THE CARDIOVASCULAR EFFECTS OF GNRH ANTAGONISTS IN MEN WITH PROSTATE CANCER

Drug-drug interactions in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC): practical considerations for treating men with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors and common medications in this stage

INTRODUCTION

New androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) are an essential part of the treatment strategy for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Despite the good tolerability of ARPIs, after treatment is started, drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between these and other medications frequently taken by these patients may appear. DDIs may reduce the therapeutic effect of both and lead to increased adverse events. DDIs should be carefully assessed before an ARPI is started.

AREAS COVERED

We first review the current therapeutic landscape for mHSPC, common age-related comorbidities and other comorbidities or adverse events arising from previous or current treatments for prostate cancer, and patients' symptomatology. We then analyze the potential toxicities arising from medications for these conditions and those of mHSPC: ARPIs (abiraterone acetate plus prednisone/prednisolone, enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide) and docetaxel.

EXPERT OPINION

Before mHSPC patients are treated with an ARPI, careful assessment of patient eligibility for each treatment alternative and potential DDIs between these and treatments for current comorbidities is a fundamental component in clinical decision-making. ARPIs with low potential DDIs allow keeping current concomitant medications without significant relevant dose adjustments and help reduce the risk of toxicities and comorbidity-related decompensation.

Comparative Cardiovascular Safety of Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone Antagonists and Agonists Among Patients Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Real-world Evidence Studies

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists and agonists are cornerstone treatments in prostate cancer. However, evidence regarding the comparative cardiovascular safety of these drugs from clinical trials is inconclusive. The objective of this study was to systematically assess the risk of adverse cardiovascular events of GnRH antagonists compared with GnRH agonists across real-world evidence studies.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science (2008-2023). We included real-world evidence studies comparing the risk of cardiovascular outcomes of GnRH antagonists with those of GnRH agonists among patients with prostate cancer. We conducted a meta-analysis of effect estimates across studies at a low or moderate risk of bias, assessed via the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool, using random-effect models.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

Among ten included studies, four were classified as having a moderate and six as having a serious risk of bias. Across three studies at a moderate risk of bias in the primary analysis, degarelix was associated with an increased risk (pooled relative risk [RR]: 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.14-1.51) of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). An augmented risk was observed in two studies among patients with a history of cardiovascular disease (pooled RR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.11-1.56) compared with one study among patients without a history of cardiovascular disease (RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.83-1.59).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Real-world evidence studies indicate that degarelix, compared with GnRH agonists, is associated with a modest increased risk of MACEs, particularly among patients with a history of cardiovascular disease. However, residual confounding due to the treatment of high-risk patients with degarelix may account for these findings. Additional large studies with detailed data on tumor characteristics and cardiovascular risk factors are needed to confirm these findings.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this systematic evaluation of evidence among patients diagnosed with prostate cancer in routine care, degarelix was associated with higher cardiovascular adverse outcomes than gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists.

Addressing cardiovascular risks with a goal to prevent cardiovascular complications in patients undergoing antihormonal therapy for prostate cancer

Over 1 million cases of prostate cancer are reported every year, and it is the second most common cancer in men. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a hallmark treatment for prostate cancer but is associated with the development or exacerbation of cardiovascular disease. The most common cause of non-cancer death in patients with prostate cancer is cardiovascular disease. Thus, a better understanding of the prevalence of cardiovascular toxicity across all therapies, management of potential cardiovascular complications, and prevention of cardiovascular events is essential as treatments continue to evolve. In this article, the first in a 2-part series, we provide a review of the current landscape of ADT therapy and its association with cardiovascular disease, summarize recent clinical trial data evaluating cardiovascular outcomes, and provide insights on the management of cardiovascular risk factors and adverse events for clinicians managing this high-risk population of men undergoing potentially cardiotoxic treatment for prostate cancer.

