PROMISE Registry: A prostate cancer registry of outcomes and germline mutations for improved survival and treatment effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Recently approved treatments and updates to genetic testing recommendations for prostate cancer have created a need for correlated analyses of patient outcomes data via germline genetic mutation status. Genetic registries address these gaps by identifying candidates for recently approved targeted treatments, expanding clinical trial data examining specific gene mutations, and understanding effects of targeted treatments in the real-world setting. METHODS: The PROMISE Registry is a 20-year (5-year recruitment, 15-year follow-up), US-wide, prospective genetic registry for prostate cancer patients. Five thousand patients will be screened through an online at-home germline testing to identify and enroll 500 patients with germline mutations, including: pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and variants of uncertain significance in genes of interest. Patients will be followed for 15 years and clinical data with real time patient reported outcomes will be collected. Eligible patients will enter long-term follow-up (6-month PRO surveys and medical record retrieval). As a virtual study with patient self-enrollment, the PROMISE Registry may fill gaps in genetics services in underserved areas and for patients within sufficient insurance coverage. RESULTS: The PROMISE Registry opened in May 2021. 2114 patients have enrolled to date across 48 US states and 23 recruiting sites. 202 patients have met criteria for long-term follow-up. PROMISE is on target with the study's goal of 5000 patients screened and 500 patients eligible for long-term follow-up by 2026. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMISE Registry is a novel, prospective, germline registry that will collect long-term patient outcomes data to address current gaps in understanding resulting from recently FDA-approved treatments and updates to genetic testing recommendations for prostate cancer. Through inclusion of a broad nationwide sample, including underserved patients and those unaffiliated with major academic centers, the PROMISE Registry aims to provide access to germline genetic testing and to collect data to understand disease characteristics and treatment responses across the disease spectrum for prostate cancer with rare germline genetic variants.

Plant-based diet associated with better quality of life in prostate cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Plant-based diets have many health benefits, including a lower risk of fatal prostate cancer, and greater environmental sustainability. However, less is known regarding the impact of plant-based diets on quality of life among individuals diagnosed with prostate cancer. The authors' objective was to examine the relationship between plant-based diet indices postdiagnosis with quality of life. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 3505 participants in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (1986-2016) with nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Food-frequency questionnaires were used to calculate overall and healthful plant-based diet indices. Quality-of-life scores were calculated using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite. Generalized estimating equations were used to examine associations over time between plant-based diet indices and quality-of-life domains (sexual functioning, urinary irritation/obstruction, urinary incontinence, bowel functioning, hormonal/vitality), adjusted for demographics, oncologic history, body mass index, caloric intake, health-related behaviors, and comorbidities. RESULTS: The median age at prostate cancer diagnosis was 68 years; 48% of patients underwent radical prostatectomy, and 35% received radiation as primary therapy. The median time from diagnosis/treatment to first the quality-of-life questionnaire was 7.0 years. A higher plant-based diet index was associated with better scores for sexual function, urinary irritation/obstruction, urinary incontinence, and hormonal/vitality. Consuming more healthful plant-based foods was also associated with better sexual and bowel function, as well as urinary incontinence and hormonal/vitality scores in the age-adjusted analysis, but not in the multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study provides supportive evidence that greater consumption of healthful plant-based foods is associated with modestly higher scores in quality-of-life domains among patients with prostate cancer.

Perspectives on the Cardiovascular and Metabolic Effects of Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of non-cancer mortality in men with prostate cancer. This review summarizes the existing and emerging literature examining the cardiometabolic effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in prostate cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: The evidence behind the metabolic effects of ADT is derived from older studies and has not been validated in modern cohorts. Most of the newer studies focus on the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) with ADT. Recently published studies like the HERO and PRONOUNCE trials have once again sparked debate about the effects of different types and durations of ADT on cardiovascular outcomes. The link between ADT and CVD is inherently complex with a majority of the evidence collected from population-based or non-randomized trials without enriching for high-risk populations. Ongoing clinical trials may provide more informative data to guide the cardiovascular care of prostate cancer survivors.

