The effect of warfarin therapy on breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer survival: a population-based cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink

PURPOSE: Pre-clinical studies suggest that oral anticoagulant agents, such as warfarin, may inhibit metastases and potentially prolong survival in cancer patients. However, few population-based studies have examined the association between warfarin use and cancer-specific mortality.

METHODS: Using prescribing, cause of death, and cancer registration data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, four population-based cohorts were constructed, comprising breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer patients diagnosed between 1 January 1998, and the 31 December 2010. Comparing pre-diagnostic warfarin users to non-users, multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for cancer-specific mortality.

RESULTS: Overall, 16,525 breast, 12,902 colorectal, 12,296 lung, and 12,772 prostate cancers were included. Pre-diagnostic warfarin use ranged from 2.4 to 4.7 %. There was little evidence of any strong association between warfarin use pre-diagnosis and cancer-specific mortality in prostate (adjusted HR 1.03, 95 % CI 0.84-1.26), lung (adjusted HR 1.06, 95 % CI 0.96-1.16), breast (adjusted HR 0.81, 95 % CI 0.62-1.07), or colorectal (adjusted HR 0.88, 95 % CI 0.77-1.01) cancer patients. Dose-response analyses did not reveal consistent evidence of reductions in users of warfarin defined by the number of prescriptions used and daily defined doses.

CONCLUSIONS: There was little evidence of associations between pre-diagnostic use of warfarin and cancer-specific mortality in lung, prostate, breast, or colorectal cancer patients.

Efficacy and safety of radium-223 dichloride in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and symptomatic bone metastases, with or without previous docetaxel use: A prespecified subgroup analysis from the randomised, double-blind, phase 3 ALSYMPCA trial

Background: Primary results from the phase 3 ALSYMPCA trial showed that radium-223 dichloride (radium-223), a targeted α-emitter, improved overall survival compared with placebo and was well tolerated in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and symptomatic bone metastases. We did a prespecified subgroup analysis from ALSYMPCA to assess the effect of previous docetaxel use on the efficacy and safety of radium-223. 

Methods: In the phase 3, randomised, double-blind ALSYMPCA trial, patients with symptomatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, at least two symptomatic bone metastases, no known visceral metastases, and who were receiving best standard of care were randomly assigned (2:1) via an interactive voice response system to receive six injections of radium-223 (50 kBq/kg intravenously) or matching placebo, with one injection given every 4 weeks. Patients had either received previous docetaxel treatment or were unsuitable for or declined docetaxel; previous docetaxel use (yes or no) was a trial stratification factor. We investigated the effect of previous docetaxel use on radium-223 treatment for the primary endpoint of overall survival, the main secondary efficacy endpoints, and safety. Efficacy analyses were done for the intention-to-treat population; safety analyses were done for the safety population. The trial has been completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00699751. 

Findings: Randomisation took place between June 12, 2008, and Feb 1, 2011. 526 (57%) of 921 randomly assigned patients had received previous docetaxel treatment (352 in the radium-223 group and 174 in the placebo group) and 395 (43%) had not (262 in the radium-223 group and 133 in the placebo group). Radium-223 prolonged median overall survival compared with placebo, irrespective of previous docetaxel use (previous docetaxel use, hazard ratio [HR] 0·70, 95% CI 0·56-0·88; p=0·002; no previous docetaxel use, HR 0·69, 0·52-0·92; p=0·01). The benefit of radium-223 compared with placebo was seen in both docetaxel subgroups for most main secondary efficacy endpoints; risk for time to time to first symptomatic skeletal event was reduced with radium-223 versus placebo in patients with previous docetaxel use, but the difference was not significant in those with no previous docetaxel use. 322 (62%) of 518 patients previously treated with docetaxel had grade 3-4 adverse events, compared with 205 (54%) of 383 patients without docetaxel. Patients who had previously been treated with docetaxel had a higher incidence of grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia with radium-223 than with placebo (31 [9%] of 347 patients vs five [3%] of 171 patients), whereas the incidence was similar between treatment groups among patients with no previous docetaxel use (seven [3%] of 253 patients vs one [1%] of 130 patients). The incidences of grade 3-4 anaemia and neutropenia were similar between the radium-223 and placebo groups within both docetaxel subgroups. 