Principles of optimal multidisciplinary management of prostate cancer in clinical practice

Advances in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer have significantly changed the disease landscape. While benefiting from better oncological outcomes, patients are now experiencing higher rates of non-cancer comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease. The increasing impact of cardiovascular disease in those with prostate cancer led to the expanding role of cardio-oncology professionals in enhancing the multidisciplinary care of these patients. As a result, the International Cardio-Oncology Society (IC-OS) launched a 4-webinar series in collaboration with the European Association of Urology and the Canadian Urology Association to inform best practices in the multidisciplinary care of patients with prostate cancer. This program highlighted currently recommended diagnostic and treatment strategies from urology, oncology, and cardiology and emphasized knowledge gaps and future directions. In this article, which is the second in a 2-part series, we review challenging cases that were presented and discussed among a multidisciplinary international panel and highlight ongoing research and future directions from both urology/oncology and cardio-oncology.

Assessing the effects of prostate cancer therapies on cardiovascular health

Contemporary advances in prostate cancer treatments have markedly improved patient outcomes, yet concerns persist regarding the increased cardiovascular toxicity of prostate cancer treatments, which is multifaceted. Local therapies entail non-negligible cardiovascular risks. The effects of androgen deprivation therapy, which is pivotal in disease management, on cardiovascular health remains contentious, with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists showing varying cardiovascular outcomes. Despite the ongoing controversy over the cardiovascular risks of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists versus agonists, current evidence does not support favouring one over the other based solely on cardiovascular risk. Combination therapy with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors and androgen deprivation therapy shows additive cardiovascular risks, but robust comparative data are lacking. Chemotherapies such as docetaxel and cabazitaxel, along with emerging targeted therapies and radiopharmaceuticals, are associated with varied cardiovascular risks, necessitating personalized patient assessment. Clinicians should adhere to cardio-oncology guidelines when prescribing therapeutic agents, especially for patients with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions. Optimal monitoring and management strategies are essential to mitigate cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Cardiovascular Risk in Prostate Cancer: JACC: CardioOncology State-of-the-Art Review

Cardiovascular disease is common in patients with prostate cancer and is a significant cause of death. Cardiovascular risk factors are frequent in this population and are often not addressed to thresholds recommended by cardiovascular practice guidelines. Androgen deprivation therapy reduces muscle strength and increases adiposity, increasing the risk for diabetes and hypertension, although its relationship with adverse cardiovascular events requires confirmation. Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors, including androgen receptor antagonists and cytochrome P450 17A1 inhibitors confer incremental risks for hypertension and cardiovascular events to androgen deprivation therapy. Lower cardiovascular risk with gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists compared with agonists requires confirmation in well-designed randomized trials.

A practical guide for assessing and managing cardiovascular risk during androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy among men worldwide, and androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is a mainstay of treatment. There are observational data demonstrating an increased risk of cardiovascular events in patients who receive ADT, particularly those who have an elevated baseline cardiovascular risk. Because, for most patients with prostate cancer, death is predominantly from noncancer-related causes, cardiovascular disease and its risk factors should be optimized during cancer treatment. This review provides an overview of the landscape of ADT treatment and serves as a guide for appropriate cardiovascular screening and risk-mitigation strategies. The authors emphasize the importance of shared communication between the multidisciplinary cancer team and primary care to improve baseline cardiovascular screening and treatment of modifiable risk factors within this higher risk population.

Metabolic Response to Androgen Deprivation Therapy of Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer (PC) stands as the most frequently diagnosed non-skin cancer and ranks as the second highest cause of cancer-related deaths among men in the United States. For those facing non-metastatic PC necessitating intervention, solely local treatments may not suffice, leading to a possible transition toward systemic therapies, including androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), chemotherapy, and therapies targeting androgen. Yet, these systemic treatments often bring about considerable adverse effects. Additionally, it is observed that overweight men are at a higher risk of developing aggressive forms of PC, advancing to metastatic stages, and succumbing to the disease. Consequently, there is a pressing demand for new treatment options that carry fewer side effects and enhance the current standard treatments, particularly for the majority of American men who are overweight or obese. In this article, we will review the metabolic response to ADT and how lifestyle modulation can mitigate these ADT-associated metabolic responses with a particular focus on the two clinical trials, Carbohydrate and Prostate Study 1 (CAPS1) and Carbohydrate and Prostate Study 2 (CAPS2), which tested the effects of low-carbohydrate diets on the metabolic side effects of ADT and PC progression, respectively. Furthermore, we will summarize the findings of serum metabolomic studies to elucidate the potential mechanisms by which ADT and low-carbohydrate diets can affect the metabolic response to mitigate the metabolic side effects while maximizing therapeutic efficacy.

