User login
For MD-IQ only
Cardiorespiratory Fitness May Cut Prostate Cancer Risk
Men with cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) who increased their CRF by more than 3% had a significantly lower risk of prostate cancer incidence, a large Swedish study found.
The prospective analysis, published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, done in a cohort of nearly 58,000, was conducted by Kate A. Bolam, PhD, a clinical exercise physiologist at the Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences in Stockholm.
“The findings suggest that physicians could work toward supporting patients to understand what types of activities could improve their fitness and ways they can incorporate these activities into their lives in an enjoyable way, or at the very least refer patients on to an exercise specialist,” Dr. Bolam said in an interview.
Grouped by baseline CRF, the association between change in absolute CRF and prostate cancer incidence was significant only for participants with a moderate baseline CRF. Moreover, changes in both absolute and relative CRF were not associated with prostate cancer mortality.
The lack of mortality significance may be due to the relatively few deaths from prostate cancer in the cohort, Dr. Bolam said. “It may be we weren’t powered to detect anything with such low numbers. And it’s not likely men will die from prostate cancer but more likely from more common chronic diseases such as heart disease.” The authors noted that unlike the case with other common cancers, there are relatively few preventable risk factors with strong evidence for reducing overall prostate cancer risk. “Aside from developmental factors, being diagnosed with overweight or obesity are the main risk factors for developing advanced prostate cancer, but insufficient evidence exists to extend this conclusion to non-advanced prostate cancer,” they wrote.
There is evidence, however, that exercise reduces all-cause mortality risk across many cancer types, including prostate.
Study details
The cohort was drawn from Swedish national health-profile database figures from 1982 to 2019. Participants completed an occupational health profile assessment including at least two valid CRF tests on a cycle ergometer. During a mean follow-up of 6.7 years, 592 (1%) of 57,652 men (mean age 41.3 years, standard deviation 10.55) were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and in 46 (.08%) prostate cancer was the primary cause of death.
An increase in absolute CRF (as a percentage of liters per minute of cardiac output) was associated with a reduced incidence risk, with a hazard ratio of 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96-0.99). Grouping participants as having increased (+3%), stable (±3%), or decreased (−3%) CRF, the investigators found increased fitness was associated with an HR for prostate cancer incidence of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.86), vs decreased fitness.
According to the authors, this and similar investigations of mechanisms behind physical activity benefits will lead to more targeted prevention recommendations. The results highlight the importance of encouraging the general public to increase CRF or reach moderate fitness levels, Dr. Bolam’s group wrote. The group is planning a similar study in breast cancer.
This study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society. The authors declared no competing interests.
Men with cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) who increased their CRF by more than 3% had a significantly lower risk of prostate cancer incidence, a large Swedish study found.
The prospective analysis, published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, done in a cohort of nearly 58,000, was conducted by Kate A. Bolam, PhD, a clinical exercise physiologist at the Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences in Stockholm.
“The findings suggest that physicians could work toward supporting patients to understand what types of activities could improve their fitness and ways they can incorporate these activities into their lives in an enjoyable way, or at the very least refer patients on to an exercise specialist,” Dr. Bolam said in an interview.
Grouped by baseline CRF, the association between change in absolute CRF and prostate cancer incidence was significant only for participants with a moderate baseline CRF. Moreover, changes in both absolute and relative CRF were not associated with prostate cancer mortality.
The lack of mortality significance may be due to the relatively few deaths from prostate cancer in the cohort, Dr. Bolam said. “It may be we weren’t powered to detect anything with such low numbers. And it’s not likely men will die from prostate cancer but more likely from more common chronic diseases such as heart disease.” The authors noted that unlike the case with other common cancers, there are relatively few preventable risk factors with strong evidence for reducing overall prostate cancer risk. “Aside from developmental factors, being diagnosed with overweight or obesity are the main risk factors for developing advanced prostate cancer, but insufficient evidence exists to extend this conclusion to non-advanced prostate cancer,” they wrote.
There is evidence, however, that exercise reduces all-cause mortality risk across many cancer types, including prostate.
Study details
The cohort was drawn from Swedish national health-profile database figures from 1982 to 2019. Participants completed an occupational health profile assessment including at least two valid CRF tests on a cycle ergometer. During a mean follow-up of 6.7 years, 592 (1%) of 57,652 men (mean age 41.3 years, standard deviation 10.55) were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and in 46 (.08%) prostate cancer was the primary cause of death.
An increase in absolute CRF (as a percentage of liters per minute of cardiac output) was associated with a reduced incidence risk, with a hazard ratio of 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96-0.99). Grouping participants as having increased (+3%), stable (±3%), or decreased (−3%) CRF, the investigators found increased fitness was associated with an HR for prostate cancer incidence of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.86), vs decreased fitness.
According to the authors, this and similar investigations of mechanisms behind physical activity benefits will lead to more targeted prevention recommendations. The results highlight the importance of encouraging the general public to increase CRF or reach moderate fitness levels, Dr. Bolam’s group wrote. The group is planning a similar study in breast cancer.
This study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society. The authors declared no competing interests.
Men with cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) who increased their CRF by more than 3% had a significantly lower risk of prostate cancer incidence, a large Swedish study found.
The prospective analysis, published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, done in a cohort of nearly 58,000, was conducted by Kate A. Bolam, PhD, a clinical exercise physiologist at the Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences in Stockholm.
“The findings suggest that physicians could work toward supporting patients to understand what types of activities could improve their fitness and ways they can incorporate these activities into their lives in an enjoyable way, or at the very least refer patients on to an exercise specialist,” Dr. Bolam said in an interview.
Grouped by baseline CRF, the association between change in absolute CRF and prostate cancer incidence was significant only for participants with a moderate baseline CRF. Moreover, changes in both absolute and relative CRF were not associated with prostate cancer mortality.
The lack of mortality significance may be due to the relatively few deaths from prostate cancer in the cohort, Dr. Bolam said. “It may be we weren’t powered to detect anything with such low numbers. And it’s not likely men will die from prostate cancer but more likely from more common chronic diseases such as heart disease.” The authors noted that unlike the case with other common cancers, there are relatively few preventable risk factors with strong evidence for reducing overall prostate cancer risk. “Aside from developmental factors, being diagnosed with overweight or obesity are the main risk factors for developing advanced prostate cancer, but insufficient evidence exists to extend this conclusion to non-advanced prostate cancer,” they wrote.
There is evidence, however, that exercise reduces all-cause mortality risk across many cancer types, including prostate.
Study details
The cohort was drawn from Swedish national health-profile database figures from 1982 to 2019. Participants completed an occupational health profile assessment including at least two valid CRF tests on a cycle ergometer. During a mean follow-up of 6.7 years, 592 (1%) of 57,652 men (mean age 41.3 years, standard deviation 10.55) were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and in 46 (.08%) prostate cancer was the primary cause of death.
An increase in absolute CRF (as a percentage of liters per minute of cardiac output) was associated with a reduced incidence risk, with a hazard ratio of 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96-0.99). Grouping participants as having increased (+3%), stable (±3%), or decreased (−3%) CRF, the investigators found increased fitness was associated with an HR for prostate cancer incidence of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.86), vs decreased fitness.
According to the authors, this and similar investigations of mechanisms behind physical activity benefits will lead to more targeted prevention recommendations. The results highlight the importance of encouraging the general public to increase CRF or reach moderate fitness levels, Dr. Bolam’s group wrote. The group is planning a similar study in breast cancer.
This study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society. The authors declared no competing interests.
FROM BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
Small PFS gain in metastatic prostate cancer with TKI and ICI
The combination of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), cabozantinib (Cabometyx), and the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), was associated with a median PFS of 6.3 months vs 4.2 months for patients assigned to second hormonal therapy with either abiraterone (Zytiga) and prednisone, or enzalutamide (Xtandi) in the CONTACT-02 trial, Neeraj Agarwal, MD, reported at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
“CONTACT 2 is the first phase 3 trial of the TKI/ICI combination to show statistically significant improvement in PFS in patients with mCRPC,” said Dr. Agarwal, of the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.
The data support the combination of cabozantinib and atezolizumab as a potential new treatment option for patients with mCRPC that has progressed on novel hormonal therapy, he said.
Study Design Questioned
That opinion, however, was not shared by Kim N. Chi, MD, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, Canada, the invited discussant.
Dr. Chi acknowledged that the study results as presented were positive, but also pointed to several limitations, including the small difference between the treatment groups in radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS).
“I would say the rPFS benefit is modest, and in the absence of other improvements the difference in the median rPFS is equivalent from one scan to the next in the scanning cycle. I would argue about the clinical significance of that,” he said.
He also noted that there was no improvement in the investigational arm in patient-reported outcomes, and that pain progression and quality-of-life deterioration occurred within 2 to 4 months, which is “quite quick.”
Additionally, he questioned the choice of an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) switch as the control arm of the study.
“I’d also argue that ARPI switch is not the best standard of care for this patient population with measurable disease and 40% visceral metastases; there are better options,” he said.
For example, in phase 3 trials, docetaxel and cabazitaxel (Jevtana) have consistently demonstrated radiographic PFS of 8 to 9 months. In addition, lutetium-177–PSMA-617, a radioligand therapy that delivers beta-particle radiation to PSMA-expressing cells and the tumor microenvironment, has also been shown to have PFS and overall survival benefits, he said.
“Irrespective of regulatory decisions, I personally could not recommend this at this time, given the data that we’ve seen and the better options that are available for this patient population,” Dr. Chi said.
Real-World Practice
“Kim Chi offered a pretty fair critique and summary of the control arm, but in real world practice, ARPI switch, from abi [abiraterone] to enza [enzalutamide] or enza to abi continues to be used in routine clinical practice for various reasons,” Xin Gao, MD, a genitourinary oncologist at Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, said in an interview.
“There are patients who can’t tolerate chemotherapy or don’t want chemotherapy, and we do know also that there are patients who can benefit from an ARPI switch, especially some patients with more indolent disease,” said Dr. Gao, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the study.
He noted that some patients being switched from abiraterone to enzalutamide have clinical responses, and that the ARPIs are generally more tolerable than chemotherapy.
In addition, CONTACT-02 is one of a series of trials in which ARPI switch was used as the control arm, and many of these trials were initiated before there were data confirming the superior efficacy of some newer therapeutic options, Dr. Gao noted.
He agreed, however that there is growing evidence to show that ARPI switch may not be the optimal choice for patients with more measurable disease, especially visceral metastases, and other more aggressive forms of mCRPC.
CONTACT-02 Details
Investigators in the phase 3 study screened 866 men with mCRPC and after stratification by liver metastases, prior docetaxel use for castration-sensitive prostate cancer, and disease stage for which the first novel hormonal therapy was given. About 500 patients (507) were randomized to receive either oral cabozantinib 40 mg daily plus intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks or second hormonal therapy with either abiraterone 1000 mg with oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily, or oral enzalutamide 160 mg daily.
After a median follow-up of 14.3 months in the PFS intention-to-treat population, the median PFS by blinded central review was 6.3 months with cabozantinib/atezolizumab and 4.2 months with second hormonal therapy. This translated into a hazard ratio of 0.64 (P = .0002). The results were similar for a PFS analysis according to Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria.
The combination was also associated with modest improvements in PFS in prespecified subgroups, including patients who had liver or bone metastases and those who had previously received docetaxel.
There were no significant differences in overall survival at the time of data cutoff. Overall survival data were not mature and will be reported at a later date.
Disease control rates, a composite of complete and partial responses and stable disease, were 73% with the combination and 55% with second hormonal therapy (P value not shown).
Safety Data
The safety analysis indicated that patients found the ARPI switch easier to tolerate than the combination.
Adverse events leading to dose reductions occurred in 40% of patients on the combination, vs 3% of patients on second hormonal therapy, and treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 13% and 2%, respectively.
Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 48% of patients assigned to the combination vs. 23% of patients assigned to the ARPI switch.
In all, 8% of patients on the combination and 12% on second hormonal therapy died on study, but none of the deaths were deemed to be treatment related.
CONTACT-02 was sponsored by Exelixis in partnerships with Ipsen and Takeda.
Dr. Agarwal disclosed institutional research funding from Exelixis, Roche, Takeda, and others, and travel expenses from Pfizer. Dr. Chi disclosed honoraria, a consulting/advisory role and institutional research funding with Roche and others. Dr. Gao has served as a consultant or advisor to several companies, not including the sponsors of the study, and has served as principal investigator at his institution, which has received research funding from Exelixis, Takeda, and others.