Interpretation: Radium-223 is effective and well tolerated in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and symptomatic bone metastases, irrespective of previous docetaxel use. 

Funding: Algeta ASA and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.

Interactions of a non-thermal atmospheric pressure plasma effluent with PC-3 prostate cancer cells

The effect of a radio-frequency driven, microscale non thermal atmospheric pressure plasma jet operated in helium with vol. 0.3% molecular oxygen gas admixture, on PC-3 prostate cancer cells has been investigated. The viability of cells exposed to the plasma was found to decrease with increasing plasma exposure time, with apoptosis through caspase and PARP cleavage being observed. High concentrations of nitrite and nitrate were detected in growth media exposed to the plasma and were found to increase in a time dependent manner post exposure. This indicates a slow release of reactive nitrogen species into the growth media, which is likely to influence cellular response to plasma exposure.

A population-based study of adverse physical effects following prostate cancer treatments: Results from the PiCTure (Prostate cancer treatment – your experience) study

Background:

Men and clinicians need reliable population based information when making decisions about investigation and treatment of prostate cancer. In the absence of clearly preferred treatments, differences in outcomes become more important.

Aim:

To investigate rates of adverse physical effects among prostate cancer survivors 2-15 years post diagnosis by treatment, and estimate population burden.

Methods:

A cross sectional, postal survey to 6,559 survivors (all ages) diagnosed with primary, invasive prostate cancer (ICD10-C61), identified in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland via cancer registries. Questions included symptoms at diagnosis, treatments received and adverse physical effects (impotence, urinary incontinence, bowel problems, breast changes, libido loss, hot flashes, fatigue) experienced ‘ever’ and ‘current’ i.e. at questionnaire completion. Physical effect levels were weighted by age, country and time since diagnosis for all prostate cancer survivors. Bonferroni corrections were applied to account for multiple comparisons.

Results:

Adjusted response rate 54%, (n=3,348). 75% reported at least one current physical effect (90% ever), with 29% reporting at least three. These varied by treatment. Current impotence was reported by 76% post-prostatectomy, 64% post-external beam radiotherapy with hormone therapy, with average for all survivors of 57%. Urinary incontinence (overall current level: 16%) was highest post-prostatectomy (current 28%, ever 70%). 42% of brachytherapy patients reported no current adverse physical effects; however 43% reported current impotence and 8% current incontinence. Current hot flashes (41%), breast changes (18%) and fatigue (28%) were reported more commonly by patients on hormone therapy.

Conclusions:

This study provides evidence that adverse physical effects following prostate cancer represent a significant public health burden; an estimated 1.6% of men over 45 is a prostate cancer survivor with a current adverse physical effect. This information should facilitate investigation and treatment decision-making and follow-up care of patients.

Patient-reported 'ever had' and 'current' long term physical symptoms following prostate cancer treatments