Cardiovascular disease risk assessment and multidisciplinary care in prostate cancer treatment with ADT: recommendations from the APMA PCCV expert network

PURPOSE

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the mainstay approach for prostate cancer (PCa) management. However, the most commonly used ADT modality, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

METHODS

The PCa Cardiovascular (PCCV) Expert Network, consisting of multinational urologists, cardiologists and oncologists with expertise in managing PCa, convened to discuss challenges to routine cardiovascular risk assessment in PCa management, as well as how to mitigate such risks in the current treatment landscape.

RESULTS

The experts identified several barriers, including lack of awareness, time constraints, challenges in implementing risk assessment tools and difficulties in establishing multidisciplinary teams that include cardiologists. The experts subsequently provided practical recommendations to improve cardio-oncology care for patients with PCa receiving ADT, such as simplifying cardiovascular risk assessment, individualising treatment based on CVD risk categories, establishing multidisciplinary teams and referral networks and fostering active patient engagement. A streamlined cardiovascular risk-stratification tool and a referral/management guide were developed for seamless integration into urologists' practices and presented herein. The PCCV Expert Network agreed that currently available evidence indicates that GnRH antagonists are associated with a lower risk of CVD than that of GnRH agonists and that GnRH antagonists are preferred for patients with PCa and a high CVD risk.

CONCLUSION

In summary, this article provides insights and guidance to improve management for patients with PCa undergoing ADT.

Follicle-Stimulating Hormone Exacerbates Cardiovascular Disease in the Presence of Low or Castrate Testosterone Levels

Low testosterone (T), common in aging men, associates with cardiovascular disease. We investigated whether follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), which is affected by T, modulates the cardiovascular effects associated with low T or castration. FSHβ-/-:low-density lipoprotein receptor (LDLR)-/- mice, untreated or castrated (orchiectomy, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist or antagonist), demonstrated significantly less atherogenesis compared with similarly treated LDLR-/- mice, but not following FSH delivery. Smaller plaque burden in LDLR-/- mice receiving gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists vs agonists were nullified in FSHβ-/-:LDLR-/- mice. Atherosclerotic and necrotic plaque size and macrophage infiltration correlated with serum FSH/T. In patients with prostate cancer, FSH/T following androgen-deprivation therapy initiation predicted cardiovascular events. FSH facilitates cardiovascular disease when T is low or eliminated.

Addressing the risk and management of cardiometabolic complications in prostate cancer patients on androgen deprivation therapy and androgen receptor axis-targeted therapy: consensus statements from the Hong Kong Urological Association and the Hong Kong Society of Uro-Oncology

Background

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the foundational treatment for metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). Androgen receptor (AR) axis-targeted therapies are a new standard of care for advanced PCa. Although these agents have significantly improved patient survival, the suppression of testosterone is associated with an increased risk of cardiometabolic syndrome. This highlights the urgency of multidisciplinary efforts to address the cardiometabolic risk of anticancer treatment in men with PCa.

Methods

Two professional organizations invited five urologists, five clinical oncologists, and two cardiologists to form a consensus panel. They reviewed the relevant literature obtained by searching PubMed for the publication period from April 2013 to April 2023, to address three discussion areas: (i) baseline assessment and screening for risk factors in PCa patients before the initiation of ADT and AR axis-targeted therapies; (ii) follow-up and management of cardiometabolic complications; and (iii) selection of ADT agents among high-risk patients. The panel convened four meetings to discuss and draft consensus statements using a modified Delphi method. Each drafted statement was anonymously voted on by every panelist.