The combination of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), cabozantinib (Cabometyx), and the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), was associated with a median PFS of 6.3 months vs 4.2 months for patients assigned to second hormonal therapy with either abiraterone (Zytiga) and prednisone, or enzalutamide (Xtandi) in the CONTACT-02 trial, Neeraj Agarwal, MD, reported at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
“CONTACT 2 is the first phase 3 trial of the TKI/ICI combination to show statistically significant improvement in PFS in patients with mCRPC,” said Dr. Agarwal, of the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.
The data support the combination of cabozantinib and atezolizumab as a potential new treatment option for patients with mCRPC that has progressed on novel hormonal therapy, he said.
Study Design Questioned
That opinion, however, was not shared by Kim N. Chi, MD, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, Canada, the invited discussant.
Dr. Chi acknowledged that the study results as presented were positive, but also pointed to several limitations, including the small difference between the treatment groups in radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS).
“I would say the rPFS benefit is modest, and in the absence of other improvements the difference in the median rPFS is equivalent from one scan to the next in the scanning cycle. I would argue about the clinical significance of that,” he said.
He also noted that there was no improvement in the investigational arm in patient-reported outcomes, and that pain progression and quality-of-life deterioration occurred within 2 to 4 months, which is “quite quick.”
Additionally, he questioned the choice of an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) switch as the control arm of the study.
“I’d also argue that ARPI switch is not the best standard of care for this patient population with measurable disease and 40% visceral metastases; there are better options,” he said.
For example, in phase 3 trials, docetaxel and cabazitaxel (Jevtana) have consistently demonstrated radiographic PFS of 8 to 9 months. In addition, lutetium-177–PSMA-617, a radioligand therapy that delivers beta-particle radiation to PSMA-expressing cells and the tumor microenvironment, has also been shown to have PFS and overall survival benefits, he said.
“Irrespective of regulatory decisions, I personally could not recommend this at this time, given the data that we’ve seen and the better options that are available for this patient population,” Dr. Chi said.
Real-World Practice
“Kim Chi offered a pretty fair critique and summary of the control arm, but in real world practice, ARPI switch, from abi [abiraterone] to enza [enzalutamide] or enza to abi continues to be used in routine clinical practice for various reasons,” Xin Gao, MD, a genitourinary oncologist at Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, said in an interview.
“There are patients who can’t tolerate chemotherapy or don’t want chemotherapy, and we do know also that there are patients who can benefit from an ARPI switch, especially some patients with more indolent disease,” said Dr. Gao, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the study.
He noted that some patients being switched from abiraterone to enzalutamide have clinical responses, and that the ARPIs are generally more tolerable than chemotherapy.
In addition, CONTACT-02 is one of a series of trials in which ARPI switch was used as the control arm, and many of these trials were initiated before there were data confirming the superior efficacy of some newer therapeutic options, Dr. Gao noted.
He agreed, however that there is growing evidence to show that ARPI switch may not be the optimal choice for patients with more measurable disease, especially visceral metastases, and other more aggressive forms of mCRPC.
CONTACT-02 Details
Investigators in the phase 3 study screened 866 men with mCRPC and after stratification by liver metastases, prior docetaxel use for castration-sensitive prostate cancer, and disease stage for which the first novel hormonal therapy was given. About 500 patients (507) were randomized to receive either oral cabozantinib 40 mg daily plus intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks or second hormonal therapy with either abiraterone 1000 mg with oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily, or oral enzalutamide 160 mg daily.
After a median follow-up of 14.3 months in the PFS intention-to-treat population, the median PFS by blinded central review was 6.3 months with cabozantinib/atezolizumab and 4.2 months with second hormonal therapy. This translated into a hazard ratio of 0.64 (P = .0002). The results were similar for a PFS analysis according to Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria.
The combination was also associated with modest improvements in PFS in prespecified subgroups, including patients who had liver or bone metastases and those who had previously received docetaxel.
There were no significant differences in overall survival at the time of data cutoff. Overall survival data were not mature and will be reported at a later date.
Disease control rates, a composite of complete and partial responses and stable disease, were 73% with the combination and 55% with second hormonal therapy (P value not shown).
Safety Data
The safety analysis indicated that patients found the ARPI switch easier to tolerate than the combination.
Adverse events leading to dose reductions occurred in 40% of patients on the combination, vs 3% of patients on second hormonal therapy, and treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 13% and 2%, respectively.
Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 48% of patients assigned to the combination vs. 23% of patients assigned to the ARPI switch.
In all, 8% of patients on the combination and 12% on second hormonal therapy died on study, but none of the deaths were deemed to be treatment related.
CONTACT-02 was sponsored by Exelixis in partnerships with Ipsen and Takeda.
Dr. Agarwal disclosed institutional research funding from Exelixis, Roche, Takeda, and others, and travel expenses from Pfizer. Dr. Chi disclosed honoraria, a consulting/advisory role and institutional research funding with Roche and others. Dr. Gao has served as a consultant or advisor to several companies, not including the sponsors of the study, and has served as principal investigator at his institution, which has received research funding from Exelixis, Takeda, and others.
The combination of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), cabozantinib (Cabometyx), and the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), was associated with a median PFS of 6.3 months vs 4.2 months for patients assigned to second hormonal therapy with either abiraterone (Zytiga) and prednisone, or enzalutamide (Xtandi) in the CONTACT-02 trial, Neeraj Agarwal, MD, reported at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
“CONTACT 2 is the first phase 3 trial of the TKI/ICI combination to show statistically significant improvement in PFS in patients with mCRPC,” said Dr. Agarwal, of the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.
The data support the combination of cabozantinib and atezolizumab as a potential new treatment option for patients with mCRPC that has progressed on novel hormonal therapy, he said.
Study Design Questioned
That opinion, however, was not shared by Kim N. Chi, MD, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, Canada, the invited discussant.
Dr. Chi acknowledged that the study results as presented were positive, but also pointed to several limitations, including the small difference between the treatment groups in radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS).
“I would say the rPFS benefit is modest, and in the absence of other improvements the difference in the median rPFS is equivalent from one scan to the next in the scanning cycle. I would argue about the clinical significance of that,” he said.
He also noted that there was no improvement in the investigational arm in patient-reported outcomes, and that pain progression and quality-of-life deterioration occurred within 2 to 4 months, which is “quite quick.”
Additionally, he questioned the choice of an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) switch as the control arm of the study.
“I’d also argue that ARPI switch is not the best standard of care for this patient population with measurable disease and 40% visceral metastases; there are better options,” he said.
For example, in phase 3 trials, docetaxel and cabazitaxel (Jevtana) have consistently demonstrated radiographic PFS of 8 to 9 months. In addition, lutetium-177–PSMA-617, a radioligand therapy that delivers beta-particle radiation to PSMA-expressing cells and the tumor microenvironment, has also been shown to have PFS and overall survival benefits, he said.
“Irrespective of regulatory decisions, I personally could not recommend this at this time, given the data that we’ve seen and the better options that are available for this patient population,” Dr. Chi said.
Real-World Practice
“Kim Chi offered a pretty fair critique and summary of the control arm, but in real world practice, ARPI switch, from abi [abiraterone] to enza [enzalutamide] or enza to abi continues to be used in routine clinical practice for various reasons,” Xin Gao, MD, a genitourinary oncologist at Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, said in an interview.
“There are patients who can’t tolerate chemotherapy or don’t want chemotherapy, and we do know also that there are patients who can benefit from an ARPI switch, especially some patients with more indolent disease,” said Dr. Gao, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the study.
He noted that some patients being switched from abiraterone to enzalutamide have clinical responses, and that the ARPIs are generally more tolerable than chemotherapy.
In addition, CONTACT-02 is one of a series of trials in which ARPI switch was used as the control arm, and many of these trials were initiated before there were data confirming the superior efficacy of some newer therapeutic options, Dr. Gao noted.
He agreed, however that there is growing evidence to show that ARPI switch may not be the optimal choice for patients with more measurable disease, especially visceral metastases, and other more aggressive forms of mCRPC.
CONTACT-02 Details
Investigators in the phase 3 study screened 866 men with mCRPC and after stratification by liver metastases, prior docetaxel use for castration-sensitive prostate cancer, and disease stage for which the first novel hormonal therapy was given. About 500 patients (507) were randomized to receive either oral cabozantinib 40 mg daily plus intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks or second hormonal therapy with either abiraterone 1000 mg with oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily, or oral enzalutamide 160 mg daily.
After a median follow-up of 14.3 months in the PFS intention-to-treat population, the median PFS by blinded central review was 6.3 months with cabozantinib/atezolizumab and 4.2 months with second hormonal therapy. This translated into a hazard ratio of 0.64 (P = .0002). The results were similar for a PFS analysis according to Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria.
The combination was also associated with modest improvements in PFS in prespecified subgroups, including patients who had liver or bone metastases and those who had previously received docetaxel.
There were no significant differences in overall survival at the time of data cutoff. Overall survival data were not mature and will be reported at a later date.
Disease control rates, a composite of complete and partial responses and stable disease, were 73% with the combination and 55% with second hormonal therapy (P value not shown).
Safety Data
The safety analysis indicated that patients found the ARPI switch easier to tolerate than the combination.
Adverse events leading to dose reductions occurred in 40% of patients on the combination, vs 3% of patients on second hormonal therapy, and treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 13% and 2%, respectively.
Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 48% of patients assigned to the combination vs. 23% of patients assigned to the ARPI switch.
In all, 8% of patients on the combination and 12% on second hormonal therapy died on study, but none of the deaths were deemed to be treatment related.
CONTACT-02 was sponsored by Exelixis in partnerships with Ipsen and Takeda.
Dr. Agarwal disclosed institutional research funding from Exelixis, Roche, Takeda, and others, and travel expenses from Pfizer. Dr. Chi disclosed honoraria, a consulting/advisory role and institutional research funding with Roche and others. Dr. Gao has served as a consultant or advisor to several companies, not including the sponsors of the study, and has served as principal investigator at his institution, which has received research funding from Exelixis, Takeda, and others.
FROM ASCO GU 2024
Combo Tx Best in Metastatic Prostate Cancer with HRR Mutations
That’s the conclusion of investigators in the phase 2 BRCAAway trial, which compared a combination of abiraterone (Zytiga) and prednisone plus olaparib (Lynparza) against sequential therapy with the same agents.
At the time of data cutoff, median progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, was 39 months for patients randomized to the combination, compared with 8.4 months for those assigned to abiraterone/prednisone, and 14 months for those assigned to olaparib monotherapy, reported Maha Hussain, MD, of the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chicago.
“In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer [mCRPC] and BRCA1/2 or ATM alterations, abiraterone and prednisone plus olaparib was well tolerated and resulted in better progression-free survival and response rates vs. single-agent olaparib or abiraterone/prednisone,” she said in an oral abstract presentation at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
Although the study allowed crossover between the single-agent arms at the time of progression, only a few patients made the switch. Nonetheless, in these patients the PFS with the frontline combination was superior to that of sequential therapy, she noted.
Study Rationale and Design
Germline or somatic mutations in genes encoding for homologous recombination-repair occur in about 20% of men with mCRPC. Olaparib, a PARP1 (poly-adp ribose polymerase-1) inhibitor, interacts with androgen signaling, and preclinical studies have shown that castration-resistant prostate tumor cells have increased PARP1 activity. In addition, PARP1 has been shown preclinically to synergize with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) such as abiraterone, Dr. Hussain explained.
The BRCAAway trial was designed to test whether co-targeting the androgen receptor and PARP1 could result in higher and more durable responses than current frontline therapies in patients with mCRPC with DNA-damage response mutations.
Patients with mCRPC with no prior exposure to either a PARP1 inhibitor, androgen receptor inhibitor, or mCRPC-directed chemotherapy underwent next-generation sequencing and germline testing of tumor tissues, and those patients found to have inactivating BRCA1/2 and/or ATM alterations were randomized on a 1:1:1 basis to either abiraterone 1000 mg daily plus prednisone 5 mg twice daily (19 patients); olaparib 300 mg twice daily (21 patients); or to the combination (21 patients).
The primary endpoint was radiographic PFS according to RECIST 1.1 criteria, Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria, clinical assessment, or death.
