A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of a 6-month dietary and physical activity intervention for patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE: Treatment of prostate cancer with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is associated with an increased fat mass, decreased lean mass, increased fatigue and a reduction in quality of life (QoL). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a 6-month dietary and physical activity intervention for prostate cancer patients receiving ADT, to help minimise these side effects.

METHODS: Patients (n = 94) were recruited to this study if they were planned to receive ADT for prostate cancer for at least 6 months. Men randomised to the intervention arm received a dietary and exercise intervention, commensurate with UK healthy eating and physical activity recommendations. The primary outcome of interest was body composition; secondary outcomes included fatigue, QoL, functional capacity, stress and dietary change.

RESULTS: The intervention group had a significant (p < 0.001) reduction in weight, body mass index and percentage fat mass compared to the control group at 6 months; the between-group differences were -3.3 kg (95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) -4.5, -2.1), -1.1 kg/m(2) (95 % CI -1.5, -0.7) and -2.1 % (95 % CI -2.8, -1.4), respectively, after adjustment for baseline values. The intervention resulted in improvements in functional capacity (p < 0.001) and dietary intakes but did not significantly impact fatigue, QoL or stress scores at endpoint.

CONCLUSIONS: A 6-month diet and physical activity intervention can minimise the adverse body composition changes associated with ADT.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: This study shows that a pragmatic lifestyle intervention is feasible and can have a positive impact on health behaviours and other key outcomes in men with prostate cancer receiving ADT.

Dietary and exercise interventions to improve quality of life, metabolic risk factors and androgen deficiency symptoms in men with prostate cancer undergoing androgen deprivation therapy

Introduction Lifestyle interventions might be useful in the management of adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in men with prostate cancer. Objectives To examine the effects of dietary and exercise interventions on quality of life (QoL), metabolic risk factors and androgen deficiency symptoms in men with prostate cancer undergoing ADT. Methods CINAHL, Cochrane library, Medline and PsychINFO were searched to identify randomised controlled trials published from January, 2004 to October, 2014. Data extraction and methodological quality assessment was independently conducted by two reviewers. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan® 5.3.5. Results Of 2183 articles retrieved, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria and had low risk of bias.Nine studies evaluated exercise (resistance and/or aerobic and/or counselling) and three evaluated dietary supplementation. Median sample size =79 (33–121) and median intervention duration was 12 weeks (12–24). Exercise improved QoL measures (SMD 0.26, 95%CI −0.01 to 0.53) but not body composition, metabolic risk or vasomotor symptoms. Qualitative analysis indicated soy (or isoflavone) supplementation did not improve vasomotor symptoms; however, may improve QoL. Conclusions Few studies have evaluated the efficacy of lifestyle interventions in the management of adverse effects of ADT. We found inconclusive results for exercise in improving QoL and negative results for other outcomes. For soy-based products, we found negative results for modifying vasomotor symptoms and inconclusive results for improving QoL. Future work should investigate the best mode of exercise for improving QoL and other interventions such as dietary counselling should be investigated for their potential to modify these outcomes.

The effect of androgen deprivation therapy on body composition in men with prostate cancer systematic review and meta analysis

The use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the treatment of prostate cancer is associated with changes in body composition including increased fat and decreased lean mass. Limited information exists regarding the rate and extent of these changes. This systematic review was conducted to determine the effects of ADT on body composition in prostate cancer patients.

Differences in Time to Disease Progression Do Not Predict for Cancer-specific Survival in Patients Receiving Immediate or Deferred Androgen-deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Final Results of EORTC Randomized Trial 30891 with 12 Years of Follow-up

BACKGROUND Trials assessing the benefit of immediate androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for treating prostate cancer (PCa) have often done so based on differences in detectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relapse or metastatic disease rates at a specific time after randomization. OBJECTIVE Based on the long-term results of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) trial 30891, we questioned if differences in time to progression predict for survival differences. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS EORTC trial 30891 compared immediate ADT (n=492) with orchiectomy or luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analog with deferred ADT (n=493) initiated upon symptomatic disease progression or life-threatening complications in randomly assigned T0-4 N0-2 M0 PCa patients. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Time to first objective progression (documented metastases, ureteric obstruction, not PSA rise) and time to objective castration-resistant progressive disease were compared as well as PCa mortality and overall survival. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS After a median of 12.8 yr, 769 of the 985 patients had died (78%), 269 of PCa (27%). For patients receiving deferred ADT, the overall treatment time was 31% of that for patients on immediate ADT. Deferred ADT was significantly worse than immediate ADT for time to first objective disease progression (p<0.0001; 10-yr progression rates 42% vs 30%). However, time to objective castration-resistant disease after deferred ADT did not differ significantly (p=0.42) from that after immediate ADT. In addition, PCa mortality did not differ significantly, except in patients with aggressive PCa resulting in death within 3-5 yr after diagnosis. Deferred ADT was inferior to immediate ADT in terms of overall survival (hazard ratio: 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.39; p [noninferiority]=0.72, p [difference] = 0.0085). CONCLUSIONS This study shows that if hormonal manipulation is used at different times during the disease course, differences in time to first disease progression cannot predict differences in disease-specific survival. A deferred ADT policy may substantially reduce the time on treatment, but it is not suitable for patients with rapidly progressing disease.