Results

The panel reached a consensus on 18 statements based on recent evidence and expert insights.

Conclusion

These consensus statements serve as a practical recommendation for clinicians in Hong Kong, and possibly the Asia-Pacific region, in the management of cardiometabolic toxicities of ADT or AR axis-targeted therapies in men with PCa.

Cardiovascular Effects of GnRH Antagonists Compared With Agonists in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

Background

Androgen deprivation therapy is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with advanced prostate cancer. Meta-analysis of small, oncology-focused trials suggest gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists may be associated with fewer adverse cardiovascular outcomes compared with GnRH agonists.

Objectives

This study sought to determine whether GnRH antagonists were associated with fewer major adverse cardiovascular events compared with GnRH agonists.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched for all prospective, randomized trials comparing GnRH antagonists with agonists. The primary outcome was a major adverse cardiovascular event as defined by the following standardized Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terms: "myocardial infarction," "central nervous system hemorrhages and cerebrovascular conditions," and all-cause mortality. Bayesian meta-analysis models with random effects were fitted.

Results

A total of 11 eligible studies of a maximum duration of 3 to 36 months (median = 12 months) enrolling 4,248 participants were included. Only 1 trial used a blinded, adjudicated event process, whereas potential bias persisted in all trials given their open-label design. A total of 152 patients with primary outcome events were observed, 76 of 2,655 (2.9%) in GnRH antagonist-treated participants and 76 of 1,593 (4.8%) in agonist-treated individuals. Compared with GnRH agonists, the pooled OR of GnRH antagonists for the primary endpoint was 0.57 (95% credible interval: 0.37-0.86) and 0.58 (95% credible interval: 0.32-1.08) for all-cause death.

Conclusions

Despite the addition of the largest, dedicated cardiovascular outcome trial, the volume and quality of available data to definitively answer this question remain suboptimal. Notwithstanding these limitations, the available data suggest that GnRH antagonists are associated with fewer cardiovascular events, and possibly mortality, compared with GnRH agonists.

Safety, Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Evaluation of Teverelix for the Treatment of Hormone-Sensitive Advanced Prostate Cancer: Phase 2 Loading-Dose-Finding Studies

Background and objectives: Teverelix drug product (DP) is a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist in development for the treatment of patients with prostate cancer in whom androgen deprivation therapy is indicated. The aim of this paper is to present the results of five Phase 2 studies that assessed the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy and safety of different loading dose regimens of teverelix DP. Methods: Five single-arm, uncontrolled clinical trials were conducted in patients with advanced prostate cancer. The five different loading dose regimens of teverelix DP tested were (a) a single 90 mg subcutaneous (SC) injection of teverelix DP given on 3 consecutive days (Days 0, 1 and 2); (b) a single 90 mg intramuscular (IM) injection of teverelix DP given 7 days apart (Days 0 and 7); (c) a single 120 mg SC injection of teverelix DP given on 2 consecutive days (Days 0 and 1); (d) 2 × 60 mg SC injections of teverelix DP given on 3 consecutive days (Days 0, 1 and 2), and (e) 2 × 90 mg SC injections of teverelix DP given on 3 consecutive days (Days 0, 1 and 2). The primary efficacy parameter was the duration of action of an initial loading dose regimen in terms of suppression of testosterone to below the castration level (0.5 ng/mL). Results: Eighty-two patients were treated with teverelix DP. Two regimens (90 mg and 180 mg SC on 3 consecutive days) had a mean duration of castration of 55.32 days and 68.95 days with >90% of patients having testosterone levels < 0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. The mean onset of castration for the SC regimens ranged from 1.10 to 1.77 days, while it was slower (2.4 days) with IM administration. The most common adverse event (AE) was injection site reaction. No AEs of severe intensity were reported. Conclusions: Teverelix DP is safe and well tolerated. Castrate levels of testosterone can be rapidly achieved following the subcutaneous injection of teverelix DP on 3 consecutive days. Streamlining of the administration of the loading dose and identifying a suitable maintenance dose will be investigated in future trials.