As noted, the median PFS was 8.4 months with abiraterone/prednisone, 14 months with olaparib, and 39 months with the combination.
Secondary endpoints also favored the combination therapy arm, with objective response rates of 22%, 14%, and 33%, respectively; PSA response rates of 61%, 67% and 95%; and undetectable PSA response rates of 17%, 14%, and 33%.
A total of 8 of 19 patients on abiraterone were crossed over to olaparib, and 8 of 21 initially assigned to olaparib were crossed over to abiraterone. In these patients the median PFS from crossover was 8.3 and 7.2 months, respectively. In each crossover group the median PFS from the time of randomization was 16 months.
There were no grade 4 adverse events or treatment-related deaths reported in any of the study arms, and “essentially when you look at the adverse events, they pretty much are consistent with what you would expect to see with these particular agents,” Dr. Hussain said.
“Overall the patients were tolerating the treatment well,” she added.
Practice Changing with Caveats
Kim N. Chi, MD, FRCPC, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, Canada, the invited discussant, said that the strengths of the study included an olaparib monotherapy arm — something that was missing from phase 3 trials — that provides insights into how PARP inhibitors perform in this population. He also applauded the inclusion of clinical assessment as a primary endpoint, noting that “this is what we do in routine practice, and therefore, the generalizability of the trial becomes more evident.”
The crossover design provides important information about whether an upfront combination or a sequential therapy approach is more effective, as well, he added.
He pointed out, however, that the trial was limited by small sample size and by its “horse race” design rather than as a comparison trial.
“So how does the BRCAAway trial change our practice? Despite the limitations, I think it does support an upfront PARP inhibitor-ARPI combination as firstline therapy for HRR gene-mutated metastatic CRPC. These data suggest synergy, and most importantly, there is no loss of opportunity [for more effective therapies]. However, the limitations of the trial will not end this debate today,” he said.
The trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Both Dr. Hussain and Dr. Chi disclosed honoraria, consulting/advising, and institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and others.
That’s the conclusion of investigators in the phase 2 BRCAAway trial, which compared a combination of abiraterone (Zytiga) and prednisone plus olaparib (Lynparza) against sequential therapy with the same agents.
At the time of data cutoff, median progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, was 39 months for patients randomized to the combination, compared with 8.4 months for those assigned to abiraterone/prednisone, and 14 months for those assigned to olaparib monotherapy, reported Maha Hussain, MD, of the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chicago.
“In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer [mCRPC] and BRCA1/2 or ATM alterations, abiraterone and prednisone plus olaparib was well tolerated and resulted in better progression-free survival and response rates vs. single-agent olaparib or abiraterone/prednisone,” she said in an oral abstract presentation at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
Although the study allowed crossover between the single-agent arms at the time of progression, only a few patients made the switch. Nonetheless, in these patients the PFS with the frontline combination was superior to that of sequential therapy, she noted.
Study Rationale and Design
Germline or somatic mutations in genes encoding for homologous recombination-repair occur in about 20% of men with mCRPC. Olaparib, a PARP1 (poly-adp ribose polymerase-1) inhibitor, interacts with androgen signaling, and preclinical studies have shown that castration-resistant prostate tumor cells have increased PARP1 activity. In addition, PARP1 has been shown preclinically to synergize with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) such as abiraterone, Dr. Hussain explained.
The BRCAAway trial was designed to test whether co-targeting the androgen receptor and PARP1 could result in higher and more durable responses than current frontline therapies in patients with mCRPC with DNA-damage response mutations.
Patients with mCRPC with no prior exposure to either a PARP1 inhibitor, androgen receptor inhibitor, or mCRPC-directed chemotherapy underwent next-generation sequencing and germline testing of tumor tissues, and those patients found to have inactivating BRCA1/2 and/or ATM alterations were randomized on a 1:1:1 basis to either abiraterone 1000 mg daily plus prednisone 5 mg twice daily (19 patients); olaparib 300 mg twice daily (21 patients); or to the combination (21 patients).
The primary endpoint was radiographic PFS according to RECIST 1.1 criteria, Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria, clinical assessment, or death.
As noted, the median PFS was 8.4 months with abiraterone/prednisone, 14 months with olaparib, and 39 months with the combination.
Secondary endpoints also favored the combination therapy arm, with objective response rates of 22%, 14%, and 33%, respectively; PSA response rates of 61%, 67% and 95%; and undetectable PSA response rates of 17%, 14%, and 33%.
A total of 8 of 19 patients on abiraterone were crossed over to olaparib, and 8 of 21 initially assigned to olaparib were crossed over to abiraterone. In these patients the median PFS from crossover was 8.3 and 7.2 months, respectively. In each crossover group the median PFS from the time of randomization was 16 months.
There were no grade 4 adverse events or treatment-related deaths reported in any of the study arms, and “essentially when you look at the adverse events, they pretty much are consistent with what you would expect to see with these particular agents,” Dr. Hussain said.
“Overall the patients were tolerating the treatment well,” she added.
Practice Changing with Caveats
Kim N. Chi, MD, FRCPC, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, Canada, the invited discussant, said that the strengths of the study included an olaparib monotherapy arm — something that was missing from phase 3 trials — that provides insights into how PARP inhibitors perform in this population. He also applauded the inclusion of clinical assessment as a primary endpoint, noting that “this is what we do in routine practice, and therefore, the generalizability of the trial becomes more evident.”
The crossover design provides important information about whether an upfront combination or a sequential therapy approach is more effective, as well, he added.
He pointed out, however, that the trial was limited by small sample size and by its “horse race” design rather than as a comparison trial.
“So how does the BRCAAway trial change our practice? Despite the limitations, I think it does support an upfront PARP inhibitor-ARPI combination as firstline therapy for HRR gene-mutated metastatic CRPC. These data suggest synergy, and most importantly, there is no loss of opportunity [for more effective therapies]. However, the limitations of the trial will not end this debate today,” he said.
The trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Both Dr. Hussain and Dr. Chi disclosed honoraria, consulting/advising, and institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and others.
That’s the conclusion of investigators in the phase 2 BRCAAway trial, which compared a combination of abiraterone (Zytiga) and prednisone plus olaparib (Lynparza) against sequential therapy with the same agents.
At the time of data cutoff, median progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, was 39 months for patients randomized to the combination, compared with 8.4 months for those assigned to abiraterone/prednisone, and 14 months for those assigned to olaparib monotherapy, reported Maha Hussain, MD, of the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chicago.
“In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer [mCRPC] and BRCA1/2 or ATM alterations, abiraterone and prednisone plus olaparib was well tolerated and resulted in better progression-free survival and response rates vs. single-agent olaparib or abiraterone/prednisone,” she said in an oral abstract presentation at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
Although the study allowed crossover between the single-agent arms at the time of progression, only a few patients made the switch. Nonetheless, in these patients the PFS with the frontline combination was superior to that of sequential therapy, she noted.
Study Rationale and Design
Germline or somatic mutations in genes encoding for homologous recombination-repair occur in about 20% of men with mCRPC. Olaparib, a PARP1 (poly-adp ribose polymerase-1) inhibitor, interacts with androgen signaling, and preclinical studies have shown that castration-resistant prostate tumor cells have increased PARP1 activity. In addition, PARP1 has been shown preclinically to synergize with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) such as abiraterone, Dr. Hussain explained.
The BRCAAway trial was designed to test whether co-targeting the androgen receptor and PARP1 could result in higher and more durable responses than current frontline therapies in patients with mCRPC with DNA-damage response mutations.
Patients with mCRPC with no prior exposure to either a PARP1 inhibitor, androgen receptor inhibitor, or mCRPC-directed chemotherapy underwent next-generation sequencing and germline testing of tumor tissues, and those patients found to have inactivating BRCA1/2 and/or ATM alterations were randomized on a 1:1:1 basis to either abiraterone 1000 mg daily plus prednisone 5 mg twice daily (19 patients); olaparib 300 mg twice daily (21 patients); or to the combination (21 patients).
The primary endpoint was radiographic PFS according to RECIST 1.1 criteria, Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria, clinical assessment, or death.
As noted, the median PFS was 8.4 months with abiraterone/prednisone, 14 months with olaparib, and 39 months with the combination.
Secondary endpoints also favored the combination therapy arm, with objective response rates of 22%, 14%, and 33%, respectively; PSA response rates of 61%, 67% and 95%; and undetectable PSA response rates of 17%, 14%, and 33%.
A total of 8 of 19 patients on abiraterone were crossed over to olaparib, and 8 of 21 initially assigned to olaparib were crossed over to abiraterone. In these patients the median PFS from crossover was 8.3 and 7.2 months, respectively. In each crossover group the median PFS from the time of randomization was 16 months.
There were no grade 4 adverse events or treatment-related deaths reported in any of the study arms, and “essentially when you look at the adverse events, they pretty much are consistent with what you would expect to see with these particular agents,” Dr. Hussain said.
“Overall the patients were tolerating the treatment well,” she added.
Practice Changing with Caveats
Kim N. Chi, MD, FRCPC, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, Canada, the invited discussant, said that the strengths of the study included an olaparib monotherapy arm — something that was missing from phase 3 trials — that provides insights into how PARP inhibitors perform in this population. He also applauded the inclusion of clinical assessment as a primary endpoint, noting that “this is what we do in routine practice, and therefore, the generalizability of the trial becomes more evident.”
The crossover design provides important information about whether an upfront combination or a sequential therapy approach is more effective, as well, he added.
He pointed out, however, that the trial was limited by small sample size and by its “horse race” design rather than as a comparison trial.
“So how does the BRCAAway trial change our practice? Despite the limitations, I think it does support an upfront PARP inhibitor-ARPI combination as firstline therapy for HRR gene-mutated metastatic CRPC. These data suggest synergy, and most importantly, there is no loss of opportunity [for more effective therapies]. However, the limitations of the trial will not end this debate today,” he said.
The trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Both Dr. Hussain and Dr. Chi disclosed honoraria, consulting/advising, and institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and others.
FROM ASCO GU 2024
More Side Effects With Local Therapies for Prostate Cancer
These were the findings of a retrospective cohort study in JAMA Network Open.
The standard treatment of advanced prostate cancer is androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). “The role of local therapy has been debated for several years. Studies have shown that radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy can improve patient survival under certain conditions,” said Hubert Kübler, MD, director of the Clinic and Polyclinic for Urology and Pediatric Urology at the University Hospital Würzburg in Germany. “At academic centers, a local therapy is pursued for oligometastatic patients if they are fit enough.”
The hope is to spare patients the side effects of ADT over an extended period and thus improve their quality of life. “But what impact does local therapy itself have on the men’s quality of life, especially considering that the survival advantage gained may be relatively small?” wrote study author Saira Khan, PhD, MPH, assistant professor of surgery at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, and her colleagues.
Examining Side Effects
This question has not been thoroughly examined yet. “To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies investigating the side effects of local therapy in men with advanced prostate cancer for up to 5 years after treatment,” wrote the authors.
The cohort study included 5500 US veterans who were diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer between January 1999 and December 2013. The tumors were in stage T4 (tumor is fixed or has spread to adjacent structures), with regional lymph node metastases (N1), and partially detectable distant metastases (M1).
The average age was 68.7 years, and 31% received local therapy (eg, radiation therapy, radical prostatectomy, or both), and 69% received systemic therapy (eg, hormone therapy, chemotherapy, or both).
Types of Local Therapy
Combining radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy “diminishes the meaningfulness of the study results,” according to Dr. Kübler. “The issue should have been analyzed in much finer detail. Studies clearly show, for example, that radiation therapy consistently performs slightly worse than prostatectomy in terms of gastrointestinal complaints.”
In their paper, the researchers reported that the prevalence of side effects was high, regardless of the therapy. Overall, 916 men (75.2%) with initial local therapy and 897 men (67.1%) with initial systemic therapy reported experiencing at least one side effect lasting more than 2 years and up to 5 years.
In the first year after the initial therapy, men who underwent local therapy, compared with those who underwent systemic therapy, experienced more of the following symptoms:
- Gastrointestinal issues (odds ratio [OR], 4.08)
- Pain (OR, 1.57)
- Sexual dysfunction (OR, 2.96)
- Urinary problems, predominantly incontinence (OR, 2.25)
Lasting Side Effects
Even up to year 5 after the initial therapy, men with local therapy reported more gastrointestinal and sexual issues, as well as more frequent incontinence, than those with systemic therapy. Only the frequency of pain equalized between the two groups in the second year.
