A review of clinical effects associated with metabolic syndrome and exercise in prostate cancer patients.

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), a primary treatment for locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer, is associated with the adverse effects on numerous physiologic parameters, including alterations in cardiometabolic variables that overlap with components of the metabolic syndrome (MetS). As MetS is an established risk factor for cardiovascular mortality and treatment for prostate cancer has been associated with the development of MetS, interventions targeting cardiometabolic factors have been investigated in prostate cancer patients to attenuate the detrimental effects of ADT. Much support exists for exercise interventions in improving MetS variables in insulin-resistant adults, but less evidence is available in men with prostate cancer. Regular exercise, when performed at appropriate intensities and volumes, can elicit improvements in ADT-related adverse effects, including MetS, and contributes to the growing body of literature supporting the role of exercise in cancer survivorship. This review (1) discusses the biologic inter-relationship between prostate cancer, ADT and MetS, (2) evaluates the current literature in support of exercise in targeting MetS and (3) describes the physiological mechanisms by which exercise may favorably alter MetS risk factors in prostate cancer patients on ADT.

Patient experience in the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: state of the science.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary therapies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have shown survival improvements, which do not account for patient experience and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: This literature review included a search of MEDLINE for randomized clinical trials enrolling ⩾50 patients with mCRPC and reporting on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) since 2010. RESULTS: Nineteen of 25 publications describing seven treatment regimens (10 clinical trials and nine associated secondary analyses) met the inclusion criteria and were critically appraised. The most commonly used measures were the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (n=5 trials) and Brief Pain Inventory Short Form (n=4 trials) questionnaires. The published data indicated that HRQoL and pain status augmented the clinical efficacy data by providing a better understanding of treatment impact in mCRPC. Abiraterone acetate and prednisone, enzalutamide, radium-223 dichloride and sipuleucel-T offered varying levels of HRQoL benefit and/or pain mitigation versus their respective comparators, whereas three treatments (mitoxantrone, estramustine phosphate and docetaxel, and cabazitaxel) had no meaningful impact on HRQoL or pain. The main limitation of the data were that the PROs utilized were not developed for use in mCRPC patients and hence may not have comprehensively captured symptoms important to this population. CONCLUSIONS: Recently published randomized clinical trials of new agents for mCRPC have captured elements of the patient experience while on treatment. Further research is required to standardize methods for measuring, quantifying and reporting on HRQoL and pain in patients with mCRPC in the clinical practice setting.

Prostatectomy at high-volume centers improves outcomes and lowers the costs of care for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: High-volume surgeons with ⩾250 radical prostatectomies provide superior oncological outcomes as evidenced by a lower rate of PSA recurrence (PSAR). The financial benefits of performing prostatectomies at high-volume centers (HVC) are unexplored. METHODS: A base case--referent scenario--where the share of prostatectomies at high- and low-volume centers were evenly divided at 50% was defined. Additional scenarios with increasing shares of prostatectomies at HVC with 10% increments were also modeled. Using a lower probability of PSAR as the only advantage of more experienced surgeons, the savings that would result from fewer recurrences, avoidance of salvage radiation therapy (SRT) and management of fewer men with metastatic cancer were calculated. RESULTS: The savings associated with performing 80% of radical prostatectomy at HVC were $177, $357 and $559 per prostatectomy at 5, 10 and 20 years, respectively. These savings would offset referral costs of up to $1833 per prostatectomy referral at no additional total societal costs. Given the longer average biochemical failure-free survival with prostatectomies at HVC, referral costs of more than $1833 may be cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Under the conservative assumption of accounting for lower rates of PSAR as the only benefit of surgery in an HVC, performing prostatectomies at an HVC was associated with savings that may offset part of the initial referral costs.

A Phase II trial of a combination herbal supplement for men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Men with biochemical recurrence (BCR) of prostate cancer are typically observed or treated with androgen-deprivation therapy. Non-hormonal, non-toxic treatments to slow the rise of PSA are desirable. We studied a combination herbal supplement, Prostate Health Cocktail (PHC), in prostate cancer cell lines and in a population of men with BCR. METHODS: PC3, LAPC3 and LNCaP cells were incubated with increasing concentrations of PHC suspension. Men previously treated for prostate cancer with surgery, radiation or both with rising PSA but no radiographic metastases were treated with three capsules of PHC daily; the primary end point was 50% PSA decline. Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) were identified using parylene membrane filters. RESULTS: PHC showed a strong dose-dependent anti-proliferative effect in androgen-sensitive and independent cell lines in vitro and suppression of androgen receptor expression. Forty eligible patients were enrolled in the clinical trial. Median baseline PSA was 2.8 ng ml(-1) (1.1-84.1) and 15 men (38%) had a PSA decline on study (1-55% reduction); 25 (62%) had rising PSA on study. The median duration of PSA stability was 6.4 months. Two patients had grade 2/3 transaminitis; the only other grade 2 toxicities were hyperglycemia, hypercalcemia and flatulence. There were no significant changes in testosterone or dihydrotestosterone. CTCs were identified in 19 men (47%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the primary end point was not met, PHC was well tolerated and was associated with PSA declines and stabilization in a significant number of patients. We believe this is the first report of detecting CTCs in men with BCR prostate cancer. Randomized studies are needed to better define the effect of PHC in men with BCR.

Penile cancer: current therapy and future directions.

Background Penile cancer (PC) is a rare cancer in western countries, but is more common in parts of the developing world. Due to its rarity and the consequent lack of randomized trials, current therapy is based on retrospective studies and small prospective trials. Design Studies of PC therapy were searched in PubMed and abstracts at major conferences. Results PC is generally an aggressive malignancy characterized by early locoregional lymph node (LN) spread and later metastases in distant sites. Given the strong predictive value of LN involvement for overall survival, evaluating regional LNs is critical. Advanced LN involvement is increasingly being treated with multimodality therapy incorporating chemotherapy and/or radiation. A single superior cisplatin-based regimen has not been defined. Further advances may occur with a better collaboration on an international scale and comprehensive understanding of tumor biology. To this end, the preventive role of circumcision and understanding of the oncogenic roles of Human Papilloma Virus-16, and smoking may yield advances. Preliminary data suggest a role for agents targeting epidermal growth factor receptor and angiogenesis. Conclusion Advances in therapy for PC will require efficient trial designs, synergistic collaboration, incentives to industry and the efforts of patient advocacy groups and venture philanthropists.

Management and challenges of corticosteroid therapy in men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer.

Extensive clinical development in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) has led to the introduction of three new agents in little more than a year, with more on the horizon. With the exception of autologous cellular immunotherapy, all of the agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of mCRPC are approved for use in combination with corticosteroids. Corticosteroids play a crucial role in the management of men with mCRPC, but the availability of multiple lines of therapy that include corticosteroids raises potential toxicity considerations. In addition, the immunosuppressive effects of corticosteroids may alter the efficacy of immunotherapies. The recent increase in treatment options with different mechanisms of action raises the importance of understanding how corticosteroids are used and the implications of such use on treatment selection and sequencing. A number of corticosteroids with varied potencies are used in general medical practice at varying doses. The differences in potency, dose, and disease settings in which corticosteroids are used complicate the ability to fully understand the impact that any one corticosteroid can have, such as prednisone in prostate cancer. This article reviews the published literature on corticosteroid use in advanced cancer, focusing on their role in mCRPC.