The Burden of Uncontrolled Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Men With Prostate Cancer: A RADICAL-PC Analysis

Background

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence is higher in men with prostate cancer (PC) than without.

Objectives

We describe the rate and correlates of poor cardiovascular risk factor control among men with PC.

Methods

We prospectively characterized 2,811 consecutive men (mean age 68 ± 8 years) with PC from 24 sites in Canada, Israel, Brazil, and Australia. We defined poor overall risk factor control as ≥3 of the following: suboptimal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (>2 mmol/L if Framingham Risk Score [FRS] ≥15 and ≥3.5 mmol/L if FRS <15), current smoker, physical inactivity (<600 MET min/wk), suboptimal blood pressure (BP) (≥140/90 mm Hg if no other risk factors, systolic BP ≥120 mm Hg if known CVD or FRS ≥15, and ≥130/80 mm Hg if diabetic), and waist:hip ratio >0.9.

Results

Among participants (9% with metastatic PC and 23% with pre-existing CVD), 99% had ≥1 uncontrolled cardiovascular risk factor, and 51% had poor overall risk factor control. Not taking a statin (odds ratio [OR]: 2.55; 95% CI: 2.00-3.26), physical frailty (OR: 2.37; 95% CI: 1.51-3.71), need for BP drugs (OR: 2.36; 95% CI: 1.84-3.03), and age (OR per 10-year increase: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.14-1.59) were associated with poor overall risk factor control after adjustment for education, PC characteristics, androgen deprivation therapy, depression, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group functional status.

Conclusions

Poor control of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors is common in men with PC, highlighting the large gap in care and the need for improved interventions to optimize cardiovascular risk management in this population.

Relugolix: A Review in Advanced Prostate Cancer

Relugolix (Orgovyx^®), an orally active nonpeptide gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist that provides rapid testosterone suppression, is indicated in the USA for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer and in the EU for advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. In the pivotal phase III HERO trial in men with advanced prostate cancer, once-daily oral relugolix (with a loading dose on day 1) led to a sustained castration rate over 48 weeks of treatment of > 90%, a rate that was non-inferior to that provided by intramuscular leuprolide depot every 3 months (with an exploratory analysis further indicating the superiority of relugolix over leuprolide). Relugolix was generally well tolerated, having an adverse event profile that is consistent with testosterone suppression. Furthermore, there is evidence that relugolix may be associated with a lower risk of major adverse cardiac events compared with leuprolide. With the ability to provide the rapid testosterone suppression (with no initial surge in testosterone upon treatment initiation) combined with the benefits of oral administration and potentially improved cardiac safety, relugolix presents a valuable treatment option for men with advanced prostate cancer where androgen deprivation therapy is indicated.

HbA1c Variability and Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Prostate Cancer Receiving Androgen Deprivation Therapy

BACKGROUND

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) worsens glycaemic control and cardiovascular outcomes. The prognostic value of visit-to-visit HbA1c variability (VVHV) has been unexplored in prostate cancer (PCa) patients receiving ADT.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the effect of ADT on VVHV and the cardiovascular prognostic value of VVHV.

DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

PCa patients receiving ADT in Hong Kong between January 1, 1993 and March 31, 2021 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Those with fewer than three HbA1c results available within 3 yr after ADT initiation, <6 mo of ADT, missing baseline HbA1c, prior diagnosis of any component of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), and MACEs occurring within 3 yr were excluded. Patients were followed up until September 31, 2021.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The outcome was MACEs (composite of heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality). VVHV was calculated from HbA1c levels within 3 yr after and, separately where available, before ADT initiation using coefficient of variation (CV; standard deviation [SD] divided by mean) and average real variability (ARV; average difference between consecutive measurements).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Altogether, 1065 patients were analysed (median age 74.4 yr old [interquartile range 68.3-79.5 yr]). In 709 patients with VVHV available before and after ADT initiation, VVHV increased after ADT initiation (p < 0.001), with 473 (66.2%) and 474 (66.9%) having increased CV and ARV, respectively. Over a median follow-up of 4.3 yr (2.8-6.7 yr), higher VVHV was associated with a higher risk of MACEs (adjusted hazard ratio [per SD] for CV 1.21 [95% confidence interval: 1.02, 1.43], p = 0.029; ARV 1.25 [1.06, 1.48], p = 0.008). Limitations included residual confounding and selection bias.

