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.

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.

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.

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.

Androgen deprivation therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer: consider both benefits and risks

CONTEXT: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is increasingly used for the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa), even in clinical settings in which there is no evidence-based proof of prolonged overall survival (OS). ADT, however, may be associated with numerous side effects, including an increased therapy-related cardiovascular mortality. OBJECTIVE: To discuss different clinical settings in which ADT is currently used and to critically weigh the benefits of ADT against its possible side effects. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A MEDLINE search was conducted to identify original articles and review articles addressing the efficacy and side effects of ADT for the treatment of PCa. Keywords consisted of prostate cancer, hormonal therapy, adverse effects, radical prostatectomy, and radiotherapy. The articles with the highest level of evidence for the various examined end points were identified with the consensus of all authors and were reviewed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Even short-term use of ADT may lead to numerous side effects, such as osteoporosis, obesity, sarcopenia, lipid alterations, insulin resistance, and increased risk for diabetes and cardiovascular morbidity. Despite these side effects, ADT is commonly used in various clinical settings in which a clear effect on improved OS has not been shown. CONCLUSIONS: ADT is associated with an increased risk of multiple side effects that may reduce quality of life and/or OS. Consequently, these issues should be discussed in detail with patients and their families before initiation of ADT. ADT should be used with knowledge of its potential long-term side effects and with possible lifestyle interventions, especially in settings with the highest risk-benefit ratio, to alleviate comorbidities.

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.

Combining Enzalutamide with Abiraterone, Prednisone, and Androgen Deprivation Therapy in the STAMPEDE Trial.

There are compelling reasons to study the addition of both enzalutamide and abiraterone, in combination, to standard-of-care for hormone-naïve prostate cancer. Through a protocol amendment, this will be assessed in the STAMPEDE trial, with overall survival as primary outcome measure.

Multimodal treatment for high-risk prostate cancer with high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy preceded or not by radical prostatectomy, concurrent intensified-dose docetaxel and long-term androgen deprivation therapy: results of a prospective phase II trial.

BACKGROUND The optimal management of high-risk prostate cancer remains uncertain. In this study we assessed the safety and efficacy of a novel multimodal treatment paradigm for high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS This was a prospective phase II trial including 35 patients with newly diagnosed high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer treated with high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy preceded or not by radical prostatectomy, concurrent intensified-dose docetaxel-based chemotherapy and long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Primary endpoint was acute and late toxicity evaluated with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. Secondary endpoint was biochemical and clinical recurrence-free survival explored with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS Acute gastro-intestinal and genito-urinary toxicity was grade 2 in 23% and 20% of patients, and grade 3 in 9% and 3% of patients, respectively. Acute blood/bone marrow toxicity was grade 2 in 20% of patients. No acute grade ≥ 4 toxicity was observed. Late gastro-intestinal and genito-urinary toxicity was grade 2 in 9% of patients each. No late grade ≥ 3 toxicity was observed. Median follow-up was 63 months (interquartile range 31-79). Actuarial 5-year biochemical and clinical recurrence-free survival rate was 55% (95% confidence interval, 35-75%) and 70% (95% confidence interval, 52-88%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS In our phase II trial testing a novel multimodal treatment paradigm for high-risk prostate cancer, toxicity was acceptably low and mid-term oncological outcome was good. This treatment paradigm, thus, may warrant further evaluation in phase III randomized trials.

Synergistic action of image-guided radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy.

The combined use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) can improve overall survival in aggressive, localized prostate cancer. However, owing to the adverse effects of prolonged ADT, it is imperative to identify the patients who would benefit from this combined-modality therapy relative to the use of IGRT alone. Opportunities exist for more personalized approaches in treating aggressive, locally advanced prostate cancer. Biomarkers--such as disseminated tumour cells, circulating tumour cells, genomic signatures and molecular imaging techniques--could identify the patients who are at greatest risk for systemic metastases and who would benefit from the addition of systemic ADT. By contrast, when biomarkers of systemic disease are not present, treatment could proceed using local IGRT alone. The choice of drug, treatment duration and timing of ADT relative to IGRT could be predicated on these personalized approaches to prostate cancer medicine. These novel treatment intensification and reduction strategies could result in improved prostate-cancer-specific survival and overall survival, without incurring the added expense of metabolic syndrome and other adverse effects of ADT in all patients.