OBJECTIVE: To document prostate cancer patient reported 'ever experienced' and 'current' prevalence of disease specific physical symptoms stratified by primary treatment received.
PATIENTS: 3,348 prostate cancer survivors 2-15 years post diagnosis.
METHODS: Cross-sectional, postal survey of 6,559 survivors diagnosed 2-15 years ago with primary, invasive PCa (ICD10-C61) identified via national, population based cancer registries in Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland. Questions included symptoms at diagnosis, primary treatments and physical symptoms (impotence/urinary incontinence/bowel problems/breast changes/loss of libido/hot flashes/fatigue) experienced 'ever' and at questionnaire completion ("current"). Symptom proportions were weighted by age, country and time since diagnosis. Bonferroni corrections were applied for multiple comparisons.
RESULTS: Adjusted response rate 54%; 75% reported at least one 'current' physical symptom ('ever':90%), with 29% reporting at least three. Prevalence varied by treatment; overall 57% reported current impotence; this was highest following radical prostatectomy (RP)76% followed by external beam radiotherapy with concurrent hormone therapy (HT); 64%. Urinary incontinence (overall 'current' 16%) was highest following RP ('current'28%, 'ever'70%). While 42% of brachytherapy patients reported no 'current' symptoms; 43% reported 'current' impotence and 8% 'current' incontinence. 'Current' hot flashes (41%), breast changes (18%) and fatigue (28%) were reported more often by patients on HT.
CONCLUSION: Symptoms following prostate cancer are common, often multiple, persist long-term and vary by treatment. They represent a significant health burden. An estimated 1.6% of men over 45 is a prostate cancer survivor currently experiencing an adverse physical symptom. Recognition and treatment of physical symptoms should be prioritised in patient follow-up. This information should facilitate men and clinicians when deciding about treatment as differences in survival between radical treatments is minimal.

Long-term health-related quality of life of prostate cancer survivors varies by primary treatment. Results from the PiCTure (Prostate Cancer Treatment, your experience) study

PURPOSE: Men are living longer with prostate cancer. In a two-country study, we investigated the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of prostate cancer survivors up to 18 years post-diagnosis.

METHODS: Postal questionnaires were administered in 2012 to 6559 prostate cancer (ICD10 C61) survivors 2-18 years post-diagnosis, identified through population-based cancer registries in Ireland. HRQoL was measured using QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25. HRQoL, functional and symptom scores were compared by primary treatment(s) using multiple linear regression.

RESULTS: Fifty-four percent responded (n = 3348). After controlling for socio-demographic and clinical factors, global HRQoL varied significantly by primary treatment (p < 0.001); compared to radical prostatectomy (RP), survivors who received androgen deprivation therapy alone (ADT; p < 0.001) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) without concurrent ADT (p = 0.001) had significantly lower global HRQoL. The global HRQoL of men who received brachytherapy (p = 0.157), EBRT with concurrent ADT (p = 0.940) or active surveillance/watchful waiting (p = 0.388) was not significantly different from men treated with RP. There were statistically and clinically significant differences in general (fatigue, pain, dyspnoea, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhoea, financial difficulties) and disease-specific symptoms (sexual, urinary, bowel, ADT) by primary treatment. Fatigue and insomnia scores were high for survivors in all treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer survivors' long-term HRQoL varied with primary treatment.

IMPLICATIONS OF CANCER SURVIVORS: Population-based information regarding statistically and clinically significant treatment effects on long-term global HRQoL, symptom burden and functionality should be provided during treatment decision-making. Screening for symptoms and utilising interventions during long-term follow-up may improve survivors' HRQoL.

Tumor-derived CXCL8 signaling augments stroma-derived CCL2-promoted proliferation and CXCL12-mediated invasion of PTEN-deficient prostate cancer cells

Impaired PTEN function is a genetic hallmark of aggressive prostate cancers (CaP) and is associated with increased CXCL8 expression and signaling. The current aim was to further characterize biological responses and mechanisms underpinning CXCL8-promoted progression of PTEN-depleted prostate cancer, focusing on characterizing the potential interplay between CXCL8 and other disease-promoting chemokines resident within the prostate tumor microenvironment. Autocrine CXCL8-stimulation (i) increased expression of CXCR1 and CXCR2 in PTEN-deficient CaP cells suggesting a self-potentiating signaling axis and (ii) induced expression of CXCR4 and CCR2 in PTEN-wild-type and PTEN-depleted CaP cells. In contrast, paracrine CXCL8 signaling induced expression and secretion of the chemokines CCL2 and CXCL12 from prostate stromal WPMY-1 fibroblasts and monocytic macrophage-like THP-1 cells. In vitro studies demonstrated functional co-operation of tumor-derived CXCL8 with stromal-derived chemokines. CXCL12-induced migration of PC3 cells and CCL2-induced proliferation of prostate cancer cells were dependent upon intrinsic CXCL8 signaling within the prostate cancer cells. For example, in co-culture experiments, CXCL12/CXCR4 signaling but not CCL2/CCR2 signaling supported fibroblast-mediated migration of PC3 cells while CXCL12/CXCR4 and CCL2/CCR2 signaling underpinned monocyte-enhanced migration of PC3 cells. Combined inhibition of both CXCL8 and CXCL12 signaling was more effective in inhibiting fibroblast-promoted cell motility while repression of CXCL8 attenuated CCL2-promoted proliferation of prostate cancer cells. We conclude that tumor-derived CXCL8 signaling from PTEN-deficient tumor cells increases the sensitivity and responsiveness of CaP cells to stromal chemokines by concurrently upregulating receptor expression in cancer cells and inducing stromal chemokine synthesis. Combined chemokine targeting may be required to inhibit their multi-faceted actions in promoting the invasion and proliferation of aggressive CaP.

