Bone health and body composition in prostate cancer: Meet-URO and AIOM consensus about prevention and management strategies.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) treatments are associated with a detrimental impact on bone health (BH) and body composition. However, the evidence on these issues is limited and contradictory. This consensus, based on the Delphi method, provides further guidance on BH management in PCa. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In May 2023, a survey made up of 37 questions and 74 statements was developed by a group of oncologists and endocrinologists with expertise in PCa and BH. In June 2023, 67 selected Italian experts, belonging to the Italian scientific societies Italian Association of Medical Oncology and Italian Network for Research in Urologic-Oncology (Meet-URO), were invited by e-mail to complete it, rating their strength of agreement with each statement on a 5-point scale. An agreement ≥75% defined the statement as accepted. RESULTS: In non-metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa, the panel agreed that androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone implies sufficient fracture risk to warrant antifracture therapy with bone-targeting agents (BTAs) for cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) prevention (79%). Therefore, no consensus was reached (48%) for the treatment with BTAs of patients receiving short-term ADT (<6 months). All patients receiving active treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa (75%), non-metastatic castration-resistant PCa (89%) and metastatic castration-resistant PCa (mCRPC) without bone metastases (84%) should be treated with BTAs at the doses and schedule for CTIBL prevention. All mCRPC patients with bone metastasis should be treated with BTAs to reduce skeletal-related events (94%). In all settings, the panel analyzed the type and timing of treatments and examinations to carry out for BH monitoring. The panel agreed on the higher risk of sarcopenic obesity of these patients and its correlation with bone fragility. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus highlights areas lacking major agreement, like non-metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer patients undergoing short-term ADT. Evaluation of these issues in prospective clinical trials and identification of early biomarkers of bone loss are particularly urgent.

Longitudinal assessment of plasma androgen receptor copy number predicts overall survival in subsequent treatment lines in castration-resistant prostate cancer: analysis from a prospective trial.

BACKGROUND: Baseline plasma androgen-receptor copy number (AR-CN) is a promising biomarker for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) outcome and treatment response; however, the role of its longitudinal testing is unproven. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic role of AR-CN assessed before subsequent treatment lines in mCRPC patients. METHODS: A subgroup analysis of a prospective multicenter biomarker trial (IRSTB030) was carried out. Plasma AR-CN status (classified as normal or gain, cut-off value = 2) was assessed with digital PCR before each treatment line. RESULTS: Forty mCRPC patients receiving sequentially docetaxel, cabazitaxel and an AR signaling inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) were analyzed. At multivariate analysis, at each assessment overall survival (OS) was independently correlated with AR-CN status [first line: hazard ratio (HR) 4.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6-10.5]; second line: HR 2.4 (95% CI 1.1-5.3); third line: HR 2.1 (95% CI 1.0-4.3)] and median prostate-specific antigen [first line: HR 4.4 (95% CI 1.8-10.9); second line: HR 3.4 (95% CI 1.6-7.2); third line: HR 2.5 (95% CI 1.2-5.6)]. In the three subsequent assessments, AR-CN status changed from normal to gain in 15 (38%) patients. These patients had longer OS (47 months) compared with patients presenting AR-CN gain from first assessment (36 months), but shorter than those maintaining normal AR-CN (69 months) (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Plasma AR-CN correlates with survival not only at baseline (before first treatment), but also in the assessments before the following lines. Interestingly, AR-CN status may change from normal to gain across subsequent treatments in a significant number of cases, identifying a group of patients with intermediate outcomes. Longitudinal assessment of AR-CN status could represent a promising method to capture mCRPC intrinsic heterogeneity and to improve clinical management.

Grade group system and plasma androgen receptor status in the first line treatment for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer.