Patient engagement in designing and publishing research in prostate cancer: a scoping review.

Patients with cancer have the unique ability of being able to offer valuable insights into how cancer therapeutics may impact the overall patient experience and improve clinical outcomes. Patient engagement could therefore contribute to tailoring treatment strategies and research design according to patient needs. This study evaluated patient engagement in prostate cancer research by identifying patient input in the prostate cancer literature. We performed a keyword cluster analysis of articles from multiple databases and congresses in which patients provided input on disease management or were involved in study design, manuscript authorship or presentation of results (patient voice). In total, 112 studies were included. Patients were involved in the design of 11 studies and were credited as authors in four studies. This review suggests a lack of meaningful patient involvement in prostate cancer research and publications.

Patients with cancer have first-hand knowledge of what does and does not work for their care. Therefore, their voice is valuable to help improve treatment and guide research. Our goal was to find prostate cancer articles with patient input. We searched databases using keywords related to patient voice. We looked for articles involving patients in designing, writing or presenting the study. Only four out of the 112 articles we identified were published in journals focused on involving patients. Eleven articles involved patients in designing the study. Four articles involved patients in writing the published work. Overall, we did not find many articles where patients had a meaningful role in the study. Prostate cancer treatment and research will likely benefit from more patient input.

Functional Outcomes After Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment.

Importance: Adverse outcomes associated with treatments for localized prostate cancer remain unclear. Objective: To compare rates of adverse functional outcomes between specific treatments for localized prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: An observational cohort study using data from 5 US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program registries. Participants were treated for localized prostate cancer between 2011 and 2012. At baseline, 1877 had favorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT1-cT2bN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level <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. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (n = 1043), external beam radiotherapy (n = 359), brachytherapy (n = 96), or active surveillance (n = 379) for favorable-prognosis disease and radical prostatectomy (n = 362) or external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy (n = 206) for unfavorable-prognosis disease. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were patient-reported sexual, urinary, bowel, and hormone function measured using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (range, 0-100; 100 = best). Associations of specific therapies with each outcome were estimated and compared at 10 years after treatment, adjusting for corresponding baseline scores, and patient and tumor characteristics. Minimum clinically important differences were 10 to 12 for sexual function, 6 to 9 for urinary incontinence, 5 to 7 for urinary irritation, and 4 to 6 for bowel and hormone function. Results: A total of 2445 patients with localized prostate cancer (median age, 64 years; 14% Black, 8% Hispanic) were included and followed up for a median of 9.5 years. Among 1877 patients with favorable prognosis, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence (adjusted mean difference, -12.1 [95% CI, -16.2 to -8.0]), but not worse sexual function (adjusted mean difference, -7.2 [95% CI, -12.3 to -2.0]), compared with active surveillance. Among 568 patients with unfavorable prognosis, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence (adjusted mean difference, -26.6 [95% CI, -35.0 to -18.2]), but not worse sexual function (adjusted mean difference, -1.4 [95% CI, -11.1 to 8.3), compared with external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy. Among patients with unfavorable prognosis, external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with worse bowel (adjusted mean difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -9.2 to -0.7]) and hormone (adjusted mean difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -9.5 to -0.3]) function compared with radical prostatectomy. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients treated for localized prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence but not worse sexual function at 10-year follow-up compared with radiotherapy or surveillance among people with more favorable prognosis and compared with radiotherapy for those with unfavorable prognosis. Among men with unfavorable-prognosis disease, external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with worse bowel and hormone function at 10-year follow-up compared with radical prostatectomy.

Quality of life outcomes for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and pretreatment prognostic score.

