatment approaches.

How to Improve the Quality of Life of Patients with Prostate Cancer Treated with Hormone Therapy?

Prostate cancer (PC) is a hormone-sensitive tumor. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the cornerstone of systemic therapy for patients with intermediate or high-risk localized, recurrent, and metastatic prostate cancer. Although generally well tolerated, ADT can lead to short- and long-term adverse events that can worsen the quality of life of patients with PC. In the last decade, the introduction of novel generation androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI) has resulted in an improvement in the prognosis of patients with metastatic PC when used in combination with ADT. The use of ARPI in increasingly early stages of the disease determines a longer exposure of patients to these treatments. Although ARPIs are normally well-tolerated drugs, they generally cause an increase in toxicity compared to ADT alone, being able to worsen some adverse events already induced by ADT or leading to the development of specific side effects. Although there are no specific treatments for all the adverse events induced by hormonal therapies, it is essential to know the possible toxicities induced by the different treatments and to start procedures to prevent and/or recognize and consequently treat them early in order to not compromise the quality of life of the patients with PC. The aim of this review is to describe the adverse events induced by hormonal therapies. We will first describe the side effects induced by both ADT and ARPI and then the specific adverse events of the different ARPIs. Furthermore, we will try to highlight the possible therapeutic options to prevent or mitigate the toxicity induced by hormone therapies in order to improve the quality of life of the patients with PC.

Effects of oestradiol treatment on hot flushes in men undergoing androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: a randomised placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Most men undergoing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer experience hot flushes. Current treatments have low or limited evidence of efficacy. It is likely that oestradiol depletion is the mediator of these hot flushes, and transdermal oestradiol might be an effective treatment.

DESIGN

This is a 6-month randomised, placebo-controlled trial with the hypothesis that oestradiol would reduce hot flush frequency and intensity and improve quality of life (QoL).

METHODS

Seventy-eight participants receiving ADT were randomised to 0.9 mg of 0.1% oestradiol gel per day or matched placebo. Hot flush frequency and severity were assessed by 7-day diary at baseline, month 1, month 3, and month 6. QoL was assessed by validated questionnaire.

RESULTS

Oestradiol reduced daily hot flush frequency, with a mean adjusted difference (MAD) of -1.6 hot flushes per day (95% CI: -2.7 to -0.5; P = 0.04). The effect on weekly hot flush score was non-significant, with a MAD -19.6 (95% CI: -35.5 to -3.8; P = 0.11). On per protocol analysis, E2 significantly reduced daily hot flush frequency, with a MAD of -2.2 hot flushes per day (95% CI: -3.2 to -1.1; P = 0.001), and weekly hot flush score, with a MAD of -27.0 (-44.7 to -9.3; P = 0.02). Oestradiol had no significant effect on QoL.

CONCLUSION

We confirmed our hypothesis of a clinical effect of assignment to oestradiol to reduce hot flush frequency in men with castrate testosterone due to ADT. Transdermal oestradiol could be considered for men with burdensome hot flushes in whom other treatments have failed as long as the risk of breast effects and fat gain are considered.

Targeting the androgen receptor signaling pathway in advanced prostate cancer

DISCLAIMER

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

PURPOSE

This article summarizes current androgen receptor (AR)-directed therapies that have received regulatory approval for the treatment of advanced prostate adenocarcinoma (herein referred to as prostate cancer, PC).

SUMMARY

PC is an androgen-dependent malignancy in which ligands including testosterone and dihydrotestosterone bind to AR, initiating androgen-AR complex translocation to the nucleus followed by AR-mediated transcription of target genes. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), including gonadotropin hormone-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists with or without AR antagonists (antiandrogens), GnRH antagonists, or bilateral orchiectomy, forms the backbone of treatment for patients with metastatic castration-naive PC and/or castration-resistant PC (CRPC). ADT is also an option for high-risk, early-stage PC after prostatectomy and/or radiation. While ADT is often very effective as initial therapy, resistance ultimately develops despite suppression of gonadal and/or adrenal androgens, leading to CRCPC, which is characterized by mechanisms such as reactivation of the AR signaling pathway, AR overexpression, and gene mutations in the ligand-binding domain of AR that lead to disease progression, resulting in increased symptom burden and ultimately death. However, disease in patients with CRPC is still dependent on androgen signaling, and these patients continue on ADT to maintain a castrate level of serum testosterone. Novel hormonal therapies including agents that target AR directly (eg, AR antagonists) are often added to ADT in this setting. Targeting the AR signaling pathway led to the development of second-generation AR antagonists, examples of which include enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide. These agents do not exhibit partial agonism or possess a higher affinity for AR and are not postulated to improve survival outcomes relative to their first-generation counterparts for patients with CRPC. Lastly, the emergence of ADT, including second-generation AR antagonists, has led to the development of supportive care for treatment-related adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Major advances have been made in targeting the AR signaling pathway in patients with advanced PC. Further studies are warranted to identify the optimal sequencing of therapies to maximize treatment benefit. Mitigation of treatment-related adverse effects presents new opportunities to advance clinical pharmacy practice.

Lack of consensus identifies important areas for future clinical research: Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 findings

BACKGROUND

Innovations in treatments, imaging and molecular characterisation have improved outcomes for people with advanced prostate cancer; however, many aspects of clinical management are devoid of high-level evidence. At the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019, many of these topics were addressed, and consensus was not always reached. The results from clinical trials will most reliably plus the gaps.