Comparison of Objectively and Subjectively Measured Sedentary Behavior in Men with Prostate Cancer and a History of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy Use

Thesis (Master's)--University of Washington, 2016-08

Adverse effects of androgen-deprivation therapy in prostate cancer and their management

Objective To provide an up-to-date summary of current literature on the management of adverse effects of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Patients and Methods All relevant medical literature on men with prostate cancer treated with ADT from 2005 to 2014, and older relevant papers, were reviewed. Recent health advisory statements from the Australian government, societies and advocacy groups have been incorporated to the document. Results There are numerous adverse effects of ADT that require pro-active prevention and treatment. Ranging from cardiovascular disease, diabetes and osteoporosis, to depression, cognitive decline and sexual dysfunction, the range of adverse effects is wide. Baseline assessment, monitoring, prevention and consultation from a multidisciplinary team are important in minimising the harm from ADT. Conclusions This review provides a series of practical recommendations to assist with managing the adverse effects of ADT.

Timing of androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer with a rising PSA (TROG 03.06 and VCOG PR 01-03 [TOAD]): a randomised, multicentre, non-blinded, phase 3 trial

Background Androgen-deprivation therapy is offered to men with prostate cancer who have a rising prostate-specific antigen after curative therapy (PSA relapse) or who are considered not suitable for curative treatment; however, the optimal timing for its introduction is uncertain. We aimed to assess whether immediate androgen-deprivation therapy improves overall survival compared with delayed therapy. Methods In this randomised, multicentre, phase 3, non-blinded trial, we recruited men through 29 oncology centres in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Men with prostate cancer were eligible if they had a PSA relapse after previous attempted curative therapy (radiotherapy or surgery, with or without postoperative radiotherapy) or if they were not considered suitable for curative treatment (because of age, comorbidity, or locally advanced disease). We used a database-embedded, dynamically balanced, randomisation algorithm, coordinated by the Cancer Council Victoria, to randomly assign participants (1:1) to immediate androgen-deprivation therapy (immediate therapy arm) or to delayed androgen-deprivation therapy (delayed therapy arm) with a recommended interval of at least 2 years unless clinically contraindicated. Randomisation for participants with PSA relapse was stratified by type of previous therapy, relapse-free interval, and PSA doubling time; randomisation for those with non-curative disease was stratified by metastatic status; and randomisation in both groups was stratified by planned treatment schedule (continuous or intermittent) and treatment centre. Clinicians could prescribe any form and schedule of androgen-deprivation therapy and group assignment was not masked. The primary outcome was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The trial closed to accrual in 2012 after review by the independent data monitoring committee, but data collection continued for 18 months until Feb 26, 2014. It is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12606000301561) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00110162). Findings Between Sept 3, 2004, and July 13, 2012, we recruited 293 men (261 with PSA relapse and 32 with non-curable disease). We randomly assigned 142 men to the immediate therapy arm and 151 to the delayed therapy arm. Median follow-up was 5 years (IQR 3·3–6·2) from the date of randomisation. 16 (11%) men died in the immediate therapy arm and 30 (20%) died in the delayed therapy arm. 5-year overall survival was 86·4% (95% CI 78·5–91·5) in the delayed therapy arm versus 91·2% (84·2–95·2) in the immediate therapy arm (log-rank p=0·047). After Cox regression, the unadjusted HR for overall survival for immediate versus delayed arm assignment was 0·55 (95% CI 0·30–1·00; p=0·050). 23 patients had grade 3 treatment-related adverse events. 105 (36%) men had adverse events requiring hospital admission; none of these events were attributable to treatment or differed between treatment-timing groups. The most common serious adverse events were cardiovascular, which occurred in nine (6%) patients in the delayed therapy arm and 13 (9%) in the immediate therapy arm. Interpretation Immediate receipt of androgen-deprivation therapy significantly improved overall survival compared with delayed intervention in men with PSA-relapsed or non-curable prostate cancer. The results provide benchmark evidence of survival rates and morbidity to discuss with men when considering their treatment options. Funding Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Cancer Councils, The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, Mayne Pharma Australia.

Contemporary role of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer (PCa) represents one of the most effective systemic palliative treatments known for solid tumors. Although clinical trials have assessed the role of ADT in patients with metastatic and advanced locoregional disease, the risk-benefit ratio, especially in earlier stages, remains poorly defined. Given the mounting evidence for potentially life-threatening adverse effects with short- and long-term ADT, it is important to redefine the role of ADT for this disease.