BACKGROUND: A prognostic risk score (Halabi score) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) accurately predicts overall survival, but its association with quality of life (QOL) has not been defined. We hypothesize that a higher pretreatment Halabi score is associated with worse QOL outcomes over time in mCRPC patients. METHODS: Patient-level data from the docetaxel plus prednisone control arm of Mainsail, a Phase 3 clinical trial in mCRPC were accessed via ProjectDataSphere. Pretreatment Halabi score included disease-related factors: metastatic site, opioid use, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS), alkaline phosphatase, albumin, hemoglobin, lactic acid dehydrogenase, and PSA, with higher score indicating worse survival. Three QOL scales were created: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P, higher score = better QOL), Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form Severity score (BPI-SFSS, higher score = higher pain severity), and BPI-SF Interference score (BPI-SFIS, higher score = greater pain interference). Mixed linear model was used to estimate the associations between Halabi score and QOL scores assessed at different time points (baseline, 2 months, and 6 months). RESULTS: This analysis included 412 mCRPC patients (median age = 68 years, 82% white, 5% Black, median log PSA = 4.4 ng/mL). After multivariable adjustment, Halabi score was significantly associated with QOL scores at all time points. At 6 months, multivariable adjusted FACT-P decreased by 10.0 points (worsening), BPI-SFSS increased by 0.8 points (worsening), and BPI-SFIS increased by 0.9 points (worsening) for each unit increase in Halabi risk score. In multivariable analysis of individual components, ECOG-PS, site of metastasis, and opioid use were significantly associated with worse QOL scores at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC patients with poorer Halabi prognostic risk scores have poorer QOL and greater pain intensity and interference at baseline and during follow-up.

Association between baseline body mass index and survival in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: ECOG-ACRIN CHAARTED E3805.

BACKGROUND: E3805 (CHAARTED) is a phase 3 trial demonstrating improved survival for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) randomized to treatment with docetaxel (D) and androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) versus ADT alone. We assessed the association of baseline body mass index (BMI) and metformin exposure with quality of life (QOL) and prostate cancer outcomes including survival in patients enrolled in the CHAARTED study. METHODS: We performed a posthoc exploratory analysis of the CHAARTED trial of men with mHSPC randomized to treatment with ADT with or without D between 2006 and 2012. Cox proportional hazards models and Kruskal-Wallis test were used to evaluate the association between BMI with QOL and prostate cancer outcomes and between metformin exposure and survival. RESULTS: In 788 of 790 enrolled patients with prospectively recorded baseline BMI and metformin exposure status, lower BMI was not associated with survival, but was associated with high volume disease (p < 0.0001) and poorer baseline QOL on functional assessment of cancer therapy-prostate (p = 0.008). Only 68 patients had prevalent metformin exposure at baseline in the CHAARTED trial. Four groups were identified: ADT + D + metformin (n = 39); ADT + D (n = 357); ADT + metformin (n = 29); and ADT alone (n = 363). Baseline clinicopathologic characteristics were similar between groups. In this small exploratory multivariable analysis, metformin exposure was not associated with survival (hazard ratio: 1.15; 95% confidence interval: 0.81-1.63, p = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: There was no link between baseline BMI and survival, but lower baseline BMI was associated with features of greater cancer burden and poorer QOL.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline. Part III: Principles of Radiation and Future Directions.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part III of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing principles of radiation and offering several future directions of further relevant study in patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Please refer to Parts I and II for discussion of risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management (Part I), and principles of active surveillance and surgery and follow-up (Part II). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding management of patients using radiation therapy as well as important future directions of research are detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part I: Introduction, Risk Assessment, Staging, and Risk-Based Management.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part I of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management in patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Please refer to Parts II and III for discussion of principles of active surveillance, surgery and follow-up (Part II), and principles of radiation and future directions (Part III). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management are detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part II: Principles of Active Surveillance, Principles of Surgery, and Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part II of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing principles of active surveillance and surgery as well as follow-up for patients after primary treatment. Please refer to Parts I and III for discussion of risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management (Part I), and principles of radiation and future directions (Part III). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding active surveillance, surgical management, and patient follow-up are detailed. CONCLUSION: This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

An economic evaluation of cabazitaxel versus a second androgen receptor-targeted agent (ARTA) for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel and an ARTA: the United States payer perspective.