METHODS

An invited panel of 57 experts voted on 123 multiple-choice questions on clinical management at APCCC 2019. No consensus was reached on 88 (71.5%) questions defined as <75% of panellists voting for the same answer option. We reviewed clinicaltrials.gov to identify relevant ongoing phase III trials in these areas of non-consensus.

RESULTS

A number of ongoing phase III trials were identified that are relevant to these non-consensus issues. However, many non-consensus issues appear not to be addressed by current clinical trials. Of note, no phase III but only phase II trials were identified, investigating side effects of hormonal treatments and their management.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of consensus almost invariably indicates gaps in existing evidence. The high percentage of questions lacking consensus at APCCC 2019 highlights the complexity of advanced prostate cancer care and the need for robust, clinically relevant trials that can fill current gaps with high-level evidence. Our review of these areas of non-consensus and ongoing trials provides a useful summary, indicating areas in which future consensus may soon be reached. This review may facilitate academic investigators to identify and prioritise topics for future research.

A multidisciplinary team-based approach with lifestyle modification and symptom management to address the impact of androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer: A randomized phase II study

BACKGROUND

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is associated with numerous toxicities that are potentially modifiable. We sought to evaluate the impact of participation in a multidisciplinary clinic, STAND (Supportive Therapy in Androgen Deprivation) Clinic, designed to provide individualized lifestyle modification and management of ADT-related side effects.

METHODS

This phase II study recruited men with prostate cancer who had started ADT <6 months prior to enrollment, and in whom ADT was planned for at least 12 months following enrollment. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the STAND Clinic or usual care. Patients randomized to the STAND Clinic were provided monthly multidisciplinary assessment and counseling on exercise, nutrition, and symptom management for 12 months on a rotating schedule. Primary outcome was change from baseline to 12 months in percent body fat. Feasibility outcomes were also assessed by measuring percentage of completed visits. Secondary outcomes included change from baseline to 12 months in 3 domains: (1) metabolic impact and bone health, (2) quality of life (QOL), and (3) physical activity.

RESULTS

A total of 25 men were randomized to STAND clinic, and 23 were randomized to usual care. The study did not meet its accrual target of 32 men in each arm and was closed early due to lack of financial support. Overall, 91% (295 of 325) of STAND clinic visits were completed. Eighteen out of the 25 patients in STAND clinic arm (72%) completed all 12 months of STAND clinic visits, and 80% (20 of 25) completed the first 6 months. For all primary and secondary outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

Individualized and comprehensive management of ADT toxicities in a multidisciplinary clinic was well attended by patients. However, we did not find any differences in the outcomes assessed between the intervention arm and control.

Comparing Interventions for Management of Hot Flashes in Patients With Breast and Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analyses

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

Hot flashes are common and bothersome in patients with breast and prostate cancer and can adversely affect patients' quality of life.

LITERATURE SEARCH

Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of one or more interventions for hot flashes in patients with a history of breast or prostate cancer.

DATA EVALUATION

Outcomes of interest included changes in hot flash severity, hot flash frequency, quality of life, and harms. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses were performed where feasible, with narrative synthesis used where required.

SYNTHESIS

40 RCTs were included. Findings from network meta-analysis for hot flash frequency suggested that several therapies may offer benefits compared to no treatment, but little data suggested differences between active therapies. Findings from network meta-analysis for hot flash score were similar.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

Although many interventions may offer improvements for hot flashes versus no treatment, minimal data suggest important differences between therapies.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS CAN BE FOUND BY VISITING&NBSP;HTTPS

//bit.ly/2WGzi30.

Does the placebo effect on hot flashes depend on the placebo dose?

PURPOSE

To investigate the presence of a placebo dose-response effect in four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-dose hot flash clinical trials conducted at Mayo Clinic.

METHODS

Hot flash score, frequency, and hot flash-related distress for each placebo dose level were summarized at each time point by mean and standard deviation and changes from baseline were plotted to visualize a possible placebo dose-effect response. Furthermore, a meta-analysis was conducted for each endpoint in the highest and lowest dosage arms across the four trials.

RESULTS

Longitudinal plots of mean hot flash scores, frequencies, and hot flash-related distress scores in patients taking placebo in each study showed a decline in hot flash scores over time without any clinically meaningful differences between the lowest and highest dosage arms in each study. The meta-analysis for each endpoint in the highest and lowest dosage arms across the four trials revealed no clinically important differences either.

CONCLUSION

While the current study cannot rule out the existence of a placebo dose-response effect in multi-dose placebo-controlled trials in patients with hot flashes or other conditions, it suggests, along with the available data in the placebo literature, that, at least in well-conducted multi-dose clinical trials in which the placebo was used as control, such an effect, if it exists at all, should be very small. Therefore, pooling data from different placebo subgroups is unlikely to compromise the validity of comparisons between the combined placebo arms and each treatment arm.

Canadian Urological Association guideline on androgen deprivation therapy: Adverse events and management strategies

NA

Neurokinin 3 receptor antagonists - prime time?

Vasomotor symptoms (hot flushes, flashes, night sweats) occur in the majority of menopausal women, and are reported as being of the highest symptom priority as they often persist over many years and can be highly disruptive. Hormone therapy is the most effective available treatment but is not without risk if taken long term, and is sometimes contraindicated; for example, in women with a personal or family history of breast cancer, which is the most common female cancer worldwide. Other treatment alternatives are not as efficacious, can cause side effects, and/or are not widely available. A new, effective, targeted treatment could therefore benefit millions of women worldwide. This became possible to investigate after accumulated evidence from both animal and human models implicated heightened signaling of a hypothalamic neuropeptide together with its receptor (neurokinin B/NK3R) in the etiology of sex-steroid-deficient vasomotor symptoms. Four clinical trials of three chemically distinct oral NK3R antagonists for the treatment of menopausal flushes have since completed and published, which consistently demonstrate efficacy and tolerability of these agents. These suggest great promise to change practice in the future if ongoing further larger-scale studies of longer duration confirm the same; as, estrogen exposure will no longer be required to effectively and safely treat vasomotor symptoms.