“Our results are consistent with the known side effect profile [of local therapy] in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer receiving surgery or radiation therapy instead of active surveillance,” wrote the authors.
The comparison in advanced prostate cancer, however, is not with active surveillance but with ADT. “As the study confirmed, ADT is associated with various side effects,” said Dr. Kübler. Nevertheless, it was associated with fewer side effects than local therapy in this study. The concept behind local therapy (improving prognosis while avoiding local problems) is challenging to reconcile with these results.
Contradictory Data
The results also contradict findings from other studies. Dr. Kübler pointed to the recently presented PEACE-1 study, where “local complications and issues were reduced through local therapy in high-volume and high-risk patients.”
The study did not consider subsequent interventions, such as how many patients needed transurethral manipulation in the later course of the disease to address local problems. “There are older data showing that a radical prostatectomy can reduce the need for further resections,” Dr. Kübler added.
“I find it difficult to reconcile these data with other data and with my personal experience,” said Dr. Kübler. However, he agreed with the study authors’ conclusion, emphasizing the importance of informing patients about expected side effects of local therapy in the context of potentially marginal improvements in survival.
Different Situation in Germany
“As practitioners, we sometimes underestimate the side effects we subject our patients to. We need to talk to our patients about the prognosis improvement that comes with side effects,” said Dr. Kübler. He added that a similar study in Germany might yield different results. “Dr. Khan and her colleagues examined a very specific patient population: Namely, veterans. This patient clientele often faces many social difficulties, and the treatment structure in US veterans’ care differs significantly from ours.”
This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
These were the findings of a retrospective cohort study in JAMA Network Open.
The standard treatment of advanced prostate cancer is androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). “The role of local therapy has been debated for several years. Studies have shown that radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy can improve patient survival under certain conditions,” said Hubert Kübler, MD, director of the Clinic and Polyclinic for Urology and Pediatric Urology at the University Hospital Würzburg in Germany. “At academic centers, a local therapy is pursued for oligometastatic patients if they are fit enough.”
The hope is to spare patients the side effects of ADT over an extended period and thus improve their quality of life. “But what impact does local therapy itself have on the men’s quality of life, especially considering that the survival advantage gained may be relatively small?” wrote study author Saira Khan, PhD, MPH, assistant professor of surgery at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, and her colleagues.
Examining Side Effects
This question has not been thoroughly examined yet. “To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies investigating the side effects of local therapy in men with advanced prostate cancer for up to 5 years after treatment,” wrote the authors.
The cohort study included 5500 US veterans who were diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer between January 1999 and December 2013. The tumors were in stage T4 (tumor is fixed or has spread to adjacent structures), with regional lymph node metastases (N1), and partially detectable distant metastases (M1).
The average age was 68.7 years, and 31% received local therapy (eg, radiation therapy, radical prostatectomy, or both), and 69% received systemic therapy (eg, hormone therapy, chemotherapy, or both).
Types of Local Therapy
Combining radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy “diminishes the meaningfulness of the study results,” according to Dr. Kübler. “The issue should have been analyzed in much finer detail. Studies clearly show, for example, that radiation therapy consistently performs slightly worse than prostatectomy in terms of gastrointestinal complaints.”
In their paper, the researchers reported that the prevalence of side effects was high, regardless of the therapy. Overall, 916 men (75.2%) with initial local therapy and 897 men (67.1%) with initial systemic therapy reported experiencing at least one side effect lasting more than 2 years and up to 5 years.
In the first year after the initial therapy, men who underwent local therapy, compared with those who underwent systemic therapy, experienced more of the following symptoms:
- Gastrointestinal issues (odds ratio [OR], 4.08)
- Pain (OR, 1.57)
- Sexual dysfunction (OR, 2.96)
- Urinary problems, predominantly incontinence (OR, 2.25)
Lasting Side Effects
Even up to year 5 after the initial therapy, men with local therapy reported more gastrointestinal and sexual issues, as well as more frequent incontinence, than those with systemic therapy. Only the frequency of pain equalized between the two groups in the second year.
“Our results are consistent with the known side effect profile [of local therapy] in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer receiving surgery or radiation therapy instead of active surveillance,” wrote the authors.
The comparison in advanced prostate cancer, however, is not with active surveillance but with ADT. “As the study confirmed, ADT is associated with various side effects,” said Dr. Kübler. Nevertheless, it was associated with fewer side effects than local therapy in this study. The concept behind local therapy (improving prognosis while avoiding local problems) is challenging to reconcile with these results.
Contradictory Data
The results also contradict findings from other studies. Dr. Kübler pointed to the recently presented PEACE-1 study, where “local complications and issues were reduced through local therapy in high-volume and high-risk patients.”
The study did not consider subsequent interventions, such as how many patients needed transurethral manipulation in the later course of the disease to address local problems. “There are older data showing that a radical prostatectomy can reduce the need for further resections,” Dr. Kübler added.
“I find it difficult to reconcile these data with other data and with my personal experience,” said Dr. Kübler. However, he agreed with the study authors’ conclusion, emphasizing the importance of informing patients about expected side effects of local therapy in the context of potentially marginal improvements in survival.
Different Situation in Germany
“As practitioners, we sometimes underestimate the side effects we subject our patients to. We need to talk to our patients about the prognosis improvement that comes with side effects,” said Dr. Kübler. He added that a similar study in Germany might yield different results. “Dr. Khan and her colleagues examined a very specific patient population: Namely, veterans. This patient clientele often faces many social difficulties, and the treatment structure in US veterans’ care differs significantly from ours.”
This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
These were the findings of a retrospective cohort study in JAMA Network Open.
The standard treatment of advanced prostate cancer is androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). “The role of local therapy has been debated for several years. Studies have shown that radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy can improve patient survival under certain conditions,” said Hubert Kübler, MD, director of the Clinic and Polyclinic for Urology and Pediatric Urology at the University Hospital Würzburg in Germany. “At academic centers, a local therapy is pursued for oligometastatic patients if they are fit enough.”
The hope is to spare patients the side effects of ADT over an extended period and thus improve their quality of life. “But what impact does local therapy itself have on the men’s quality of life, especially considering that the survival advantage gained may be relatively small?” wrote study author Saira Khan, PhD, MPH, assistant professor of surgery at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, and her colleagues.
Examining Side Effects
This question has not been thoroughly examined yet. “To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies investigating the side effects of local therapy in men with advanced prostate cancer for up to 5 years after treatment,” wrote the authors.
The cohort study included 5500 US veterans who were diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer between January 1999 and December 2013. The tumors were in stage T4 (tumor is fixed or has spread to adjacent structures), with regional lymph node metastases (N1), and partially detectable distant metastases (M1).
The average age was 68.7 years, and 31% received local therapy (eg, radiation therapy, radical prostatectomy, or both), and 69% received systemic therapy (eg, hormone therapy, chemotherapy, or both).
Types of Local Therapy
Combining radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy “diminishes the meaningfulness of the study results,” according to Dr. Kübler. “The issue should have been analyzed in much finer detail. Studies clearly show, for example, that radiation therapy consistently performs slightly worse than prostatectomy in terms of gastrointestinal complaints.”
In their paper, the researchers reported that the prevalence of side effects was high, regardless of the therapy. Overall, 916 men (75.2%) with initial local therapy and 897 men (67.1%) with initial systemic therapy reported experiencing at least one side effect lasting more than 2 years and up to 5 years.
In the first year after the initial therapy, men who underwent local therapy, compared with those who underwent systemic therapy, experienced more of the following symptoms:
- Gastrointestinal issues (odds ratio [OR], 4.08)
- Pain (OR, 1.57)
- Sexual dysfunction (OR, 2.96)
- Urinary problems, predominantly incontinence (OR, 2.25)
Lasting Side Effects
Even up to year 5 after the initial therapy, men with local therapy reported more gastrointestinal and sexual issues, as well as more frequent incontinence, than those with systemic therapy. Only the frequency of pain equalized between the two groups in the second year.
“Our results are consistent with the known side effect profile [of local therapy] in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer receiving surgery or radiation therapy instead of active surveillance,” wrote the authors.
The comparison in advanced prostate cancer, however, is not with active surveillance but with ADT. “As the study confirmed, ADT is associated with various side effects,” said Dr. Kübler. Nevertheless, it was associated with fewer side effects than local therapy in this study. The concept behind local therapy (improving prognosis while avoiding local problems) is challenging to reconcile with these results.
Contradictory Data
The results also contradict findings from other studies. Dr. Kübler pointed to the recently presented PEACE-1 study, where “local complications and issues were reduced through local therapy in high-volume and high-risk patients.”
The study did not consider subsequent interventions, such as how many patients needed transurethral manipulation in the later course of the disease to address local problems. “There are older data showing that a radical prostatectomy can reduce the need for further resections,” Dr. Kübler added.
“I find it difficult to reconcile these data with other data and with my personal experience,” said Dr. Kübler. However, he agreed with the study authors’ conclusion, emphasizing the importance of informing patients about expected side effects of local therapy in the context of potentially marginal improvements in survival.
Different Situation in Germany
“As practitioners, we sometimes underestimate the side effects we subject our patients to. We need to talk to our patients about the prognosis improvement that comes with side effects,” said Dr. Kübler. He added that a similar study in Germany might yield different results. “Dr. Khan and her colleagues examined a very specific patient population: Namely, veterans. This patient clientele often faces many social difficulties, and the treatment structure in US veterans’ care differs significantly from ours.”
This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
High-dose RT and long-term ADT improve survival in high-risk prostate cancer
For patients with high-risk prostate cancer, treatment with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and high-dose radiation was associated with significantly better progression-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival compared with ADT and standard-dose radiation.
The investigators also found that the patients taking long-term ADT and high-dose radiation did not experience additional late urinary tract or gastrointestinal toxicities. Christophe Hennequin, MD, PhD, reported these and other findings of the Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients Receiving Hormone Therapy for Prostate Cancer (GETUG-AFU 18) trial, at the 2024 American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
Among 505 patients randomly assigned to be treated with radiation therapy (RT) at either the standard 70 Gy dose or a high, 80 Gy dose followed by 3 years of adjuvant ADT, the 10-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 83.6% for patients who had received the 80 Gy dose, vs. 72.2% for patients who had received the 70 Gy dose. This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for biochemical or clinical progression of 0.56 (P = .0005).
This PFS advantage for high-dose radiation was also reflected by an overall survival (OS) advantage, with 10-year OS rates of 77% vs. 65.9%, respectively, translating into a 39% reduction in risk of death (HR 0.61, P = .0039) for patients who had received the higher radiation dose, reported Dr. Hennequin, of the Hospital Saint Louis in Paris, France.
"We have now Level 1 evidence that high-dose RT with long-term ADT must be the standard of care in high-risk prostate cancer patients," he said at the meeting.
Dr. Hennequin noted that significantly more patients assigned to high-dose RT were treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) rather than conventional beam radiation, and emphasized that the superior results seen with the higher dose is likely due to the use of IMRT.
Prior evidence
Dr. Hennequin pointed to a meta-analysis published in The Lancet in 2022 which showed that among nearly 11,000 patients with a median follow-up of 11.4 years the addition of ADT to RT significantly improved metastasis-free survival, and that longer ADT reduced the risk of metastases by 16% compared with standard schedule ADT.
He also cited the DART 01/05 trial results, which were published in 2022 in The Lancet: Oncology, which found a clinically relevant benefit for 24 months vs. 4 months of adjuvant ADT following a minimum of 76 Gy radiation in patients with high-risk disease, but not among patients with intermediate-risk disease.
The GETUG-AFU 18 trial was designed to address the question of whether 80 Gy of radiation could improve outcomes compared with 70 Gy in patients treated with long-term ADT.
Study details and results
The investigators enrolled men with high-risk prostate cancer defined as either a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level 20 ng/ml or greater, Gleason score 8 or higher, or clinical stage T3 or T4 disease, and after stratification by treatment center and lymph node resection randomly assigned them to receive either 70 Gy or 80 Gy RT followed by 3 years of ADT.
Approximately two-thirds of the patients in each study arm had one risk factor and about one-fourth had two risk factors. The remaining patients had all three high-risk defining factors.
Approximately 16.5% of patients in each arm had undergone lymph node dissection.