BACKGROUND: Cabazitaxel significantly improves clinical outcomes compared with a second androgen receptor-targeted agent (ARTA) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) previously treated with docetaxel and an ARTA (abiraterone or enzalutamide), as demonstrated in the CARD trial (NCT02485691). We aimed to estimate healthcare costs avoided with the use of cabazitaxel as a third-line (3 L) treatment versus a second ARTA from a US payer perspective. METHODS: Model inputs were based on the CARD trial, published sources, and estimates of typical clinical care patterns by genitourinary oncologists (n = 3). Assessed time points were 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), radiographic PFS (rPFS), and overall survival (OS); hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) days; and costs (reported in 2020 US dollar [USD] and converted into Euro) to manage symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs), adverse events (AEs), and end-of-life care. RESULTS: At 18 months, in a cohort of 100 patients, the use of cabazitaxel was estimated to result in 9 more patients achieving rPFS, 2 more patients achieving PFS, and 17 more survivors versus a second ARTA. The costs of SSEs, AEs, and end-of-life care were $498,909 (€424,073), $276,198 (€234,768), and $808,785 (€687,468), respectively, for cabazitaxel and $627,569 (€533,434), $251,124 (€213,455), and $1,028,294 (€874,050), respectively, for a second ARTA. Cabazitaxel was estimated to be associated with a 21% reduction in both SSE management and end-of-life care costs. Hospitalization cost was $1,442,870 (€1,226,440) for cabazitaxel and $1,728,394 (€1,469,135) for a second ARTA, representing an estimated 17% reduction in these costs. Cabazitaxel, as compared with a second ARTA, was associated with 58 fewer hospitalization days and 2 fewer ICU days and was estimated to avoid $323,095 (€274,630, 17%) in total costs, driven by SSEs management and end-of-life care. CONCLUSION: The use of cabazitaxel as a 3 L treatment after docetaxel and an ARTA in patients with mCRPC is estimated to result in clinical benefits (longer rPFS, PFS, and OS) and lower healthcare resource utilization (fewer hospitalization and ICU days), compared with a second ARTA.

Clinical impact of COVID-19 on patients with cancer (CCC19): a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Data on patients with COVID-19 who have cancer are lacking. Here we characterise the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer and COVID-19 and identify potential prognostic factors for mortality and severe illness. METHODS: In this cohort study, we collected de-identified data on patients with active or previous malignancy, aged 18 years and older, with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from the USA, Canada, and Spain from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) database for whom baseline data were added between March 17 and April 16, 2020. We collected data on baseline clinical conditions, medications, cancer diagnosis and treatment, and COVID-19 disease course. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality within 30 days of diagnosis of COVID-19. We assessed the association between the outcome and potential prognostic variables using logistic regression analyses, partially adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, and obesity. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Of 1035 records entered into the CCC19 database during the study period, 928 patients met inclusion criteria for our analysis. Median age was 66 years (IQR 57-76), 279 (30%) were aged 75 years or older, and 468 (50%) patients were male. The most prevalent malignancies were breast (191 [21%]) and prostate (152 [16%]). 366 (39%) patients were on active anticancer treatment, and 396 (43%) had active (measurable) cancer. At analysis (May 7, 2020), 121 (13%) patients had died. In logistic regression analysis, independent factors associated with increased 30-day mortality, after partial adjustment, were: increased age (per 10 years; partially adjusted odds ratio 1·84, 95% CI 1·53-2·21), male sex (1·63, 1·07-2·48), smoking status (former smoker vs never smoked: 1·60, 1·03-2·47), number of comorbidities (two vs none: 4·50, 1·33-15·28), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or higher (status of 2 vs 0 or 1: 3·89, 2·11-7·18), active cancer (progressing vs remission: 5·20, 2·77-9·77), and receipt of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine (vs treatment with neither: 2·93, 1·79-4·79; confounding by indication cannot be excluded). Compared with residence in the US-Northeast, residence in Canada (0·24, 0·07-0·84) or the US-Midwest (0·50, 0·28-0·90) were associated with decreased 30-day all-cause mortality. Race and ethnicity, obesity status, cancer type, type of anticancer therapy, and recent surgery were not associated with mortality. INTERPRETATION: Among patients with cancer and COVID-19, 30-day all-cause mortality was high and associated with general risk factors and risk factors unique to patients with cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to better understand the effect of COVID-19 on outcomes in patients with cancer, including the ability to continue specific cancer treatments. FUNDING: American Cancer Society, National Institutes of Health, and Hope Foundation for Cancer Research.