Indications and Complications of Androgen Deprivation Therapy

OBJECTIVE

To review the indications for and side effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in men affected by prostate cancer.

DATA SOURCES

National guidelines, evidence-based summaries, peer-reviewed studies, and websites.

CONCLUSION

Indications for ADT include men with (1) intermediate- to high-risk localised prostate cancer undergoing radiation therapy, (2) biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy treated with salvage radiation therapy, or (3) metastatic prostate cancer. Several forms of ADT are available. To support self-management, body weight, diet, physical activity, alcohol consumption, and smoking should be discussed during clinical consultations. Important side effects of ADT may include flare-up phenomena of GnRH analogues, local reactions at injection sites, cardiovascular events, bone loss/fractures, drug-drug interactions, urinary tract dysfunction, hot flashes, cognitive impairment, seizure falls, and liver impairment.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nurses have a role in personalized cancer care and should be familiar with indications, side effects, and interventions to optimize quality of life for men affected by prostate cancer receiving ADT.

ONS Guidelines™ for Cancer Treatment-Related Hot Flashes in Women With Breast Cancer and Men With Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Hot flashes are a common and troublesome side effect of surgery or endocrine therapy. They may lead to physical and psychological distress and negatively affect quality of life. This clinical practice guideline presents evidence-based recommendations for pharmacologic, behavioral, and natural health product interventions for treatment-related hot flashes in patients with breast or prostate cancer.

METHODOLOGIC APPROACH

An interprofessional panel of healthcare professionals with patient representation prioritized clinical questions and patient outcomes for the management of hot flashes. Systematic reviews of the literature were conducted. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach was used to assess the evidence and make recommendations.

FINDINGS

The panel agreed on 14 pharmacologic, behavioral, and natural health recommendations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Conditional recommendations include the use of antidepressants rather than no treatment, physical activity rather than no treatment, and the avoidance of gabapentin and dietary supplements in the treatment of hot flashes.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL CAN BE FOUND AT&NBSP;HTTPS

//onf.ons.org/ons-guidelines-hot-flashes-supplementary-material.

Efficacy and safety of gabapentin and pregabalin in patients with vasomotor symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Vasomotor symptoms are common among postmenopausal women and patients receiving hormone deprivation therapies, and emerging studies are exploring gabapentin's and pregabalin's effects as nonhormonal treatment options. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of these 2 drugs.

DATA SOURCES

Based on a preregistered protocol (Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews -CRD42019133650), we searched 10 databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, Chinese Biological Medical Literature, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Journals Full-text Database [VIP], and Wanfang) as well as the World Health Organization international clinical trials registry platform and reference lists of related literatures.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials and randomized crossover studies exploring gabapentin and pregabalin among women patients with vasomotor symptoms were included.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement was followed. Two reviewers independently selected studies, assessed bias, and extracted data. Mean difference and standardized mean difference with 95% confidence intervals were assessed by random-effects models. Heterogeneities were assessed by I² statistics, and the quality of evidence was evaluated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

Nineteen randomized controlled trials and 2 randomized crossover trials reporting results from 3519 participants were included. Gabapentin could reduce hot flash frequency (mean difference, -1.62, 95% confidence interval, -1.98 to -1.26 after 4 weeks; mean difference, -2.77, 95% confidence interval, -4.29 to -1.24 after 12 weeks) and composite score (standardized mean difference, -0.47, 95% confidence interval, -0.71 to -0.23 after 4 weeks; standardized mean difference, -0.77, 95% confidence interval, -1.15 to -0.40 after 12 weeks) compared with placebo. Both menopausal participants and patients with breast cancer benefited from treatment. Higher risks of dizziness and somnolence were found in the gabapentin group than in the control group (risk ratio, 4.45, 95% confidence interval, 2.50-7.94; risk ratio, 3.29, 95% confidence interval, 1.97-5.48, respectively). Estrogen was more effective in reducing hot flash frequency than gabapentin. No statistically significant difference in reduction of hot flash severity score was found between gabapentin and antidepressants. The trials comparing gabapentin or pregabalin with the other interventions were too limited to make a conclusion.

CONCLUSION

Favorable effects of gabapentin in relieving vasomotor symptoms were observed, compared with controls, but were less effective than those of estrogen. Evidence supporting the therapeutic effect of pregabalin is still lacking.

Interventions to Address Sexual Problems in People With Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Adaptation of Cancer Care Ontario Guideline

Purpose

The adaptation of the Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) guideline Interventions to Address Sexual Problems in People With Cancer provides recommendations to manage sexual function adverse effects that occur as a result of cancer diagnosis and/or treatment.

Methods

ASCO staff reviewed the guideline for developmental rigor and updated the literature search. An ASCO Expert Panel ( Table A1 ) was assembled to review the guideline content and recommendations.

Results

The ASCO Expert Panel determined that the recommendations from the 2016 CCO guideline are clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO statements and modifications were added to adapt the CCO guideline for a broader audience.