The median ADT duration was 33.4 months. In all, 82.9% of patients underwent pelvic lymph node radiation; lymph node radiation was not performed in those patients who had negative node dissection results.
Significantly more patients assigned to the 80 Gy dose were treated with IMRT (80.6% vs. 58.6%, P < .001).
The cancer-specific survival rate was also higher for the group receiving the 80 Gy dose, with a 10 year rate of 95.6% vs. 90% for patients treated with 70 Gy. This difference translated into a HR of 0.48 (P = .0090).
Comparable safety
The safety analysis, which included 248 patients who received 80 Gy and 251 who received 70 Gy, showed that the incidence rates of both late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were low and comparable between the groups. Grade 3 or greater late genitourinary toxicities were seen in 2.0% of patients treated with 80 Gy and 3.2% of those treated with 70 Gy. In both arms, only 1.6% of patients had grade 3 or greater later GI toxicities.
There were also no differences between the study arms in patient-reported quality of life measures related to either bowel or urinary symptoms.
Invited discussant Neha Vapiwala, MD, FACR, from Penn Medicine in Philadelphia commented that the results of the GETUG-AFU 18 trial suggest that "if you had even lower-dose systemic therapy that the radiation control at the local level - local-regional level in this case - can in fact contribute to the prevention of distant metastases and can contribute to cancer-specific survival."
She said that with the efficacy results and the comparable toxicity and quality of life measures, dose-escalated radiation therapy and long-term ADT appear to offer a synergistic benefit.
The results are "practice-affirming for many, perhaps practice-changing for some if you're not already offering this," she said.
For patients with high-risk prostate cancer, treatment with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and high-dose radiation was associated with significantly better progression-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival compared with ADT and standard-dose radiation.
The investigators also found that the patients taking long-term ADT and high-dose radiation did not experience additional late urinary tract or gastrointestinal toxicities. Christophe Hennequin, MD, PhD, reported these and other findings of the Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients Receiving Hormone Therapy for Prostate Cancer (GETUG-AFU 18) trial, at the 2024 American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
Among 505 patients randomly assigned to be treated with radiation therapy (RT) at either the standard 70 Gy dose or a high, 80 Gy dose followed by 3 years of adjuvant ADT, the 10-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 83.6% for patients who had received the 80 Gy dose, vs. 72.2% for patients who had received the 70 Gy dose. This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for biochemical or clinical progression of 0.56 (P = .0005).
This PFS advantage for high-dose radiation was also reflected by an overall survival (OS) advantage, with 10-year OS rates of 77% vs. 65.9%, respectively, translating into a 39% reduction in risk of death (HR 0.61, P = .0039) for patients who had received the higher radiation dose, reported Dr. Hennequin, of the Hospital Saint Louis in Paris, France.
"We have now Level 1 evidence that high-dose RT with long-term ADT must be the standard of care in high-risk prostate cancer patients," he said at the meeting.
Dr. Hennequin noted that significantly more patients assigned to high-dose RT were treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) rather than conventional beam radiation, and emphasized that the superior results seen with the higher dose is likely due to the use of IMRT.
Prior evidence
Dr. Hennequin pointed to a meta-analysis published in The Lancet in 2022 which showed that among nearly 11,000 patients with a median follow-up of 11.4 years the addition of ADT to RT significantly improved metastasis-free survival, and that longer ADT reduced the risk of metastases by 16% compared with standard schedule ADT.
He also cited the DART 01/05 trial results, which were published in 2022 in The Lancet: Oncology, which found a clinically relevant benefit for 24 months vs. 4 months of adjuvant ADT following a minimum of 76 Gy radiation in patients with high-risk disease, but not among patients with intermediate-risk disease.
The GETUG-AFU 18 trial was designed to address the question of whether 80 Gy of radiation could improve outcomes compared with 70 Gy in patients treated with long-term ADT.
Study details and results
The investigators enrolled men with high-risk prostate cancer defined as either a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level 20 ng/ml or greater, Gleason score 8 or higher, or clinical stage T3 or T4 disease, and after stratification by treatment center and lymph node resection randomly assigned them to receive either 70 Gy or 80 Gy RT followed by 3 years of ADT.
Approximately two-thirds of the patients in each study arm had one risk factor and about one-fourth had two risk factors. The remaining patients had all three high-risk defining factors.
Approximately 16.5% of patients in each arm had undergone lymph node dissection.
The median ADT duration was 33.4 months. In all, 82.9% of patients underwent pelvic lymph node radiation; lymph node radiation was not performed in those patients who had negative node dissection results.
Significantly more patients assigned to the 80 Gy dose were treated with IMRT (80.6% vs. 58.6%, P < .001).
The cancer-specific survival rate was also higher for the group receiving the 80 Gy dose, with a 10 year rate of 95.6% vs. 90% for patients treated with 70 Gy. This difference translated into a HR of 0.48 (P = .0090).
Comparable safety
The safety analysis, which included 248 patients who received 80 Gy and 251 who received 70 Gy, showed that the incidence rates of both late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were low and comparable between the groups. Grade 3 or greater late genitourinary toxicities were seen in 2.0% of patients treated with 80 Gy and 3.2% of those treated with 70 Gy. In both arms, only 1.6% of patients had grade 3 or greater later GI toxicities.
There were also no differences between the study arms in patient-reported quality of life measures related to either bowel or urinary symptoms.
Invited discussant Neha Vapiwala, MD, FACR, from Penn Medicine in Philadelphia commented that the results of the GETUG-AFU 18 trial suggest that "if you had even lower-dose systemic therapy that the radiation control at the local level - local-regional level in this case - can in fact contribute to the prevention of distant metastases and can contribute to cancer-specific survival."
She said that with the efficacy results and the comparable toxicity and quality of life measures, dose-escalated radiation therapy and long-term ADT appear to offer a synergistic benefit.
The results are "practice-affirming for many, perhaps practice-changing for some if you're not already offering this," she said.
For patients with high-risk prostate cancer, treatment with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and high-dose radiation was associated with significantly better progression-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival compared with ADT and standard-dose radiation.
The investigators also found that the patients taking long-term ADT and high-dose radiation did not experience additional late urinary tract or gastrointestinal toxicities. Christophe Hennequin, MD, PhD, reported these and other findings of the Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients Receiving Hormone Therapy for Prostate Cancer (GETUG-AFU 18) trial, at the 2024 American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
Among 505 patients randomly assigned to be treated with radiation therapy (RT) at either the standard 70 Gy dose or a high, 80 Gy dose followed by 3 years of adjuvant ADT, the 10-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 83.6% for patients who had received the 80 Gy dose, vs. 72.2% for patients who had received the 70 Gy dose. This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for biochemical or clinical progression of 0.56 (P = .0005).
This PFS advantage for high-dose radiation was also reflected by an overall survival (OS) advantage, with 10-year OS rates of 77% vs. 65.9%, respectively, translating into a 39% reduction in risk of death (HR 0.61, P = .0039) for patients who had received the higher radiation dose, reported Dr. Hennequin, of the Hospital Saint Louis in Paris, France.
"We have now Level 1 evidence that high-dose RT with long-term ADT must be the standard of care in high-risk prostate cancer patients," he said at the meeting.
Dr. Hennequin noted that significantly more patients assigned to high-dose RT were treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) rather than conventional beam radiation, and emphasized that the superior results seen with the higher dose is likely due to the use of IMRT.
Prior evidence
Dr. Hennequin pointed to a meta-analysis published in The Lancet in 2022 which showed that among nearly 11,000 patients with a median follow-up of 11.4 years the addition of ADT to RT significantly improved metastasis-free survival, and that longer ADT reduced the risk of metastases by 16% compared with standard schedule ADT.
He also cited the DART 01/05 trial results, which were published in 2022 in The Lancet: Oncology, which found a clinically relevant benefit for 24 months vs. 4 months of adjuvant ADT following a minimum of 76 Gy radiation in patients with high-risk disease, but not among patients with intermediate-risk disease.
The GETUG-AFU 18 trial was designed to address the question of whether 80 Gy of radiation could improve outcomes compared with 70 Gy in patients treated with long-term ADT.
Study details and results
The investigators enrolled men with high-risk prostate cancer defined as either a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level 20 ng/ml or greater, Gleason score 8 or higher, or clinical stage T3 or T4 disease, and after stratification by treatment center and lymph node resection randomly assigned them to receive either 70 Gy or 80 Gy RT followed by 3 years of ADT.
Approximately two-thirds of the patients in each study arm had one risk factor and about one-fourth had two risk factors. The remaining patients had all three high-risk defining factors.
Approximately 16.5% of patients in each arm had undergone lymph node dissection.
The median ADT duration was 33.4 months. In all, 82.9% of patients underwent pelvic lymph node radiation; lymph node radiation was not performed in those patients who had negative node dissection results.
Significantly more patients assigned to the 80 Gy dose were treated with IMRT (80.6% vs. 58.6%, P < .001).
The cancer-specific survival rate was also higher for the group receiving the 80 Gy dose, with a 10 year rate of 95.6% vs. 90% for patients treated with 70 Gy. This difference translated into a HR of 0.48 (P = .0090).
Comparable safety
The safety analysis, which included 248 patients who received 80 Gy and 251 who received 70 Gy, showed that the incidence rates of both late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were low and comparable between the groups. Grade 3 or greater late genitourinary toxicities were seen in 2.0% of patients treated with 80 Gy and 3.2% of those treated with 70 Gy. In both arms, only 1.6% of patients had grade 3 or greater later GI toxicities.
There were also no differences between the study arms in patient-reported quality of life measures related to either bowel or urinary symptoms.
Invited discussant Neha Vapiwala, MD, FACR, from Penn Medicine in Philadelphia commented that the results of the GETUG-AFU 18 trial suggest that "if you had even lower-dose systemic therapy that the radiation control at the local level - local-regional level in this case - can in fact contribute to the prevention of distant metastases and can contribute to cancer-specific survival."
She said that with the efficacy results and the comparable toxicity and quality of life measures, dose-escalated radiation therapy and long-term ADT appear to offer a synergistic benefit.
The results are "practice-affirming for many, perhaps practice-changing for some if you're not already offering this," she said.
FROM ASCO GU 2024
Functional Outcomes in Localized Prostate Cancer: Treatment Choice, Time, Prognosis All Matter
New research published Jan. 23 in JAMA parses functional outcome results from a population-based study of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. For their research, Bashir Al Hussein Al Awamlh, MD, of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, and his colleagues, looked at sexual function, urinary health, bowel function, hormonal function, and other outcomes in this cohort at 10 years’ follow-up.
Among 2455 patients for whom 10-year data were available, 1877 were deemed at baseline to have a favorable prognosis (defined as cT1-cT2bN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level less than 20 ng/mL, and grade group 1-2) and 568 had unfavorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT2cN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level of 20-50 ng/mL, or grade group 3-5). Follow-up data were collected by questionnaire through February 1, 2022. The men in the study were all younger than 80 years, and three-quarters of them were White.
At 10 years, outcomes differed based on the amount of time that had passed since diagnosis (they found different results at 3 and 5 year follow up, for example) and which treatment a patient received.
Among men with favorable prognoses at diagnosis, 20% underwent active surveillance for at least 1 year, while 56% received radical prostatectomy, 19% had external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) without ADT, and 5% had brachytherapy. Nearly a third of men originally opting for surveillance went on to undergo a therapeutic intervention by 10 years.
Dr. Al Hussein Al Awamlh and his colleagues found that while 3- and 5-year follow-up studies in this cohort had shown declines in sexual function among men who underwent surgery compared with those who had radiation or active surveillance, by 10 years those differences had faded, with no clinically meaningful differences in sexual function scores between the surgery and surveillance groups. In an interview, Dr. Al Hussein Al Awamlh said that this finding likely reflected mainly age-related declines in function across the study population — though it could also reflect declines after converting from surveillance to surgery or gradual decline with radiation treatment, he acknowledged.
Men with favorable prognoses at baseline who underwent surgery saw significantly worse urinary incontinence at 10 years compared with those started on radiotherapy or active surveillance. And EBRT was associated with fewer incontinence issues compared with active surveillance.
Among the group of men with an unfavorable prognosis at baseline, 64% of whom underwent radical prostatectomy and 36% EBRT with ADT, surgery was associated with worse urinary incontinence but not worse sexual function throughout 10 years of follow up, compared to radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy.