Advanced Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline PART II.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part II of the two-part series dedicated to Advanced Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing prognostic and treatment recommendations for patients with castration-resistant disease. Please refer to Part I for discussion of the management of patients with biochemical recurrence without metastatic disease after exhaustion of local treatment options as well as those with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. RESULTS: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Such statements are summarized in figure 1[Figure: see text] and detailed herein. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1998 to January Week 5 2019), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through December 2018), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2005 through February 6, 2019). An updated search was conducted prior to publication through January 20, 2020. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline attempts to improve a clinician's ability to treat patients diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients.

Advanced Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline PART I.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part I of the two-part series dedicated to Advanced Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing prognostic and treatment recommendations for patients with biochemical recurrence without metastatic disease after exhaustion of local treatment options as well as those with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Please refer to Part II for discussion of the management of castration-resistant disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1998 to January Week 5 2019), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through December 2018), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2005 through February 6, 2019). An updated search was conducted prior to publication through January 20, 2020. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Such statements are summarized in figure 1[Figure: see text] and detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline attempts to improve a clinician's ability to treat patients diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients.

Cardiovascular Effects of Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Prostate Cancer: Contemporary Meta-Analyses.

Androgen deprivation therapy is a cornerstone of prostate cancer treatment. Pharmacological androgen deprivation includes gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonism and antagonism, androgen receptor inhibition, and CYP17 (cytochrome P450 17A1) inhibition. Studies in the past decade have raised concerns about the potential for androgen deprivation therapy to increase the risk of adverse cardiovascular events such as myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality, possibly by exacerbating cardiovascular risk factors. In this review, we summarize existing data on the cardiovascular effects of androgen deprivation therapy. Among the therapies, abiraterone stands out for increasing risk of cardiac events in meta-analyses of both randomized controlled trials and observational studies. We find a divergence between observational studies, which show consistent positive associations between androgen deprivation therapy use and cardiovascular disease, and randomized controlled trials, which do not show these associations reproducibly.

Optimizing the role of androgen deprivation therapy in advanced prostate cancer: Challenges beyond the guidelines.

BACKGROUND: For specific clinical indications, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) will induce disease prostate cancer (PC) regression, relieve symptoms and prolong survival; however, ADT has a well-described range of side effects, which may have a detrimental effect on the patient's quality of life, necessitating additional interventions or changes in PC treatment. The risk-benefit analysis for initiating ADT in PC patients throughout the PC disease continuum warrants review. METHODS: A 14-member panel comprised of urologic and medical oncologists were chosen for an expert review panel, to provide guidance on a more judicious use of ADT in advanced PC patients. Panel members were chosen based upon their academic and community experience and expertise in the management of PC patients. Four academic members of the panel served as group leaders; the remaining eight panel members were from Large Urology Group Practice Association practices with proven experience in leading their advanced PC clinics. The panel members were assigned to four separate working groups, and were tasked with addressing the role of ADT in specific PC settings. RESULTS: This article describes the practical recommendations of an expert panel for the use of ADT throughout the PC disease continuum, as well as an algorithm summarizing the key recommendations. The target for this publication is all providers (urologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, or advanced practice providers) who evaluate and manage advanced PC patients, regardless of their practice setting. CONCLUSION: The panel has provided recommendations for monitoring PC patients while on ADT, recognizing that PC patients will progress despite testosterone suppression and, therefore, early identification of conversion from castrate-sensitive to castration resistance is critical. Also, the requirement to both identify and mitigate side effects of ADT as well as the importance of quality of life maintenance are essential to the optimization of patient care, especially as more combinatorial therapeutic strategies with ADT continue to emerge.