Recommendations

It is recommended that there be a discussion with the patient, initiated by a member of the health care team, regarding sexual health and dysfunction resulting from cancer or its treatment. Psychosocial and/or psychosexual counseling should be offered to all patients with cancer, aiming to improve sexual response, body image, intimacy and relationship issues, and overall sexual functioning and satisfaction. Medical and treatable contributing factors should be identified and addressed first. In women with symptoms of vaginal and/or vulvar atrophy, lubricants in addition to vaginal moisturizers may be tried as a first option. Low-dose vaginal estrogen, lidocaine, and dehydroepiandrosterone may also be considered in some cases. In men, medication such as phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors may be beneficial, and surgery remains an option for those with symptoms or treatment complications refractory to medical management. Both women and men experiencing vasomotor symptoms should be offered interventions for symptomatic improvement, including behavioral options such as cognitive behavioral therapy, slow breathing and hypnosis, and medications such as venlafaxine and gabapentin.Additional information is available at: www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Survivorship, Version 2.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

Many cancer survivors experience menopausal symptoms, including female survivors taking aromatase inhibitors or with a history of oophorectomy or chemotherapy, and male survivors who received or are receiving androgen-ablative therapies. Sexual dysfunction is also common in cancer survivors. Sexual dysfunction and menopause-related symptoms can increase distress and have a significant negative impact on quality of life. This portion of the NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship provide recommendations for screening, evaluation, and treatment of sexual dysfunction and menopausal symptoms to help healthcare professionals who work with survivors of adult-onset cancer in the posttreatment period.

Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Preservation of Quality of Life and Well-being

Managing optimal health in castrate-resistant prostate cancer is a complex clinical challenge. Quality of life should be assessed with disease-specific validated tools and can be used in clinical practice to assist in considering management options.

Interventions to address sexual problems in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Sexual dysfunction in people with cancer is a significant problem. The present clinical practice guideline makes recommendations to improve sexual function in people with cancer.

METHODS

This guideline was undertaken by the Interventions to Address Sexual Problems in People with Cancer Expert Panel, a group organized by the Program in Evidence-Based Care (pebc). Consistent with the pebc standardized approach, a systematic search was conducted for existing guidelines, and the literature in medline and embase for the years 2003-2015 was systematically searched for both systematic reviews and primary literature. Evidence found for men and for women was evaluated separately, and no restrictions were placed on cancer type or study design. Content and methodology experts performed an internal review of the resulting draft recommendations, which was followed by an external review by targeted experts and intended users.

RESULTS

The search identified 4 existing guidelines, 13 systematic reviews, and 103 studies with relevance to the topic. The present guideline provides one overarching recommendation concerning the discussion of sexual health and dysfunction, which is aimed at all people with cancer. Eleven additional recommendations made separately for men and women deal with issues such as sexual response, body image, intimacy and relationships, overall sexual functioning and satisfaction, and vasomotor and genital symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge this clinical practice guideline is the first to comprehensively evaluate interventions for the improvement of sexual problems in people with cancer. The guideline will be a valuable resource to support practitioners and clinics in addressing sexuality in cancer survivors.

κ Agonists as a novel therapy for menopausal hot flashes

OBJECTIVE

The etiology of postmenopausal hot flashes is poorly understood, making it difficult to develop and target ideal therapies. A network of hypothalamic estrogen-sensitive neurons producing kisspeptin, neurokinin B and dynorphin-called KNDy neurons-are located adjacent to the thermoregulatory center. KNDy neurons regulate pulsatile secretion of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) and luteinizing hormone (LH). Dynorphin may inhibit this system by binding κ opioid receptors within the vicinity of KNDy neurons. We hypothesize that hot flashes are reduced by KNDy neuron manipulation.

METHODS

A double-blind, cross-over, placebo-controlled pilot study evaluated the effects of a κ agonist. Hot flash frequency was the primary outcome. Twelve healthy postmenopausal women with moderate to severe hot flashes (aged 48-60 y) were randomized. Eight women with sufficient baseline hot flashes for statistical analysis completed all three interventions: placebo, standard-dose pentazocine/naloxone (50/0.5 mg), or low-dose pentazocine/naloxone (25/0.25 mg). In an inpatient research setting, each participant received the three interventions, in randomized order, on three separate days. On each day, an intravenous catheter was inserted for LH blood sampling, and skin conductance and Holter monitors were placed. Subjective hot flash frequency and severity were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean (SEM) hot flash frequency 2 to 7 hours after therapy initiation was lower than that for placebo (standard-dose κ agonist, 4.75 [0.67] hot flashes per 5 h; low-dose κ agonist, 4.50 [0.57] hot flashes per 5 h; placebo, 5.94 [0.78] hot flashes per 5 h; P = 0.025). Hot flash intensity did not vary between interventions. LH pulsatility mirrored objective hot flashes in some--but not all--women.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study suggests that κ agonists may affect menopausal vasomotor symptoms.

Management of Prostate Cancer in the Elderly

The impact of localized prostate cancer in the elderly depends on disease aggressiveness and life expectancy. In men with localized prostate cancer, those with low-risk disease or a shorter life expectancy should be managed expectantly, whereas those with long life expectancy or more aggressive disease may benefit from curative treatment. Comorbidity and quality-of-life concerns are key considerations during the selection of therapeutic modalities in the elderly in localized and metastatic settings. A variety of new agents have changed the therapeutic landscape in castrate-resistant prostate cancer, but their benefits need to be considered alongside their side effects and cost.