CONCLUSIONS

In PCa patients receiving ADT, VVHV increased after ADT initiation. Higher VVHV was associated with an increased risk of MACEs.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In prostate cancer patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), glycaemic control is less stable after initiating ADT, which was associated with an increased cardiovascular risk.

Association of Androgen Deprivation Therapy with Metabolic Disease in Prostate Cancer Patients: An Updated Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), a backbone treatment for advanced prostate cancer (PC), is known to have a variety of metabolic side effects. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to quantify the metabolic risks of ADT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus in May of 2022 for studies investigating the risk of metabolic syndrome (MetS), diabetes, and hypertension from ADT in PC patients using keywords. Only full-length studies with a control group of PC patients not on ADT were included. All results compatible with each outcome domain in each included study were sought. For included studies, relative risk (RR) was pooled using a random effects model and a trim-fill approach was used to adjust for publication bias.

RESULTS

1,846 records were screened, of which 19 were found suitable for data extraction. Five studies, including 891 patients, were evaluated for MetS as an outcome, with the random effects model showing a pooled RR of 1.60 ([95% Confidence Interval (CI), 1.06-2.42]; P=0.03) for patients on ADT while twelve studies, including 336,330 patients, examined diabetes as an outcome, and the random effects model showed a RR of 1.43 ([95% CI, 1.28-1.59]; P< 0.01). After adjustment for publication bias, ADT was associated with a 25% increased risk for diabetes but was not associated with MetS. 4 studies, including 7,051 patients, examined hypertension as an outcome, and the random effects model showed a RR of 1.30 ([95% CI, 1.08-1.55]; P=0.18) in ADT patients.

CONCLUSION

In patients with PC, ADT was not associated with MetS and the association with diabetes was not as strong as previously reported. Our novel meta-analysis of hypertension showed that ADT increased the risk of hypertension by 30%. These results should be understood in the context of collaborating care between a patient's oncologist and primary care provider to optimize care.

The Treatment of Metastatic, Hormone-Sensitive Prostatic Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

For many years, the standard treatment of metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostatic carcinoma (mHSPC) was androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone. By lowering the testosterone level into the castration range, ADT deprives the tumor of a key growth factor.

METHODS

For this article, we evaluated the treatment recommendations contained in national and international guidelines (German S3 guidelines and those of the European Society for Medical Oncology [ESMO], European Association of Urology [EAU], and National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN]), as well as pertinent publications revealed by a PubMed search and the congress abstracts of the ESMO and of the American Society of Clinical Oncology [ASCO].

RESULTS

The past few years have witnessed fundamental changes in the treatment of mHSPC. Treatment intensification with docetaxel or with the new drugs directed against the androgen receptor signal pathway (abiraterone, apalutamide and enzalutamide) has been found to lower mortality by 19-40% and is now an integral component of first-line therapy. Relevant new findings have also been obtained with threefold combinations of ADT, docetaxel, and abiraterone or darolutamide. For patients with a light tumor burden, local radiotherapy of the primary tumor improves the probability of survival at 3 years by 8% (45.4 versus 49.1 months, difference 3.6 months; 95% confidence interval, 1.0 to 6.2 months).

CONCLUSION

The treatment of mHSPC is constantly changing. Phase III trials that are now in the recruitment stage, as well as our continually improving understanding of the underlying molecular-pathological mechanisms, will be altering the treatment landscape still further in the years to come.