Radiation-treated patients with unfavorable prognoses, meanwhile, saw significantly worse bowel function and hormone function at 10 years compared with patients who had undergone surgery.
Dr. Al Hussein Al Awamlh said that a strength of this study was that “we had enough patients to stratify functional outcomes based on disease prognosis.” Another key finding was that some of the outcomes changed over time. “For example, among the patients with unfavorable prognoses, at 10-year follow-up there was slightly worse bowel and hormone function seen associated with radiation with ADT compared with surgery,” he said — something not seen at earlier follow-up points.
The findings may help offer a more nuanced way to counsel patients, Dr. Al Hussein Al Awamlh noted. For example, the side effects associated with sexual function “are not as relevant for those with unfavorable disease,” he said.
While current prostate cancer guidelines do address quality of life in shared decision-making, he said, “hopefully this data may provide more insight on that.” For patients with favorable prognosis, the findings reinforce that “active surveillance is a great option because it avoids the effects associated with those other treatments.”
Ultimately, Dr. Al Hussein Al Awamlh said, “this is a patient preference issue. It’s important for patients to understand how different functions are affected and to decide what is better for them — what they can live with and what they cannot, provided all the options are oncologically safe.”
The study authors disclosed as limitations of their study its observational design, the potential for response bias among study participants, and small numbers for some of the measured outcomes.
In an interview, urologist Mark S. Litwin, MD, of the University of California Los Angeles, characterized the study as “a well-conducted very-long-term longitudinal cohort that tracked men long past the initial diagnosis and treatment. That empowered the Vanderbilt team to find differences in quality of life many years later and compare them to other older men who had not received treatment.”
The new findings, Dr. Litwin said, “are critical in showing that most men with prostate cancer do not die from it; hence, the quality-of-life effects end up being the key issues for decision-making.”
Dr. Al Hussein Al Awamlh and colleagues’ study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Several coauthors disclosed funding from pharmaceutical and/or device manufacturers. Dr. Litwin disclosed no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
New research published Jan. 23 in JAMA parses functional outcome results from a population-based study of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. For their research, Bashir Al Hussein Al Awamlh, MD, of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, and his colleagues, looked at sexual function, urinary health, bowel function, hormonal function, and other outcomes in this cohort at 10 years’ follow-up.
Among 2455 patients for whom 10-year data were available, 1877 were deemed at baseline to have a favorable prognosis (defined as cT1-cT2bN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level less than 20 ng/mL, and grade group 1-2) and 568 had unfavorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT2cN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level of 20-50 ng/mL, or grade group 3-5). Follow-up data were collected by questionnaire through February 1, 2022. The men in the study were all younger than 80 years, and three-quarters of them were White.
At 10 years, outcomes differed based on the amount of time that had passed since diagnosis (they found different results at 3 and 5 year follow up, for example) and which treatment a patient received.
Among men with favorable prognoses at diagnosis, 20% underwent active surveillance for at least 1 year, while 56% received radical prostatectomy, 19% had external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) without ADT, and 5% had brachytherapy. Nearly a third of men originally opting for surveillance went on to undergo a therapeutic intervention by 10 years.
Dr. Al Hussein Al Awamlh and his colleagues found that while 3- and 5-year follow-up studies in this cohort had shown declines in sexual function among men who underwent surgery compared with those who had radiation or active surveillance, by 10 years those differences had faded, with no clinically meaningful differences in sexual function scores between the surgery and surveillance groups. In an interview, Dr. Al Hussein Al Awamlh said that this finding likely reflected mainly age-related declines in function across the study population — though it could also reflect declines after converting from surveillance to surgery or gradual decline with radiation treatment, he acknowledged.
Men with favorable prognoses at baseline who underwent surgery saw significantly worse urinary incontinence at 10 years compared with those started on radiotherapy or active surveillance. And EBRT was associated with fewer incontinence issues compared with active surveillance.
Among the group of men with an unfavorable prognosis at baseline, 64% of whom underwent radical prostatectomy and 36% EBRT with ADT, surgery was associated with worse urinary incontinence but not worse sexual function throughout 10 years of follow up, compared to radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy.
Radiation-treated patients with unfavorable prognoses, meanwhile, saw significantly worse bowel function and hormone function at 10 years compared with patients who had undergone surgery.
Dr. Al Hussein Al Awamlh said that a strength of this study was that “we had enough patients to stratify functional outcomes based on disease prognosis.” Another key finding was that some of the outcomes changed over time. “For example, among the patients with unfavorable prognoses, at 10-year follow-up there was slightly worse bowel and hormone function seen associated with radiation with ADT compared with surgery,” he said — something not seen at earlier follow-up points.
The findings may help offer a more nuanced way to counsel patients, Dr. Al Hussein Al Awamlh noted. For example, the side effects associated with sexual function “are not as relevant for those with unfavorable disease,” he said.
While current prostate cancer guidelines do address quality of life in shared decision-making, he said, “hopefully this data may provide more insight on that.” For patients with favorable prognosis, the findings reinforce that “active surveillance is a great option because it avoids the effects associated with those other treatments.”
Ultimately, Dr. Al Hussein Al Awamlh said, “this is a patient preference issue. It’s important for patients to understand how different functions are affected and to decide what is better for them — what they can live with and what they cannot, provided all the options are oncologically safe.”
The study authors disclosed as limitations of their study its observational design, the potential for response bias among study participants, and small numbers for some of the measured outcomes.
In an interview, urologist Mark S. Litwin, MD, of the University of California Los Angeles, characterized the study as “a well-conducted very-long-term longitudinal cohort that tracked men long past the initial diagnosis and treatment. That empowered the Vanderbilt team to find differences in quality of life many years later and compare them to other older men who had not received treatment.”
The new findings, Dr. Litwin said, “are critical in showing that most men with prostate cancer do not die from it; hence, the quality-of-life effects end up being the key issues for decision-making.”
Dr. Al Hussein Al Awamlh and colleagues’ study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Several coauthors disclosed funding from pharmaceutical and/or device manufacturers. Dr. Litwin disclosed no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
New research published Jan. 23 in JAMA parses functional outcome results from a population-based study of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. For their research, Bashir Al Hussein Al Awamlh, MD, of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, and his colleagues, looked at sexual function, urinary health, bowel function, hormonal function, and other outcomes in this cohort at 10 years’ follow-up.
Among 2455 patients for whom 10-year data were available, 1877 were deemed at baseline to have a favorable prognosis (defined as cT1-cT2bN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level less than 20 ng/mL, and grade group 1-2) and 568 had unfavorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT2cN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level of 20-50 ng/mL, or grade group 3-5). Follow-up data were collected by questionnaire through February 1, 2022. The men in the study were all younger than 80 years, and three-quarters of them were White.
At 10 years, outcomes differed based on the amount of time that had passed since diagnosis (they found different results at 3 and 5 year follow up, for example) and which treatment a patient received.
Among men with favorable prognoses at diagnosis, 20% underwent active surveillance for at least 1 year, while 56% received radical prostatectomy, 19% had external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) without ADT, and 5% had brachytherapy. Nearly a third of men originally opting for surveillance went on to undergo a therapeutic intervention by 10 years.
Dr. Al Hussein Al Awamlh and his colleagues found that while 3- and 5-year follow-up studies in this cohort had shown declines in sexual function among men who underwent surgery compared with those who had radiation or active surveillance, by 10 years those differences had faded, with no clinically meaningful differences in sexual function scores between the surgery and surveillance groups. In an interview, Dr. Al Hussein Al Awamlh said that this finding likely reflected mainly age-related declines in function across the study population — though it could also reflect declines after converting from surveillance to surgery or gradual decline with radiation treatment, he acknowledged.
Men with favorable prognoses at baseline who underwent surgery saw significantly worse urinary incontinence at 10 years compared with those started on radiotherapy or active surveillance. And EBRT was associated with fewer incontinence issues compared with active surveillance.
Among the group of men with an unfavorable prognosis at baseline, 64% of whom underwent radical prostatectomy and 36% EBRT with ADT, surgery was associated with worse urinary incontinence but not worse sexual function throughout 10 years of follow up, compared to radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy.
Radiation-treated patients with unfavorable prognoses, meanwhile, saw significantly worse bowel function and hormone function at 10 years compared with patients who had undergone surgery.
Dr. Al Hussein Al Awamlh said that a strength of this study was that “we had enough patients to stratify functional outcomes based on disease prognosis.” Another key finding was that some of the outcomes changed over time. “For example, among the patients with unfavorable prognoses, at 10-year follow-up there was slightly worse bowel and hormone function seen associated with radiation with ADT compared with surgery,” he said — something not seen at earlier follow-up points.
The findings may help offer a more nuanced way to counsel patients, Dr. Al Hussein Al Awamlh noted. For example, the side effects associated with sexual function “are not as relevant for those with unfavorable disease,” he said.
While current prostate cancer guidelines do address quality of life in shared decision-making, he said, “hopefully this data may provide more insight on that.” For patients with favorable prognosis, the findings reinforce that “active surveillance is a great option because it avoids the effects associated with those other treatments.”
Ultimately, Dr. Al Hussein Al Awamlh said, “this is a patient preference issue. It’s important for patients to understand how different functions are affected and to decide what is better for them — what they can live with and what they cannot, provided all the options are oncologically safe.”
The study authors disclosed as limitations of their study its observational design, the potential for response bias among study participants, and small numbers for some of the measured outcomes.
In an interview, urologist Mark S. Litwin, MD, of the University of California Los Angeles, characterized the study as “a well-conducted very-long-term longitudinal cohort that tracked men long past the initial diagnosis and treatment. That empowered the Vanderbilt team to find differences in quality of life many years later and compare them to other older men who had not received treatment.”
The new findings, Dr. Litwin said, “are critical in showing that most men with prostate cancer do not die from it; hence, the quality-of-life effects end up being the key issues for decision-making.”
Dr. Al Hussein Al Awamlh and colleagues’ study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Several coauthors disclosed funding from pharmaceutical and/or device manufacturers. Dr. Litwin disclosed no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
FROM JAMA
Prostate Risks Similar for Testosterone Therapy and Placebo
TOPLINE:
including cancer.
METHODOLOGY:
- Uncertainty and concern exist about a link between prostate cancer risk and testosterone levels. Most professional society guidelines recommend against TRT in men with a history of or an increased risk for prostate cancer.
- The Testosterone Replacement Therapy for Assessment of Long-Term Vascular Events and Efficacy Response in Hypogonadal Men included 5204 men (ages 45-80, 17% Black, 80% White), randomly assigned to receive testosterone gel or placebo.
- Men with a history of cardiovascular disease or increased cardiovascular risk were evaluated to exclude those at increased prostate cancer risk (fasting testosterone < 300 ng/dL, ≥ 1 hypogonadal symptoms).
- The primary prostate safety endpoint was high-grade prostate cancer incidence (Gleason score, ≥ 4 + 3).
- Secondary endpoints were incidences of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for benign prostatic hyperplasia, prostate biopsy, and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.
TAKEAWAY:
- During 14,304 person-years of follow-up, high-grade prostate cancer incidence did not differ significantly between the TRT and placebo (0.19% vs 0.12%; P = .51) groups.
- The incidences of prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia, prostate biopsy, and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms were also similar between the groups.
- TRT did not lead to an increase in lower urinary tract symptoms.
- The increase in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels was higher in the TRT group than in the placebo group (P < .001). However, the between-group difference did not widen after 12 months.
IN PRACTICE:
For “clinicians and patients who are considering testosterone replacement therapy for hypogonadism,” wrote the authors, “the study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”
SOURCE:
Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, led the study. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
- The study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer or higher PSA values or those without confirmed hypogonadism.
- Although the TRAVERSE study was longer than many contemporary trials, carcinogens may require many years to induce malignant neoplasms.
- The trial’s structured evaluation of men after PSA testing did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests, which could affect the decision to perform a biopsy.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corp, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Mr. Bhasin and two coauthors declared receiving grants, consulting and personal fees, and other ties with pharmaceutical and device companies and other sources.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
including cancer.
METHODOLOGY:
- Uncertainty and concern exist about a link between prostate cancer risk and testosterone levels. Most professional society guidelines recommend against TRT in men with a history of or an increased risk for prostate cancer.