Phase II evaluation of S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe) for the treatment of hot flashes

PURPOSE

Hot flashes are a significant source of symptom burden that negatively impacts quality of life (QOL). For women who have contraindications to, or are unwilling to consider, estrogens or antidepressants for bothersome hot flashes, there are limited effective pharmacologic or complementary and alternative medicines.

METHODS

This single-arm phase II trial studied the efficacy of S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe) for the treatment of hot flashes. Eligible women were required to have reported ≥14 hot flashes per week for ≥1 month. The patients were treated with SAMe at a dose of 400 mg twice daily to evaluate whether a reduction in hot flash score appeared to be better than the historical placebo response of approximately 25%. The women kept a daily hot flash diary during a baseline week and then daily during weeks 2-7. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to week 7 in hot flash score and hot flash frequency. Secondary endpoints included toxicity analyses and the effect of SAMe on QOL.

RESULTS

From October 28, 2010 to January 30, 2012, 43 women were treated with SAMe. The decrease in mean percent of baseline hot flash score and frequency was 35.4 and 32.6%, respectively. When compared to the historical placebo response of 25%, the effect of SAMe on hot flash score was not statistically significant (p = 0.09). Treatment was well tolerated with expected grade 1/2 gastrointestinal toxicity and no negative effect on QOL.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of SAMe does not appear to significantly reduce hot flashes more than would be expected with a placebo.

Symptoms, unmet needs, psychological well-being and health status in survivors of prostate cancer: implications for redesigning follow-up

OBJECTIVE

To explore ongoing symptoms, unmet needs, psychological wellbeing, self-efficacy and overall health status in survivors of prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An invitation to participate in a postal questionnaire survey was sent to 546 men, diagnosed with prostate cancer 9-24 months previously at two UK cancer centres. The study group comprised men who had been subject to a range of treatments: surgery, radiotherapy, hormone therapy and active surveillance. The questionnaire included measures of prostate-related quality of life (Expanded Prostate cancer Index Composite 26-item version, EPIC-26); unmet needs (Supportive Care Needs Survey 34-item version, SCNS-SF34); anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS), self-efficacy (modified Self-efficacy Scale), health status (EuroQol 5D, EQ-5D) and satisfaction with care (questions developed for this study). A single reminder was sent to non-responders after 3 weeks. Data were analysed by age, co-morbidities, and treatment group.

RESULTS

In all, 316 men completed questionnaires (64.1% response rate). Overall satisfaction with follow-up care was high, but was lower for psychosocial than physical aspects of care. Urinary, bowel, and sexual functioning was reported as a moderate/big problem in the last month for 15.2% (n = 48), 5.1% (n = 16), and 36.5% (n = 105) men, respectively. The most commonly reported moderate/high unmet needs related to changes in sexual feelings/relationships, managing fear of recurrence/uncertainty, and concerns about the worries of significant others. It was found that 17% of men (51/307) reported potentially moderate-to-severe levels of anxiety and 10.2% (32/308) reported moderate-to-severe levels of depression. The presence of problematic side-effects was associated with higher psychological morbidity, poorer self-efficacy, greater unmet needs, and poorer overall health status.

CONCLUSION

While some men report relatively few problems after prostate cancer treatment, this study highlights important physical and psycho-social issues for a significant minority of survivors of prostate cancer. Strategies for identifying those men with on-going problems, alongside new interventions and models of care, tailored to individual needs, are needed to improve quality of life.

Radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer

The combination of radiation treatment and long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been shown in multiple clinical trials to prolong overall survival in men with high-risk prostate cancer compared with either treatment alone. New radiation technologies enable the safe delivery of high radiation doses that improve cancer control compared with lower radiation doses. Based on the results of multiple randomized trials, clinical practice guidelines for high-risk prostate cancer recommend total radiation doses of at least 75.6 Gy, with long-term (2-3 years) ADT. Ongoing research into hypofractionated radiation treatment, whole-pelvic radiation, and combinations of radiation with novel hormonal agents could further improve cancer control and survival outcomes for patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

A systematic review of non-hormonal treatments of vasomotor symptoms in climacteric and cancer patients

The cardinal climacteric symptoms of hot flushes and night sweats affect 24-93% of all women during the physiological transition from reproductive to post-reproductive life. Though efficacious, hormonal therapy and partial oestrogenic compounds are linked to a significant increase in breast cancer. Non-hormonal treatments are thus greatly appreciated.

This systematic review of published hormonal and non-hormonal treatments for climacteric, and breast and prostate cancer-associated hot flushes, examines clinical efficacy and therapy-related cancer risk modulation.

A PubMed search included literature up to June 19, 2014 without limits for initial dates or language, with the search terms, (hot flush* OR hot flash*) AND (clinical trial* OR clinical stud*) AND (randomi* OR observational) NOT review). Retrieved references identified further papers. The focus was on hot flushes; other symptoms (night sweats, irritability, etc.) were not specifically screened. Included were some 610 clinical studies where a measured effect of the intervention, intensity and severity were documented, and where patients received treatment of pharmaceutical quality. Only 147 of these references described studies with alternative non-hormonal treatments in post-menopausal women and in breast and prostate cancer survivors; these results are presented in Additional file 1.

The most effective hot flush treatment is oestrogenic hormones, or a combination of oestrogen and progestins, though benefits are partially outweighed by a significantly increased risk for breast cancer development.

This review illustrates that certain non-hormonal treatments, including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, gabapentin/pregabalin, and Cimicifuga racemosa extracts, show a positive risk-benefit ratio.