Androgen deprivation therapy and cardiovascular risk in prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), with or without palliative local treatments, is the standard of care for many patients with locally-advanced and/or metastatic prostate cancer. However, the possible cardiovascular (CV) risks associated with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists and agonists continue to be the subject of concern, especially in a patient population that may already be at increased CV risk.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The present review provides a narrative summary of the evidence regarding the CV risks associated with GnRH antagonists and agonists from randomized clinical trials (RCTs), real-world evidence, and meta-analyses.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

From RCTs, it appears clear that there is a direct class effect for CV risk in patients with prostate cancer being administered GnRH agonists and antagonists, with the latter being associated with reduced CV risk. Real-world data and the available meta-analyses largely indicate that CV risk is lower with GnRH antagonists than with GnRH agonists.

CONCLUSIONS

A review of the pathophysiological mechanisms of gives further support to the possibility that GnRH antagonists are associated with lower CV risk than agonists. It can be highlighted that when treating patients with advanced or metastatic prostate cancer it is important to screen for underlying comorbidities prior to choosing the most appropriate therapy; moreover, patients should be closely monitored for factors associated with CV risk in order to optimize outcomes. Further studies are needed to define the most appropriate treatment according to the individual patient characteristics.

Relugolix: A new kid on the block among gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists

Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is the cornerstone of metastatic prostate cancer treatment. ADT can be achieved through surgical castration, or it may be induced either by gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists or GnRH antagonists. GnRH antagonists provide a more rapid castration alongside with a safer profile regarding adverse events. Degarelix is the sole GnRH antagonist used in clinical practice. Injection site reactions are the commonest adverse events related to the use of degarelix. Relugolix, a novel molecule, represents the first orally administered United States Food and Drug Administration approved GnRH antagonist, with clinical efficacy equal to that of the established ADT regimens. The main advantages of relugolix are the avoidance of the injection site reactions of GnRH antagonists such as degarelix alongside its patient-friendly oral administration. The aim of the present review article is to present novel data regarding the role of relugolix as ADT for the treatment of prostate cancer.

Abbreviations: ADT: androgen-deprivation therapy; FDA: United States Food and Drug Administration

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Non-cancer mortality in elderly prostate cancer patients treated with combination of radical prostatectomy and external beam radiation therapy

BACKGROUND

To test for rates of other cause mortality (OCM) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) in elderly prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with the combination of radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) versus RP alone, since elderly PCa patients may be over-treated.

METHODS

Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2004-2016), cumulative incidence plots, after propensity score matching for cT-stage, cN-stage, prostate specific antigen, age and biopsy Gleason score, and multivariable competing risks regression models (socioeconomic status, pathological Gleason score) addressed OCM and CSM in patients (70-79, 70-74, and 75-79 years) treated with RP and EBRT versus RP alone.

RESULTS

Of 18,126 eligible patients aged 70-79 years, 2520 (13.9%) underwent RP and EBRT versus 15,606 (86.1%) RP alone. After propensity score matching, 10-year OCM rates were respectively 27.9 versus 20.3% for RP and EBRT versus RP alone (p < .001), which resulted in a multivariable HR of 1.4 (p < .001). Moreover, 10-year CSM rates were respectively 13.4 versus 5.5% for RP and EBRT versus RP alone. In subgroup analyses separately addressing 70-74 year old and 75-79 years old PCa patients, 10-year OCM rates were 22.8 versus 16.2% and 39.5 versus 24.0% for respectively RP and EBRT versus RP alone patients (all p < .001).

CONCLUSION

Elderly patients treated with RP and EBRT exhibited worrisome rates of OCM. These higher than expected OCM rates question the need for combination therapy (RP and EBRT) in elderly PCa patients and indicate the need for better patient selection, when combination therapy is contemplated.

Pattern of Biopsy Gleason Grade Group 5 (4 + 5 vs 5 + 4 vs 5 + 5) Predicts Survival After Radical Prostatectomy or External Beam Radiation Therapy

BACKGROUND

Previous cancer-specific mortality (CSM) analyses for different Gleason patterns in Gleason grade group (GGG) 5 cancer were limited by sample size.