- The Testosterone Replacement Therapy for Assessment of Long-Term Vascular Events and Efficacy Response in Hypogonadal Men included 5204 men (ages 45-80, 17% Black, 80% White), randomly assigned to receive testosterone gel or placebo.
- Men with a history of cardiovascular disease or increased cardiovascular risk were evaluated to exclude those at increased prostate cancer risk (fasting testosterone < 300 ng/dL, ≥ 1 hypogonadal symptoms).
- The primary prostate safety endpoint was high-grade prostate cancer incidence (Gleason score, ≥ 4 + 3).
- Secondary endpoints were incidences of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for benign prostatic hyperplasia, prostate biopsy, and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.
TAKEAWAY:
- During 14,304 person-years of follow-up, high-grade prostate cancer incidence did not differ significantly between the TRT and placebo (0.19% vs 0.12%; P = .51) groups.
- The incidences of prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia, prostate biopsy, and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms were also similar between the groups.
- TRT did not lead to an increase in lower urinary tract symptoms.
- The increase in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels was higher in the TRT group than in the placebo group (P < .001). However, the between-group difference did not widen after 12 months.
IN PRACTICE:
For “clinicians and patients who are considering testosterone replacement therapy for hypogonadism,” wrote the authors, “the study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”
SOURCE:
Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, led the study. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
- The study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer or higher PSA values or those without confirmed hypogonadism.
- Although the TRAVERSE study was longer than many contemporary trials, carcinogens may require many years to induce malignant neoplasms.
- The trial’s structured evaluation of men after PSA testing did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests, which could affect the decision to perform a biopsy.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corp, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Mr. Bhasin and two coauthors declared receiving grants, consulting and personal fees, and other ties with pharmaceutical and device companies and other sources.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
including cancer.
METHODOLOGY:
- Uncertainty and concern exist about a link between prostate cancer risk and testosterone levels. Most professional society guidelines recommend against TRT in men with a history of or an increased risk for prostate cancer.
- The Testosterone Replacement Therapy for Assessment of Long-Term Vascular Events and Efficacy Response in Hypogonadal Men included 5204 men (ages 45-80, 17% Black, 80% White), randomly assigned to receive testosterone gel or placebo.
- Men with a history of cardiovascular disease or increased cardiovascular risk were evaluated to exclude those at increased prostate cancer risk (fasting testosterone < 300 ng/dL, ≥ 1 hypogonadal symptoms).
- The primary prostate safety endpoint was high-grade prostate cancer incidence (Gleason score, ≥ 4 + 3).
- Secondary endpoints were incidences of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for benign prostatic hyperplasia, prostate biopsy, and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.
TAKEAWAY:
- During 14,304 person-years of follow-up, high-grade prostate cancer incidence did not differ significantly between the TRT and placebo (0.19% vs 0.12%; P = .51) groups.
- The incidences of prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia, prostate biopsy, and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms were also similar between the groups.
- TRT did not lead to an increase in lower urinary tract symptoms.
- The increase in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels was higher in the TRT group than in the placebo group (P < .001). However, the between-group difference did not widen after 12 months.
IN PRACTICE:
For “clinicians and patients who are considering testosterone replacement therapy for hypogonadism,” wrote the authors, “the study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”
SOURCE:
Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, led the study. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
- The study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer or higher PSA values or those without confirmed hypogonadism.
- Although the TRAVERSE study was longer than many contemporary trials, carcinogens may require many years to induce malignant neoplasms.
- The trial’s structured evaluation of men after PSA testing did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests, which could affect the decision to perform a biopsy.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corp, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Mr. Bhasin and two coauthors declared receiving grants, consulting and personal fees, and other ties with pharmaceutical and device companies and other sources.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
CMS Okays Payment for Novel AI Prostate Test
The Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services (CMS) on January 1 approved the payment rate for ArteraAI as a clinical diagnostic laboratory test. The test is the first that can both predict therapeutic benefit and prognosticate long-term outcomes in localized prostate cancer.
Daniel Spratt, MD, chair of radiation oncology at UH Seidman Cancer Center in Cleveland, who has been involved in researching ArteraAI, told this news organization that the test improves risk stratification or prognostication over standard clinical and pathologic tools, such as prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, and T-stage, or risk groupings such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).
“Medicare approval allows this test to reach more patients without the financial burden of covering the test out of pocket. The test is found among other tests in NCCN guidelines as a tool to improve risk stratification and personalization of treatment,” said Dr. Spratt, who serves on the network’s prostate cancer panel.
ArteraAI combines a patient’s standard clinical and pathologic information into an algorithm, alongside a digitized image analysis of the patients’ prostate biopsy. The result is a score that estimates a patient’s risk of developing metastasis or dying from prostate cancer.
Dr. Spratt was the lead author of article last June in NEJM Evidence that validated ArteraAI. He said ArteraAI is 80% accurate as a prognostic test compared with 65% accuracy using NCCN stratification systems.
The AI test spares about two thirds of men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who are starting radiation therapy from androgen deprivation and its side effects, such as weight gain, breast enlargement, hot flashes, heart disease, and brain problems, Dr. Spratt added.
Andre Esteva, CEO and co-founder of San Francisco-based ArteraAI, said, “After someone is diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, deciding on a treatment can feel very overwhelming as there are so many factors to consider. During this time, knowledge is power, and having detailed, personalized information can increase confidence when making these challenging decisions. The ArteraAI Prostate Test was developed with this in mind and can predict whether a patient will benefit from hormone therapy and estimate long-term outcomes.”
Bruno Barrey is one of Dr. Spratt’s patients. Barrey, a robotics engineer from suburban Detroit who was transitioning from active surveillance with Gleason 3+4 intermediate-risk prostate cancer to radiation therapy, said, “I was concerned about the side effects from androgen-deprivation therapy. I was relieved that the AI test allowed me to avoid hormone therapy.”
Dr. Spratt reported working with NRG Oncology, a clinical trials group funded by the National Cancer Institute, and as an academic collaborator with ArteraAI.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services (CMS) on January 1 approved the payment rate for ArteraAI as a clinical diagnostic laboratory test. The test is the first that can both predict therapeutic benefit and prognosticate long-term outcomes in localized prostate cancer.
Daniel Spratt, MD, chair of radiation oncology at UH Seidman Cancer Center in Cleveland, who has been involved in researching ArteraAI, told this news organization that the test improves risk stratification or prognostication over standard clinical and pathologic tools, such as prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, and T-stage, or risk groupings such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).
“Medicare approval allows this test to reach more patients without the financial burden of covering the test out of pocket. The test is found among other tests in NCCN guidelines as a tool to improve risk stratification and personalization of treatment,” said Dr. Spratt, who serves on the network’s prostate cancer panel.
ArteraAI combines a patient’s standard clinical and pathologic information into an algorithm, alongside a digitized image analysis of the patients’ prostate biopsy. The result is a score that estimates a patient’s risk of developing metastasis or dying from prostate cancer.
Dr. Spratt was the lead author of article last June in NEJM Evidence that validated ArteraAI. He said ArteraAI is 80% accurate as a prognostic test compared with 65% accuracy using NCCN stratification systems.
The AI test spares about two thirds of men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who are starting radiation therapy from androgen deprivation and its side effects, such as weight gain, breast enlargement, hot flashes, heart disease, and brain problems, Dr. Spratt added.
Andre Esteva, CEO and co-founder of San Francisco-based ArteraAI, said, “After someone is diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, deciding on a treatment can feel very overwhelming as there are so many factors to consider. During this time, knowledge is power, and having detailed, personalized information can increase confidence when making these challenging decisions. The ArteraAI Prostate Test was developed with this in mind and can predict whether a patient will benefit from hormone therapy and estimate long-term outcomes.”
Bruno Barrey is one of Dr. Spratt’s patients. Barrey, a robotics engineer from suburban Detroit who was transitioning from active surveillance with Gleason 3+4 intermediate-risk prostate cancer to radiation therapy, said, “I was concerned about the side effects from androgen-deprivation therapy. I was relieved that the AI test allowed me to avoid hormone therapy.”
Dr. Spratt reported working with NRG Oncology, a clinical trials group funded by the National Cancer Institute, and as an academic collaborator with ArteraAI.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services (CMS) on January 1 approved the payment rate for ArteraAI as a clinical diagnostic laboratory test. The test is the first that can both predict therapeutic benefit and prognosticate long-term outcomes in localized prostate cancer.
Daniel Spratt, MD, chair of radiation oncology at UH Seidman Cancer Center in Cleveland, who has been involved in researching ArteraAI, told this news organization that the test improves risk stratification or prognostication over standard clinical and pathologic tools, such as prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, and T-stage, or risk groupings such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).
“Medicare approval allows this test to reach more patients without the financial burden of covering the test out of pocket. The test is found among other tests in NCCN guidelines as a tool to improve risk stratification and personalization of treatment,” said Dr. Spratt, who serves on the network’s prostate cancer panel.
ArteraAI combines a patient’s standard clinical and pathologic information into an algorithm, alongside a digitized image analysis of the patients’ prostate biopsy. The result is a score that estimates a patient’s risk of developing metastasis or dying from prostate cancer.
Dr. Spratt was the lead author of article last June in NEJM Evidence that validated ArteraAI. He said ArteraAI is 80% accurate as a prognostic test compared with 65% accuracy using NCCN stratification systems.
The AI test spares about two thirds of men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who are starting radiation therapy from androgen deprivation and its side effects, such as weight gain, breast enlargement, hot flashes, heart disease, and brain problems, Dr. Spratt added.
Andre Esteva, CEO and co-founder of San Francisco-based ArteraAI, said, “After someone is diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, deciding on a treatment can feel very overwhelming as there are so many factors to consider. During this time, knowledge is power, and having detailed, personalized information can increase confidence when making these challenging decisions. The ArteraAI Prostate Test was developed with this in mind and can predict whether a patient will benefit from hormone therapy and estimate long-term outcomes.”
Bruno Barrey is one of Dr. Spratt’s patients. Barrey, a robotics engineer from suburban Detroit who was transitioning from active surveillance with Gleason 3+4 intermediate-risk prostate cancer to radiation therapy, said, “I was concerned about the side effects from androgen-deprivation therapy. I was relieved that the AI test allowed me to avoid hormone therapy.”
Dr. Spratt reported working with NRG Oncology, a clinical trials group funded by the National Cancer Institute, and as an academic collaborator with ArteraAI.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Testosterone Replacement Therapy and Prostate Cancer Risk
TOPLINE:
Testosterone replacement therapy in middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism does not increase the risk for high-grade or any prostate cancer, new data confirmed.
METHODOLOGY:
- Epidemiologic studies have shown inconsistent findings, and clinical trials have not examined prostate safety. As a result, guidelines generally advise against testosterone replacement therapy in men with a history of or increased risk for prostate cancer.
- The current placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group randomized study included 5204 men, ages 45-80, who had two fasting testosterone concentrations < 300 ng/dL, one or more hypogonadal symptoms, and a history of cardiovascular disease or increased . Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either testosterone replacement therapy or placebo.
- The primary prostate safety endpoint was incident high-grade prostate cancer (Gleason score 4 + 3 or higher).
- Secondary endpoints included incidence of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for , , and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.
TAKEAWAY:
- The incidence of high-grade prostate cancer did not differ significantly between groups. Over a mean follow-up of 33 months, only 0.19% (5 of 2596 participants) in the testosterone replacement therapy group and 0.12% (3 of 2602) in the placebo group were diagnosed with high-grade disease (hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; P = .51).
- The rate of any prostate cancer also did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups (0.46% vs 0.42%; HR, 1.07; P = .87).
- The rates of acute urinary retention (0.77% vs 0.61%; HR, 1.25; P = .50), invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia (0.89% vs 0.46%; HR, 1.91; P = .07), prostate biopsy (0.62% vs 0.54%; HR, 1.13; P = .74), or new treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (3.89% vs 3.34%; HR, 1.16; P = .32) did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups.
- Compared with placebo, testosterone therapy did increase prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, but the differences were small and did not increase after 12 months.
IN PRACTICE:
In a population of middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, “the incidences of high-grade or any prostate cancer and other prostate events were low and did not differ significantly between testosterone- and placebo-treated men,” the authors concluded. “The study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”
SOURCE:
This study, led by Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
These study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer, higher PSA values, or those without confirmed hypogonadism. The study design did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests after PSA testing, which may have affected the decision to perform a biopsy. Also, the rates of treatment discontinuation and loss to follow-up were high.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc., with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Bhasin, Lincoff, and Khera reported receiving grants and consulting and personal fees from various sources. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Testosterone replacement therapy in middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism does not increase the risk for high-grade or any prostate cancer, new data confirmed.