Key points

Several non-hormonal alternatives to hormonal therapy have been established and registered for the treatment of vasomotor climacteric symptoms in peri- and post-menopausal women.

There are indications that non-hormonal treatments are useful alternatives in patients with a history of breast and prostate cancer. However, confirmation by larger clinical trials is required.

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.

Adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy and strategies to mitigate them

CONTEXT

Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is a key component of treatment for aggressive and advanced prostate cancer, but it has also been associated with adverse effects on bone, metabolic, cardiovascular, sexual, and cognitive health as well as body composition.

OBJECTIVE

To review the current literature on the adverse effects of ADT and strategies for ameliorating harm from ADT.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The Medline database (through PubMed) was searched from inception to August 1, 2013, for studies documenting the side effects of ADT and for randomized and prospective trials of interventions to mitigate those side effects.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Adverse effects of ADT include decreases in bone mineral density; metabolic changes such as weight gain, decreased muscle mass, and increased insulin resistance; decreased libido and sexual dysfunction; hot flashes; gynecomastia; reduced testicle size; anemia; and fatigue. Several observational studies suggest an increased risk of diabetes and cardiovascular events, although most published studies report that ADT is not linked to greater cardiovascular mortality. Randomized trials have found value in treatments for some adverse effects including bone loss (bisphosphonates, denosumab, selective estrogen receptor modulators), markers of metabolic syndrome (exercise, diet, metformin), gynecomastia (tamoxifen, prophylactic radiation), muscle loss (resistance and aerobic exercise), and hot flashes (venlafaxine, medroxyprogesterone, cyproterone acetate, gabapentin).

CONCLUSIONS

ADT is often a necessary component of the treatment of aggressive prostate cancer, yet it has known harms that can impair health and quality of life. Clinicians should be aware of interventions that can help mitigate these adverse effects.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Androgen deprivation therapy is a critical component of the management of aggressive and advanced prostate cancer, but it causes adverse effects including bone loss, metabolic changes, gynecomastia, muscle loss, hot flashes, and possibly increased cardiovascular events. Clinicians should be aware of interventions that can help mitigate these adverse effects.

Androgen deprivation therapy complications

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is increasingly used to treat advanced prostate cancer and is also utilised as adjuvant or neo-adjuvant treatment for high-risk disease. The resulting suppression of endogenous testosterone production has deleterious effects on quality of life, including hot flushes, reduced mood and cognition and diminished sexual function. Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies show that ADT has adverse bone and cardio-metabolic effects. The rate of bone loss is accelerated, increasing the risk of osteoporosis and subsequent fracture. Fat mass is increased and lean mass reduced, and adverse effects on lipid levels and insulin resistance are observed, the latter increasing the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. ADT also appears to increase the risk of incident cardiovascular events, although whether it increases cardiovascular mortality is not certain from the observational evidence published to date. Until high-quality evidence is available to guide management, it is reasonable to consider men undergoing ADT to be at a higher risk of psychosexual dysfunction, osteoporotic fracture, diabetes and cardiovascular disease, especially when treated for extended periods of time and therefore subjected to profound and prolonged hypoandrogenism. Health professionals caring for men undergoing treatment for prostate cancer should be aware of the potential risks of ADT and ensure appropriate monitoring and clinical management.

American Cancer Society prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines

Prostate cancer survivors approach 2.8 million in number and represent 1 in 5 of all cancer survivors in the United States. While guidelines exist for timely treatment and surveillance for recurrent disease, there is limited availability of guidelines that facilitate the provision of posttreatment clinical follow-up care to address the myriad of long-term and late effects that survivors may face. Based on recommendations set forth by a National Cancer Survivorship Resource Center expert panel, the American Cancer Society developed clinical follow-up care guidelines to facilitate the provision of posttreatment care by primary care clinicians. These guidelines were developed using a combined approach of evidence synthesis and expert consensus. Existing guidelines for health promotion, surveillance, and screening for second primary cancers were referenced when available. To promote comprehensive follow-up care and optimal health and quality of life for the posttreatment survivor, the guidelines address health promotion, surveillance for prostate cancer recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, long-term and late effects assessment and management, psychosocial issues, and care coordination among the oncology team, primary care clinicians, and nononcology specialists. A key challenge to the development of these guidelines was the limited availability of published evidence for management of prostate cancer survivors after treatment. Much of the evidence relies on studies with small sample sizes and retrospective analyses of facility-specific and population databases.

PROSPECTIV-a pilot trial of a nurse-led psychoeducational intervention delivered in primary care to prostate cancer survivors: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer survivors can experience physical, sexual, psychological and emotional problems, and there is evidence that current follow-up practices fail to meet these men's needs. Studies show that secondary and primary care physicians see a greater role for primary care in delivering follow-up, and that primary care-led follow-up is acceptable to men with prostate cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A two-phase study with target population being men who are 9-24 months from diagnosis. Phase 1 questionnaire aims to recruit 300 men and measure prostate-related quality of life and unmet needs. Men experiencing problems with urinary, bowel, sexual or hormonal function will be eligible for phase 2, a pilot trial of a primary care nurse-led psychoeducational intervention. Consenting eligible participants will be randomised either to intervention plus usual care, or usual care alone (40 men in each arm). The intervention, based on a self-management approach, underpinned by Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory, will provide advice and support tailored to these men's needs and address any problems they are experiencing. Telephone follow-up will take place at 6 months. Study outcomes will be measured by a questionnaire at 7 months. Phase 1 will allow us to estimate the prevalence of urinary, sexual, bowel and hormone-related problems in prostate cancer survivors and the level of unmet needs. 'Usual care' will also be documented. Phase 2 will provide information on recruitment and retention, acceptability of the intervention/outcome measures, effect sizes of the intervention and cost-effectiveness data, which is required to inform development of a larger, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. The main outcome of interest is change in prostate-cancer-related quality of life. Methodological issues will also be addressed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been gained (Oxford REC A 12/SC/0500). Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, at conferences, through user networks and relevant clinical groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN 97242511.