Integration of Patient Reported Outcomes in Drug Development in Genitourinary Cancers.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly utilized in cancer drug development, and are of particular importance in genitourinary cancers due to symptom burden, multiple treatment options with similar efficacy, and often prolonged duration of disease. Here we review current data and perspectives related to use of PROs in drug development for genitourinary cancers, including insights on the regulatory process for drug approval. RECENT FINDINGS: The FDA is committed to incorporating PRO data into the regulatory process for development and approval of new cancer drugs, but challenges exist due to lack of standardization of PRO instrument choice and analytic approach, missing data, and difficulty isolating treatment effect from disease-related effects. We review guidance for standardization of PRO methodology that is nonetheless tailored to disease state and anticipated effects of treatment. PRO and efficacy data should be simultaneously analyzed and reported for best clinical practice. Multiple disease-specific PRO instruments exist for genitourinary cancers. While clinicians, researchers, and regulatory bodies alike recognize the importance of PROs in cancer drug development, challenges remain regarding implementation of best practices.

Management of Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer (mHSPC): an Evolving Treatment Paradigm.

OPINION STATEMENT: Combination systemic therapy is now standard of care for all men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Patients with mHSPC should be treated with standard androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and abiraterone acetate with prednisone or docetaxel (chemohormoanl therapy) unless there are contraindications to combination therapy. Based on the Chemohormonal Therapy Versus Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Disease in Prostate Cancer (CHAARTED) study subgroup analysis, chemohormonal therapy may be most beneficial in men with high-volume disease burden, as men with low-volume metastatic disease do not appear to experience a survival benefit with chemohormonal therapy, while abiraterone in combination with ADT appears to be beneficial across both disease volume subgroups. Decisions regarding whether to use chemohormonal therapy or abiraterone and ADT for men with mHSPC should integrate consideration of volume of disease burden, quality of life effects, duration of therapy, and patient preferences for treatment as there is no formally powered prospective head-to-head comparison of these options demonstrating superiority of one approach over the other. Treatment of the primary tumor with radiation should be considered in men with de novo low-volume metastatic disease as radiation is associated with prolonged survival and a tolerable toxicity profile. Men with de novo high-volume metastatic disease do not appear to have improved survival with radiation of the primary tumor. Numerous clinical trials are ongoing to evaluate treatment approaches that may benefit men with mHSPC. Radical prostatectomy in men with mHSPC in combination with optimal systemic therapy is currently being assessed in a clinical trial, but should not be considered outside of a clinical trial. Metastasis-directed therapy with radiotherapy directed at metastatic lesions is still investigational, but can be considered in clinical trials in men with oligometastatic disease. Multiple studies are enrolling worldwide for men with mHSPC, and these should be considered for all interested patients.

Quality of Life-Focused Decision-Making for Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Quality of life (QoL) outcomes have been reported in the literature and incorporated in decision-making in localized prostate cancer management for decades. Until recently, there was less emphasis on understanding the QoL effects of therapies for patients with advanced disease, possibly because there were fewer options for treatment. The purpose of this review is to summarize the key recent literature describing QoL outcomes for prostate cancer treatments in different disease settings. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent data demonstrate that men who undergo local therapy for prostate cancer have worse early QoL related to therapy in sexual, urinary, and bowel function domains compared with men who choose observation, though the effects become less divergent over time. In patients receiving systemic therapy for advanced prostate cancer, more effective treatment typically delays deterioration of various aspects of QoL as assessed by patient-reported outcomes. While there are multiple management options for localized and advanced prostate cancer, different treatment modalities affect QoL in distinct ways. Particularly in settings that lack head-to-head efficacy data between treatment options, clinicians can incorporate adverse effect profiles and effects on patient-reported outcomes describing QoL to inform patients as they make treatment decisions for prostate cancer.