METHODOLOGY:
- Epidemiologic studies have shown inconsistent findings, and clinical trials have not examined prostate safety. As a result, guidelines generally advise against testosterone replacement therapy in men with a history of or increased risk for prostate cancer.
- The current placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group randomized study included 5204 men, ages 45-80, who had two fasting testosterone concentrations < 300 ng/dL, one or more hypogonadal symptoms, and a history of cardiovascular disease or increased . Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either testosterone replacement therapy or placebo.
- The primary prostate safety endpoint was incident high-grade prostate cancer (Gleason score 4 + 3 or higher).
- Secondary endpoints included incidence of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for , , and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.
TAKEAWAY:
- The incidence of high-grade prostate cancer did not differ significantly between groups. Over a mean follow-up of 33 months, only 0.19% (5 of 2596 participants) in the testosterone replacement therapy group and 0.12% (3 of 2602) in the placebo group were diagnosed with high-grade disease (hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; P = .51).
- The rate of any prostate cancer also did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups (0.46% vs 0.42%; HR, 1.07; P = .87).
- The rates of acute urinary retention (0.77% vs 0.61%; HR, 1.25; P = .50), invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia (0.89% vs 0.46%; HR, 1.91; P = .07), prostate biopsy (0.62% vs 0.54%; HR, 1.13; P = .74), or new treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (3.89% vs 3.34%; HR, 1.16; P = .32) did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups.
- Compared with placebo, testosterone therapy did increase prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, but the differences were small and did not increase after 12 months.
IN PRACTICE:
In a population of middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, “the incidences of high-grade or any prostate cancer and other prostate events were low and did not differ significantly between testosterone- and placebo-treated men,” the authors concluded. “The study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”
SOURCE:
This study, led by Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
These study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer, higher PSA values, or those without confirmed hypogonadism. The study design did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests after PSA testing, which may have affected the decision to perform a biopsy. Also, the rates of treatment discontinuation and loss to follow-up were high.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc., with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Bhasin, Lincoff, and Khera reported receiving grants and consulting and personal fees from various sources. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Testosterone replacement therapy in middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism does not increase the risk for high-grade or any prostate cancer, new data confirmed.
METHODOLOGY:
- Epidemiologic studies have shown inconsistent findings, and clinical trials have not examined prostate safety. As a result, guidelines generally advise against testosterone replacement therapy in men with a history of or increased risk for prostate cancer.
- The current placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group randomized study included 5204 men, ages 45-80, who had two fasting testosterone concentrations < 300 ng/dL, one or more hypogonadal symptoms, and a history of cardiovascular disease or increased . Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either testosterone replacement therapy or placebo.
- The primary prostate safety endpoint was incident high-grade prostate cancer (Gleason score 4 + 3 or higher).
- Secondary endpoints included incidence of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for , , and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.
TAKEAWAY:
- The incidence of high-grade prostate cancer did not differ significantly between groups. Over a mean follow-up of 33 months, only 0.19% (5 of 2596 participants) in the testosterone replacement therapy group and 0.12% (3 of 2602) in the placebo group were diagnosed with high-grade disease (hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; P = .51).
- The rate of any prostate cancer also did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups (0.46% vs 0.42%; HR, 1.07; P = .87).
- The rates of acute urinary retention (0.77% vs 0.61%; HR, 1.25; P = .50), invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia (0.89% vs 0.46%; HR, 1.91; P = .07), prostate biopsy (0.62% vs 0.54%; HR, 1.13; P = .74), or new treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (3.89% vs 3.34%; HR, 1.16; P = .32) did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups.
- Compared with placebo, testosterone therapy did increase prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, but the differences were small and did not increase after 12 months.
IN PRACTICE:
In a population of middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, “the incidences of high-grade or any prostate cancer and other prostate events were low and did not differ significantly between testosterone- and placebo-treated men,” the authors concluded. “The study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”
SOURCE:
This study, led by Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
These study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer, higher PSA values, or those without confirmed hypogonadism. The study design did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests after PSA testing, which may have affected the decision to perform a biopsy. Also, the rates of treatment discontinuation and loss to follow-up were high.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc., with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Bhasin, Lincoff, and Khera reported receiving grants and consulting and personal fees from various sources. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Side Effects of Local Treatment for Advanced Prostate Cancer May Linger for Years
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
Recent evidence suggested that in men with advanced prostate cancer, local therapy with radical prostatectomy or radiation may improve survival outcomes; however, data on the long-term side effects from these local options were limited.
The retrospective cohort included 5502 men (mean age, 68 years) diagnosed with advanced (T4, N1, and/or M1) prostate cancer.
A total of 1705 men (31%) received initial local treatment, consisting of radical prostatectomy, (55%), radiation (39%), or both (5.6%), while 3797 (69%) opted for initial nonlocal treatment (hormone therapy, chemotherapy, or both).
The main outcomes were treatment-related adverse effects, including GI, chronic pain, sexual dysfunction, and urinary symptoms, assessed at three timepoints after initial treatment — up to 1 year, between 1 and 2 years, and between 2 and 5 years.
TAKEAWAY:
Overall, 916 men (75%) who had initial local treatment and 897 men (67%) with initial nonlocal therapy reported at least one adverse condition up to 5 years after initial treatment.
In the first year after initial treatment, local therapy was associated with a higher prevalence of GI (9% vs 3%), pain (60% vs 38%), sexual (37% vs 8%), and urinary (46.5% vs 18%) conditions. Men receiving local therapy were more likely to experience GI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.08), pain (aOR, 1.57), sexual (aOR, 2.96), and urinary (aOR, 2.25) conditions.
Between 2 and 5 years after local therapy, certain conditions remained more prevalent — 7.8% vs 4.2% for GI, 40% vs 13% for sexual, and 40.5% vs 26% for urinary issues. Men receiving local vs nonlocal therapy were more likely to experience GI (aOR, 2.39), sexual (aOR, 3.36), and urinary (aOR, 1.39) issues over the long term.
The researchers found no difference in the prevalence of constitutional conditions such as hot flashes (36.5% vs 34.4%) in the first year following initial local or nonlocal therapy. However, local treatment followed by any secondary treatment was associated with a higher likelihood of developing constitutional conditions at 1-2 years (aOR, 1.50) and 2-5 years (aOR, 1.78) after initial treatment.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results suggest that patients and clinicians should consider the adverse effects of local treatment” alongside the potential for enhanced survival when making treatment decisions in the setting of advanced prostate cancer, the authors explained. Careful informed decision-making by both patients and practitioners is especially important because “there are currently no established guidelines regarding the use of local treatment among men with advanced prostate cancer.”
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Saira Khan, PhD, MPH, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The authors noted that the study was limited by its retrospective design. Men who received local treatment were, on average, younger; older or lesser healthy patients who received local treatment may experience worse adverse effects than observed in the study. The study was limited to US veterans.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by a grant from the US Department of Defense. The authors have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
Recent evidence suggested that in men with advanced prostate cancer, local therapy with radical prostatectomy or radiation may improve survival outcomes; however, data on the long-term side effects from these local options were limited.
The retrospective cohort included 5502 men (mean age, 68 years) diagnosed with advanced (T4, N1, and/or M1) prostate cancer.
A total of 1705 men (31%) received initial local treatment, consisting of radical prostatectomy, (55%), radiation (39%), or both (5.6%), while 3797 (69%) opted for initial nonlocal treatment (hormone therapy, chemotherapy, or both).
The main outcomes were treatment-related adverse effects, including GI, chronic pain, sexual dysfunction, and urinary symptoms, assessed at three timepoints after initial treatment — up to 1 year, between 1 and 2 years, and between 2 and 5 years.
TAKEAWAY:
Overall, 916 men (75%) who had initial local treatment and 897 men (67%) with initial nonlocal therapy reported at least one adverse condition up to 5 years after initial treatment.
In the first year after initial treatment, local therapy was associated with a higher prevalence of GI (9% vs 3%), pain (60% vs 38%), sexual (37% vs 8%), and urinary (46.5% vs 18%) conditions. Men receiving local therapy were more likely to experience GI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.08), pain (aOR, 1.57), sexual (aOR, 2.96), and urinary (aOR, 2.25) conditions.
Between 2 and 5 years after local therapy, certain conditions remained more prevalent — 7.8% vs 4.2% for GI, 40% vs 13% for sexual, and 40.5% vs 26% for urinary issues. Men receiving local vs nonlocal therapy were more likely to experience GI (aOR, 2.39), sexual (aOR, 3.36), and urinary (aOR, 1.39) issues over the long term.
The researchers found no difference in the prevalence of constitutional conditions such as hot flashes (36.5% vs 34.4%) in the first year following initial local or nonlocal therapy. However, local treatment followed by any secondary treatment was associated with a higher likelihood of developing constitutional conditions at 1-2 years (aOR, 1.50) and 2-5 years (aOR, 1.78) after initial treatment.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results suggest that patients and clinicians should consider the adverse effects of local treatment” alongside the potential for enhanced survival when making treatment decisions in the setting of advanced prostate cancer, the authors explained. Careful informed decision-making by both patients and practitioners is especially important because “there are currently no established guidelines regarding the use of local treatment among men with advanced prostate cancer.”
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Saira Khan, PhD, MPH, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The authors noted that the study was limited by its retrospective design. Men who received local treatment were, on average, younger; older or lesser healthy patients who received local treatment may experience worse adverse effects than observed in the study. The study was limited to US veterans.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by a grant from the US Department of Defense. The authors have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
Recent evidence suggested that in men with advanced prostate cancer, local therapy with radical prostatectomy or radiation may improve survival outcomes; however, data on the long-term side effects from these local options were limited.
The retrospective cohort included 5502 men (mean age, 68 years) diagnosed with advanced (T4, N1, and/or M1) prostate cancer.
A total of 1705 men (31%) received initial local treatment, consisting of radical prostatectomy, (55%), radiation (39%), or both (5.6%), while 3797 (69%) opted for initial nonlocal treatment (hormone therapy, chemotherapy, or both).
The main outcomes were treatment-related adverse effects, including GI, chronic pain, sexual dysfunction, and urinary symptoms, assessed at three timepoints after initial treatment — up to 1 year, between 1 and 2 years, and between 2 and 5 years.
TAKEAWAY:
Overall, 916 men (75%) who had initial local treatment and 897 men (67%) with initial nonlocal therapy reported at least one adverse condition up to 5 years after initial treatment.
In the first year after initial treatment, local therapy was associated with a higher prevalence of GI (9% vs 3%), pain (60% vs 38%), sexual (37% vs 8%), and urinary (46.5% vs 18%) conditions. Men receiving local therapy were more likely to experience GI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.08), pain (aOR, 1.57), sexual (aOR, 2.96), and urinary (aOR, 2.25) conditions.
Between 2 and 5 years after local therapy, certain conditions remained more prevalent — 7.8% vs 4.2% for GI, 40% vs 13% for sexual, and 40.5% vs 26% for urinary issues. Men receiving local vs nonlocal therapy were more likely to experience GI (aOR, 2.39), sexual (aOR, 3.36), and urinary (aOR, 1.39) issues over the long term.
The researchers found no difference in the prevalence of constitutional conditions such as hot flashes (36.5% vs 34.4%) in the first year following initial local or nonlocal therapy. However, local treatment followed by any secondary treatment was associated with a higher likelihood of developing constitutional conditions at 1-2 years (aOR, 1.50) and 2-5 years (aOR, 1.78) after initial treatment.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results suggest that patients and clinicians should consider the adverse effects of local treatment” alongside the potential for enhanced survival when making treatment decisions in the setting of advanced prostate cancer, the authors explained. Careful informed decision-making by both patients and practitioners is especially important because “there are currently no established guidelines regarding the use of local treatment among men with advanced prostate cancer.”
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Saira Khan, PhD, MPH, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The authors noted that the study was limited by its retrospective design. Men who received local treatment were, on average, younger; older or lesser healthy patients who received local treatment may experience worse adverse effects than observed in the study. The study was limited to US veterans.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by a grant from the US Department of Defense. The authors have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.