Optimal pharmacotherapeutic management of hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer

The mainstay of initial therapy of metastatic prostate cancer has not changed since 1941 when Huggins and Hodges described the efficacy of castration. The benefit of combining an androgen receptor blocker with medical castration has been debatable despite several large randomized trials and meta-analyses intended to answer the question. Recent phase III trial data with continuous versus intermittent androgen deprivation in newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer have established continuous therapy as the preferred approach at the present time. Novel and more potent inhibitors of androgen signaling have been developed in the past 5 years and have been validated in castration-resistant disease. Their role in management of hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer is under evaluation in ongoing studies. As androgen deprivation therapy carries significant long-term toxicities including fatigue and loss of bone and muscle mass, an important element of clinical management is prevention and amelioration of these toxicities.

Potential role of gabapentin and extended-release gabapentin in the management of menopausal hot flashes

About 80% of postmenopausal women experience vasomotor symptoms, such as hot flashes and night sweats – symptoms that are associated with sleep disruption and can lead to fatigue and mood changes. Moreover, hot flashes can be embarrassing for women, causing difficulties at work and in their social lives. Many therapies have been advocated for relief of vasomotor symptoms, but only hormone therapy has been US Food and Drug Administration approved. However, after the Women’s Health Initiative Study suggested that there was a correlation between hormone therapy and increased risk for breast cancer and cardiovascular events, many women stopped taking hormone therapy, and many do not want to initiate it. Hormone therapy is also contraindicated in certain women, such as those with a history of hormone-stimulated cancer like breast and uterine cancer. Gabapentin (Neurontin) has shown efficacy in relieving vasomotor symptoms and is used as off-label for this indication. A new extended-release formulation of gabapentin has also shown efficacy in treating hot flashes and improving sleep quality with possibly fewer side effects than regular gabapentin.

Risk factors, pathophysiology, and treatment of hot flashes in cancer

Hot flashes are prevalent and severe symptoms that can interfere with mood, sleep, and quality of life for women and men with cancer. The purpose of this article is to review existing literature on the risk factors, pathophysiology, and treatment of hot flashes in individuals with cancer. Electronic searches were conducted to identify relevant English-language literature published through June 15, 2012. Results indicated that risk factors for hot flashes in cancer include patient-related factors (eg, age, race/ethnicity, educational level, smoking history, cardiovascular risk including body mass index, and genetics) and disease-related factors (eg, cancer diagnosis and dose/type of treatment). In addition, although the pathophysiology of hot flashes has remained elusive, these symptoms are likely attributable to disruptions in thermoregulation and neurochemicals. Therapies that have been offered or tested fall into 4 broad categories: pharmacological, nutraceutical, surgical, and complementary/behavioral strategies. The evidence base for this broad range of therapies varies, with some treatments not yet having been fully tested or showing equivocal results. The evidence base surrounding all therapies is evaluated to enhance hot flash treatment decision-making by clinicians and patients.

Androgen deprivation therapy-associated vasomotor symptoms

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is widely used as standard therapy in the treatment of locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer. While efficacious, ADT is associated with multiple side effects, including decreased libido, erectile dysfunction, diabetes, loss of muscle tone and altered body composition, osteoporosis, lipid changes, memory loss, gynecomastia and hot flashes. The breadth of literature for the treatment of hot flashes is much smaller in men than that in women. While hormonal therapy of hot flashes has been shown to be effective, multiple non-hormonal medications and treatment methods have also been developed. This article reviews current options for the treatment of hot flashes in patients taking ADT.

Hot flashes: a review of pathophysiology and treatment modalities

Many therapies are being studied for the treatment of hot flashes for individuals with cancer, yet few studies have demonstrated safe and effective clinical benefit for those who suffer from this distressing symptom. The purpose of this paper is to assess the current options for the management of hot flashes, examining key endpoints from recent clinical trials and reviewing future directions. Hot flashes are a common stressful symptom for individuals with cancer, particularly women with a history of breast cancer and men with prostate cancer. Lifestyle modifications are proposed as the first step in the management of less severe hot flashes. Several publications have addressed nonhormonal agents as a treatment option for hot flashes. Newer antidepressant and anticonvulsant agents have been studied and show potential in treating vasomotor symptoms. Although many complementary and alternative therapies, including herbal medications and phytoestrogens, have been studied for the treatment of hot flashes, none are clinically recommended at this time. Additionally, further evidence is needed for supportive exercise such as yoga and relaxation techniques. Acupuncture may warrant further investigation in the reduction and severity of hot flashes in both men and women. Hormonal therapies, including estrogens and progestogens, are the most well-known and efficient agents in alleviating hot flashes; however, the safety of these agents is disputable.

Androgen deprivation therapy and definitive radiotherapy for prostate cancer

Adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves outcomes of patients receiving definitive radiotherapy (RT) for local-regionally advanced prostate cancer. However, patients in most randomized trials had more advanced disease than observed in many practices and were treated with suboptimal RT doses. Although data are conflicting, long-term ADT likely has adverse side-effects in patients with comorbidities. We recommend 6 months of ADT monotherapy with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist and RT for patients with high-risk prostate cancer (≥T2c, Gleason Score 8 to 10, and/or prostate-specific antigen ≥20 ng/mL) with minimal or no comorbidities. Adjuvant ADT for unfavorable intermediate-risk patients with a Gleason Score of 4+3=7 is also reasonable.