In localized prostate cancer (PCa), Grade Group (GG) and Gleason Score (GS) have a well-established prognostic role. In metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), the prognostic role of GS and GG is less defined. In first-line treatment of mCRPC, androgen receptor (AR)-directed drugs (abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide) and docetaxel represent the referring options. There is no evidence that the GS/GG systems can add information to guide the choice between AR-directed drugs and docetaxel in the first-line setting of mCRPC. Nowadays there are no validated biomarkers, which define patients who may benefit or not from hormonal treatments or chemotherapy. Androgen receptor (AR) copy number variations (CNV) are predictive factors of poor response to abiraterone and enzalutamide. There are no available data about the association between AR CNV and GG. In this retrospective study, we analysed the association of the highest GG score with AR CNV and their impact on the clinical outcome of AR-directed drugs and docetaxel as first-line therapy for mCRPC patients. Patients benefit from docetaxel, abiraterone or enzalutamide regardless the GG. However, the presence of GG5 and AR CNV gain identifies a subgroup of patients with poor prognosis, which could benefit from front-line docetaxel instead of AR-directed drugs.

Combination radium-223 therapies in patients with bone metastases from castration-resistant prostate cancer: A review.

Chemotherapeutic agents (docetaxel, cabazitaxel), hormonal therapies (abiraterone, enzalutamide) and radium-223 improve survival in patients with bone metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Combinations of radium-223 with these agents or novel drugs have been investigated in order to improve survival and decrease bone-related morbidity. In mCRPC, clinical and preclinical data indicate that radium-223, abiraterone and enzalutamide have a direct effect on prostate cancer cells and bone microenvironment when administered as single agents. Initial results from studies of radium-223 and abiraterone, enzalutamide or docetaxel demonstrated efficacy without any safety concern in pre-treated mCRPC; however, this safety profile changed when radium-based combination therapies were administered in un-pretreated mCRPC. This review underline the biological rationale for combining radium strategies, investigating their effects on bone in terms of control of skeletal-related events and bone disease progression. The aim is to understand the possible reasons why different radium-based combination treatments can led to different clinical outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of Everolimus and Exemestane in hormone-receptor positive (HR+) human-epidermal-growth-factor negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer patients: New insights beyond clinical trials. The EVA study.

BACKGROUND: The BOLERO-2 trial reported efficacy and safety of Everolimus (EVE) and Exemestane (EXE) combination in HR+ advanced breast cancer (ABC) patients. The BALLET trial further evaluated the safety of EVE-EXE in HR+ ABC patients, without reporting efficacy data. Aim of the EVA real-life study was to collect data of efficacy and safety of EVE-EXE combination in the clinical setting, as well as exploring efficacy according to EVE Dose-Intensity (DI) and to previous treatment with Fulvestrant. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study aimed to describe the outcome of ABC pts treated with EVE-EXE combination in terms of median duration of EVE treatment and ORR in a real-life setting. RESULTS: From July 2013 to December 2015, the EVA study enrolled 404 pts. Median age was 61 years (33-83). Main metastatic sites were: bone (69.1%), soft tissue (34.7%) and viscera (33.2%). Median number of previous treatments was 2 (1-7). 43.3% of the pts had received Fulvestrant. Median exposure to EVE was 31.0 weeks (15.4-58.3) in the whole population. No difference was observed in terms of EVE exposure duration according to DI (p for trend = 0.27) or type of previous treatments (p = 0.33). ORR and Disease Control Rate (DCR) were observed in 31.6% and 60.7% of the patients, respectively, with the lowest ORRs confined in CHT pre-treated patients or in those who received the lowest DI of EVE. Grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 37.9% of the patients. Main AEs were: stomatitis (11.2%), non-infectious pneumonitis - NIP (3.8%), anaemia (3.8%) and fatigue (3.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The EVA study provided new insights in the use of EVE-EVE combination in HR+ ABC pts many years after the publication of the pivotal trial. The combination is safe and the best response could be obtained in patients receiving the full dose of EVE and/or after hormone-therapy as Fulvestrant in ABC.