OBJECTIVE

To test for differences in CSM according to biopsy GG 5 patterns (4 + 5 vs 5 + 4 vs 5 + 5) among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) or external beam radiation therapy (EBRT).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database treated with RP and EBRT (2004-2016) were identified and stratified according to Gleason 4 + 5 versus 5 + 4 versus 5 + 5.

INTERVENTION

RP or EBRT.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES

Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox regression models predicting CSM were constructed.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Of 17 263 eligible patients with GG 5 cancer at biopsy (RP: n = 7208; EBRT: n = 10 055), 12 705 had Gleason 4 + 5, 3302 had Gleason 5 + 4, and 1256 had Gleason 5 + 5 disease. Median age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at diagnosis, and advanced cT and cN stages significantly differed by Gleason pattern (Gleason 4 + 5 vs 5 + 4 vs 5 + 5; all p < 0.001). The 10-yr CSM rate was 18.2% for Gleason 4 + 5, 28.0% for Gleason 5 + 4, and 39.1% for Gleason 5 + 5 (p < 0.001). In multivariable analyses for the entire cohort adjusted for PSA, age at diagnosis, and cT and cN stage, Gleason 5 + 4 and Gleason 5 + 5 were associated with 1.6- and 2.2-fold higher CSM, respectively, relative to Gleason 4 + 5. In addition, Gleason 5 + 4 and Gleason 5 + 5 were associated with 1.6- and 2.5-fold, and 1.5- and 2.1-fold higher CSM rates in the RP and EBRT subgroups, respectively, relative to Gleason 4 + 5 (all p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with biopsy GG 5 prostate cancer treated with RP or EBRT, there are important CSM differences by Gleason pattern (4 + 5 vs 5 + 4 vs 5 + 5). Ideally, the individual Gleason pattern should be considered in pretreatment risk stratification.

PATIENT SUMMARY

For patients with grade 5 prostate cancer, we found differences in cancer-specific death rates according to the pattern of abnormal cells in the prostate, called the Gleason score. The highest death rate was found for a Gleason pattern score of 5 + 5, followed by Gleason 5 + 4 and then Gleason 4 + 5. These differences were observed for both patients who were treated with prostate removal and patients who underwent radiotherapy.

Does Exist a Differential Impact of Degarelix Versus LHRH Agonists on Cardiovascular Safety? Evidences From Randomized and Real-World Studies

The main systemic therapy for the management of hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (PC) is androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), with the use of long-acting luteinizing hormone releasing-hormone (LHRH) agonists considered the main form of ADT used in clinical practice to obtain castration in PC. The concomitant administration of antiandrogens for the first weeks could reduce the incidence of clinical effects related to the testosterone flare-up in the first injection of LHRH. On the contrary, Gonadotropin Rh (GnRH) antagonists produce a rapid decrease of testosterone levels without the initial flare-up, with degarelix commonly used in clinical practice to induce castration in PC patients. Even if no long-term data are reported in terms of survival to define a superiority of GnRH or LHRH, for oncological efficacy and PC control, data from randomized clinical trials and from real-life experiences, suggest a difference in cardiovascular risk of patients starting ADT. The age-related decline in testosterone levels may represent a factor connected to the increase of cardiovascular disease risk, however, the role of ADT in increasing CV events remains controversial. For these reasons, the aim of the paper is to synthesize the difference in cardiovascular risk between LHRH and degarelix in patients undergoing ADT. A difference in cardiovascular risk could be indeed an important parameter in the evaluation of these two forms of castration therapy. The Randomized trials analyzed in this paper sustain a possible protective role for degarelix versus LHRH agonists in reducing the rate of new CV events and interventions in the short-term period. On the contrary, real-word data are contradictory in different national experiences and are strongly conditioned by huge differences between the LHRH agonists group and the degarelix group.