Hot flashes in breast cancer survivors and an association with calcium supplement use

AIMS

In breast cancer survivors, we aimed to describe the frequency of hot flashes and night sweats, frequency and type of treatment, and the association of hot flashes and use of calcium supplements.

METHODS

Charts of breast cancer survivors were reviewed for information about hot flashes, treatment for hot flashes, and calcium supplementation. Associations between variables were explored using the Chi-square test and Fisher's Exact test.

RESULTS

Eighty-six charts were reviewed. Mean age of the women was 58 years and 79% were postmenopausal. Forty-two (49%) of women had hot flashes and 18 (21%) had night sweats. Thirty-one (36%) were treated for hot flashes. Treatment included selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors/serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (n = 19), clonidine (n = 7), Bellergal-S(®) (n = 8), sleep-aid (n = 7), and other (n = 5). Calcium supplementation was recorded in 31%. Of women with hot flashes, 44% took calcium supplements; of women without hot flashes, 18% took calcium supplements (Chi-square P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Hot flashes were recorded in 49% of this group of primarily postmenopausal breast cancer survivors. Women with hot flashes were more likely to be taking calcium supplements. Further exploration of the association between hot flashes and calcium supplementation is warranted.

Gabapentin for the management of hot flashes in prostate cancer survivors: a longitudinal continuation Study-NCCTG Trial N00CB

Hot flashes are a complication of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. A phase III study showed that use of low-dose gabapentin was well tolerated and moderately decreased the frequency of hot flashes due to androgen deprivation therapy when taken for 4 weeks. The current study, an open-label continuation of the randomized study, examined the efficacy and toxicity of gabapentin when taken for (an additional) 8 weeks. Patients were allowed to start, or continue, gabapentin and to titrate the dose to maximum efficacy, up to 900 mg/d. They were asked to complete a hot flash diary daily and keep weekly logs of toxicity, satisfaction with hot flash control, and quality of life. The moderate reduction in hot flash frequency and severity in the randomized phase of the study appeared to be maintained during this continuation phase. Men originally receiving the placebo or lowest dose of gabapentin (300 mg/d) had improved hot flash control relative to that at the end of the randomized phase. Minimal adverse effects were reported. These findings suggest that low-dose gabapentin is moderately efficacious for at least 12 weeks of hot flash treatment in men undergoing androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer and seems to be well tolerated. (NCT00028572)

Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled evaluation of pregabalin for alleviating hot flashes, N07C1

PURPOSE

Hot flashes are a common problem for which effective and safe treatments are needed. The current trial was conducted on the basis of preliminary promising data that pregabalin decreased hot flashes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial design was used to compare pregabalin at target doses of 75 mg twice daily and 150 mg twice daily with a placebo. Hot flash frequencies and scores (frequency times mean severity) were recorded daily during a baseline week and for six treatment weeks. The primary end point for this study was the change-from-baseline hot flash score during treatment week 6 between the 150 mg twice daily target pregabalin treatment and placebo. Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum tests, two-sample t tests, and chi(2) tests were used to compare the primary and secondary hot flash efficacy end points between pregabalin treatments and placebo.

RESULTS

Hot flash score changes available for 163 patients during the sixth treatment week compared with a baseline week decreased by 50%, 65%, and 71% in the placebo, and target 75 mg twice daily and 150 mg twice daily pregabalin arms, respectively (P = .009 and P = .007, comparing respective pregabalin arms to the placebo arm). While some toxicities were significantly more common in the pregabalin arms, being more evident with the higher dose, pregabalin was generally well tolerated by most patients.

CONCLUSION

Pregabalin decreases hot flashes and is reasonably well tolerated. A target dose of 75 mg twice daily is recommended. Its effects appear to be roughly comparable to what has been reported with gabapentin and with some newer antidepressants.

Managing hot flushes in men after prostate cancer--a systematic review. Maturitas. 2010;65:15-22. [PMID: 19962840 DOI: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.10.017]

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to describe hot flushes in men with prostate cancer, and their treatment methods.

METHOD

A systematic review was conducted of the literature indexed between 1966 and 2009 on the MEDLINE, the ISI Web of Knowledge, Cinahl and PsycINFO. Of 252 articles identified, 32 were selected for consideration of their complete texts, of which five were subject to detailed analysis.

RESULTS

Diethylstilbestrol, megestrol acetate and cyproterone acetate have the strongest effect, giving a 75% or larger decrease of the number of hot flushes, but they may have severe or bothersome side-effects. Gabapentin has an uncertain effect. Clonidine is not proven effective for hot flushes. Long-term effects were not evaluated in any of the studies. SSRI/SNRI and acupuncture may have a moderate effect on hot flushes but are not proven in any RCTs.

CONCLUSION

Hot flushes are common and bothersome symptoms in men with prostate cancer and those taking anti-androgen treatment, and reduce quality of life. Few treatments are available and some are avoided for these patients. Additional prospective treatment studies are needed, with long-term follow-up, in order to evaluate the effects and risks of treatments. Treatments with few or no severe side-effects should be prioritised in future investigations. Experimental studies are also needed to elucidate the mechanism behind hot flushes in men and to suggest routes for the development of new treatments.