Gleason Upgrading with Time in a Large Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohort

PURPOSE: We report the percentage of patients on active surveillance who had disease pathologically upgraded and factors that predict for upgrading on surveillance biopsies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients in our active surveillance database with at least 1 repeat prostate biopsy were included. Histological upgrading was defined as any increase in primary or secondary Gleason grade on repeat biopsy. Multivariate analysis was used to determine baseline and dynamic factors associated with Gleason upgrading. This information was used to develop a nomogram to predict for upgrading or treatment in patients electing for active surveillance.

RESULTS: Of 862 patients in our cohort 592 had 2 or more biopsies. Median followup was 6.4 years. Of the patients 20% were intermediate risk, 0.3% were high risk and all others were low risk. During active surveillance 31.3% of cases were upgraded. On multivariate analysis clinical stage T2, higher prostate specific antigen and higher percentage of cores involved with disease at the time of diagnosis predicted for upgrading. A total of 27 cases (15% of those upgraded) were Gleason 8 or higher at upgrading, and 62% of all 114 upgraded cases went on to have active treatment. The nomogram incorporated clinical stage, age, prostate specific antigen, core positivity and Gleason score. The concordance index was 0.61.

CONCLUSIONS: In this large re-biopsy cohort with medium-term followup, most cases have not been pathologically upgraded to date. A model predicting for upgrading or radical treatment was developed which could be useful in counseling patients considering active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Long-Term Follow-Up of a Large Active Surveillance Cohort of Patients With Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE: Active surveillance is increasingly accepted as a treatment option for favorable-risk prostate cancer. Long-term follow-up has been lacking. In this study, we report the long-term outcome of a large active surveillance protocol in men with favorable-risk prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a prospective single-arm cohort study carried out at a single academic health sciences center, 993 men with favorable- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer were managed with an initial expectant approach. Intervention was offered for a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time of less than 3 years, Gleason score progression, or unequivocal clinical progression. Main outcome measures were overall and disease-specific survival, rate of treatment, and PSA failure rate in the treated patients.

RESULTS: Among the 819 survivors, the median follow-up time from the first biopsy is 6.4 years (range, 0.2 to 19.8 years). One hundred forty-nine (15%) of 993 patients died, and 844 patients are alive (censored rate, 85.0%). There were 15 deaths (1.5%) from prostate cancer. The 10- and 15-year actuarial cause-specific survival rates were 98.1% and 94.3%, respectively. An additional 13 patients (1.3%) developed metastatic disease and are alive with confirmed metastases (n = 9) or have died of other causes (n = 4). At 5, 10, and 15 years, 75.7%, 63.5%, and 55.0% of patients remained untreated and on surveillance. The cumulative hazard ratio for nonprostate-to-prostate cancer mortality was 9.2:1.

CONCLUSION: Active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer is feasible and seems safe in the 15-year time frame. In our cohort, 2.8% of patients have developed metastatic disease, and 1.5% have died of prostate cancer. This mortality rate is consistent with expected mortality in favorable-risk patients managed with initial definitive intervention.