Optimizing outcomes in men with prostate cancer: the cardiovascular event lowering (CaELo) pathways.

INTRODUCTION: Risk of cardiovascular disease is higher among men with prostate cancer than men without, and prostate cancer treatments (especially those that are hormonally based) are associated with increased cardiovascular risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An 11-member panel of urologic, medical, and radiation oncologists (along with a men's health specialist and an endocrinologist/preventive cardiologist) met to discuss current practices and challenges in the management of cardiovascular risk in prostate cancer patients who are taking androgen deprivation therapies (ADT) including LHRH analogues, alone and in combination with androgen-targeted therapies (ATTs). RESULTS: The panel developed an assessment algorithm to categorize patients by risk and deploy a risk-adapted management strategy, in collaboration with other healthcare providers (the patient's healthcare "village"), with the goal of preventing as well as reducing cardiovascular events. The panel also developed a patient questionnaire for cardiovascular risk as well as a checklist to ensure that all aspects of cardiovascular disease risk reduction are completed and monitored. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer patients receiving ADT with or without ATT need to be more zealously assessed for prevention and aggressively managed to reduce cardiovascular events. This can and should include participation from the entire multidisciplinary healthcare team.

A Proposal for the Comprehensive Care of Men on Androgen Deprivation Therapy: Recommendations From the Multidisciplinary Prostate Cancer 360 Working Group.

INTRODUCTION: To promote comprehensive care of patients throughout the androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) prescribing process, the Prostate Cancer 360 (PC360) Working Group developed monitoring and management recommendations intended to mitigate or prevent ADT-associated adverse events. METHODS: The PC360 Working Group included 14 interdisciplinary experts with a dedicated clinical interest in prostate cancer and ADT management. The working group defined challenges associated with ADT adverse event management and then collaboratively developed comprehensive care recommendations intended to be practical for ADT prescribers. RESULTS: The PC360 Working Group developed both overarching recommendations for ADT adverse event management and specific recommendations across 5 domains (cardiometabolic, bone, sexual, psychological, and lifestyle). The working group recommends an interdisciplinary, team-based approach wherein the ADT prescriber retains an oversight role for ADT management while empowering patients and their primary and specialty care providers to manage risk factors. The PC360 recommendations also emphasize the importance of proactive patient education that involves partners or other support providers. Recommended monitoring and assessment tools, risk factor management, and patient counseling points are also included for the 5 identified domains, with an emphasis on lifestyle and behavioral interventions that can improve quality of life and reduce the risk for ADT-associated complications. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive care of patients receiving ADT requires early and ongoing coordinated management of a variety of health domains, including cardiometabolic, bone, sexual, psychological health. Patient education and primary care provider involvement should begin prior to ADT initiation and continue throughout treatment to improve patient and partner quality of life.

Cardiovascular Risk in Prostate Cancer Patients Using Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone Agonists or a Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Antagonist.

PURPOSE: Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists are believed to have higher cardiovascular risk relative to gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists. However, previous studies have not consistently demonstrated this. We used real-world clinical practice data to evaluate differences in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) risk between LHRH agonists compared to a GnRH antagonist following androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) initiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of data in the Decision Resources Group (now Clarivate) Real World Evidence repository, which represents >300 million US patients from 1991 to 2020 across all US regions. Patients with prostate cancer who received at least 1 injection of ADT were included. The risks of MACE and all-cause mortality as independent endpoints were evaluated, Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed, and associations between MACE and all available confounding risk factors were evaluated by Cox regression analysis using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. RESULTS: A total of 45,059 men with prostate cancer treated with ADT were analyzed. Overall, the risks of MACE and all-cause mortality were slightly lower in the first year after ADT initiation compared to subsequent years. MACE risk was higher for the GnRH antagonist compared to LHRH agonists (HR=1.62; 95% CI 1.21-2.18, P = .001). The risk of all-cause mortality was also higher for the GnRH antagonist vs LHRH agonists (HR=1.87; 95% CI 1.39-2.51, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The adjusted incidence of MACE was higher for men treated with the GnRH antagonist compared to the LHRH agonists. The demographic and risk factors with the greatest impact on MACE risk were higher age, baseline metastasis, oncology (vs urology) setting, personal MACE history, antagonist (vs agonist), tobacco history, White (vs Black) race, and lower BMI.

The potential role of follicle-stimulating hormone in the cardiovascular, metabolic, skeletal, and cognitive effects associated with androgen deprivation therapy.

PURPOSE: To explore how follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) may contribute to cardiovascular, metabolic, skeletal, and cognitive events in men treated for prostate cancer, with various forms of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A colloquium of prostate cancer experts was convened in May 2015, to discuss the role of FSH in the development of unwanted effects associated with ADT. Subsequently, a literature review (Medline, PubMed, and relevant congress abstract databases) was performed to further explore and evaluate the collected evidence. RESULTS: It has become evident that, in the setting of ADT, FSH can promote the development of atherosclerotic plaque formation, metabolic syndrome, and insulin resistance. Data also suggest that FSH is an important mediator of bone remodeling, particularly bone resorption, and thereby increases the risk for bone fracture. Additional evidence implicates a role for FSH in bone metastasis as well. The influence of FSH on ADT-induced cognitive deficits awaits further elucidation; however, the possibility that FSH may be involved therein cannot be ruled out. CONCLUSIONS: The widespread molecular and physiological consequences of FSH system activation in normal and pathological conditions are becoming better understood. Progress in this area has been achieved by the development of additional investigative and clinical measures to better evaluate specific adverse effects. More research is needed on FSH function in the development of cancer as well as its association with cardiovascular, metabolic, musculoskeletal, and cognitive effects in ADT.

The utility of prostate-specific antigen in the management of advanced prostate cancer.

To review current prostate-specific antigen (PSA) metrics used in monitoring treatment of advanced prostate cancer, with a specific focus on castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) therapies. Explore what is known about the correlation between PSA and androgen levels as well as underlying reasons for persistent PSA expression and serum elevation in CRPC, and outline suggestions for use of PSA in managing patients with advanced prostate cancer. A comprehensive search of the PubMed database for English language articles through April 2012 was performed using the following Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) keywords or terms, alone or in combination: 'prostate cancer'; 'prostate cancer treatment'; 'prostate cancer outcomes'; 'prostate-specific antigen'; 'androgen receptor'; 'advanced prostate cancer'; 'castration-resistant prostate cancer'; 'biomarkers'. Bibliographies of relevant articles were searched for additional references. Relevant medical society and regulatory agency web sites from the USA and Europe were accessed for issued guidance on PSA use. PSA doubling time (PSADT) is a useful metric for determining which patients should be considered for androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) after failing local treatment or for second-line therapies after failing ADT. However, it is not a validated surrogate for survival and no therapy has received regulatory approval based upon PSADT characteristics. PSA nadir and time-to-nadir have been identified as possible prognostic markers for patients receiving ADT. There is no universally accepted definition for PSA progression, nor is PSA progression a regulatory-approved surrogate for clinical progression in drug approval trials. PSA responses to second-line therapies can vary and are not considered by regulatory agencies as valid surrogates for clinical endpoints, so they must be assessed in the context of each individual therapy and trial design. PSA expression in CRPC is often a reflection of persistent androgen receptor activity. While we can provide guidance for use of PSA monitoring in managing patients with advanced prostate cancer based on the data at hand, there is an urgent need for prospective analyses of refined PSA metrics in conjunction with newer prostate cancer biomarkers in clinical trials to provide stronger evidence for their roles as surrogate endpoints.