Advanced renal cell carcinoma management: the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG) and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG) consensus update.

PURPOSE: Renal cell carcinoma is an aggressive disease with a high mortality rate. Management has drastically changed with the new era of immunotherapy, and novel strategies are being developed; however, identifying systemic treatments is still challenging. This paper presents an update of the expert panel consensus from the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group on advanced renal cell carcinoma management in Brazil. METHODS: A panel of 34 oncologists and experts in renal cell carcinoma discussed and voted on the best options for managing advanced disease in Brazil, including systemic treatment of early and metastatic renal cell carcinoma as well as nonclear cell tumours. The results were compared with the literature and graded according to the level of evidence. RESULTS: Adjuvant treatments benefit patients with a high risk of recurrence after surgery, and the agents used are pembrolizumab and sunitinib, with a preference for pembrolizumab. Neoadjuvant treatment is exceptional, even in initially unresectable cases. First-line treatment is mainly based on tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); the choice of treatment is based on the International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMCD) risk score. Patients at favourable risk receive ICIs in combination with TKIs. Patients classified as intermediate or poor risk receive ICIs, without preference for ICI + ICIs or ICI + TKIs. Data on nonclear cell renal cancer treatment are limited. Active surveillance has a place in treating favourable-risk patients. Either denosumab or zoledronic acid can be used for treating metastatic bone disease. CONCLUSION: Immunotherapy and targeted therapy are the standards of care for advanced disease. The utilization and sequencing of these therapeutic agents hinge upon individual risk scores and responses to previous treatments. This consensus reflects a commitment to informed decision-making, drawn from professional expertise and evidence in the medical literature.

Efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors combinations as first-line systemic treatment in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) with platinum-based chemotherapy (PlatinumCT) or with another ICI in the first-line setting for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) have mixed results. METHODS: Records were searched electronically from January 2019 to January 2024. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Immune-based combinations were associated with an OS (HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.61-0.92; p < 0.001; I2= 84.1%) and PFS benefit in the intention-to-treat population (HR: 0.67; 95%CI: 0.51-0.89; p < 0.001; I2 = 89.7%). There was no ORR improvement with immune-based combinations (HR: 1.36; 95% CI:0.84-2.20; p < 0.001; I2 = 92.6%). CONCLUSION: This systematic review and study-level meta-analysis demonstrated that the immune-based combinations in first-line treatment for patients with mUC are associated with survival benefit.

"Non-metastatic, Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Diagnostic and Treatment Recommendations by an Expert Panel from Brazil".

INTRODUCTION: Non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) is an important clinical stage of prostate cancer, prior to morbidity and mortality from clinical metastases. In particular, the introduction of novel androgen-receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSi) has changed the therapeutic landscape in nmCRPC. Given recent developments in this field, we update our recommendations for the management of nmCRPC. METHODS: A panel of 51 invited medical oncologists and urologists convened in May of 2021 with the aim of discussing and providing recommendations regarding the most relevant issues concerning staging methods, antineoplastic therapy, osteoclast-targeted therapy, and patient follow-up in nmCRPC. Panel members considered the available evidence and their practical experience to address the 73 multiple-choice questions presented. RESULTS: Key recommendations and findings include the reliance on prostate-specific antigen doubling time for treatment decisions, the absence of a clear preference between conventional and novel (i.e., positron-emission tomography-based) imaging techniques, the increasing role of ARSis in various settings, the general view that ARSis have similar efficacy. Panelists highlighted the slight preference for darolutamide, when safety is of greater concern, and a continued need to develop high-level evidence to guide the intensity of follow-up in this subset of prostate cancer. DISCUSSION: Despite the limitations associated with a consensus panel, the topics addressed are relevant in current practice, and the recommendations can help practicing clinicians to provide state-of-the-art treatment to patients with nmCRPC in Brazil and other countries with similar healthcare settings.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Role of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICI) as Adjuvant Treatment for Localized High-Risk Muscle-Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma (MIUC).

Nivolumab, a PD-1 ICI has been recently approved for the adjuvant treatment of high-risk MIUC patients. However, conflicting data from another randomized controlled trial (RCT) with atezolizumab makes the benefit of this treatment uncertain. We performed a systematic review and study-level meta-analysis to evaluate the benefit in terms of disease-free survival (DFS) with ICI adjuvant treatment for patients with high-risk MIUC. Considering the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review statement, a systematic search was performed in PUBMED/MEDLINE, Scopus and EMBASE up to October 30, 2021. The statistical analysis was performed by RevMan 5.4 software in intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in predetermined subgroups. Two RCTRCT, with a total of 1518 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Systemic immunotherapy was atezolizumab for 406 patients and nivolumab for 353 patients. In the ITT population there was a nonsignificant benefit with the systemic adjuvant immunotherapy (HR:0.79, 95% CI 0.62-1.00; z = 2.00) but with high heterogeneity (I2 = 65%). Regarding the subgroups, there was no benefit in PD-L1 negative (HR:0.81, 95% CI 0.70-1.00; z = 1.96, I2 = 0%) and in non-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HR:0.95, 95% CI 0.78-1.15; z = 0.56, I2 = 0%). Adjuvant treatment with ICI to patients with high-risk MIUC reveals a nonsignificant impact in DFS. The lack of clinical benefit was demonstrated in all subgroups. These data reinforce the need for a careful selection of patients before offering this approach in daily practice.

Consensus on the Treatment and Follow-Up for the Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Report From the First Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries.

PURPOSE: To present a summary of the recommendations for the treatment and follow-up for the biochemical recurrence of castration-resistant prostate cancer (PCa) as acquired through a questionnaire administered at the Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries. METHODS: A total of 27 questions were identified as relating to this topic. Responses from the clinician were tallied and are presented in percentage format. Topics included the use of imaging in staging, treatment recommendations across different patient scenarios of life expectancy and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time, and follow-up for nonmetastatic castration-resistant PCa. RESULTS: A consensus agreed that in optimal conditions, positron emission tomography-computed tomography with prostate-specific membrane antigen would be used although in limited resource situations the combined use of CT of the abdomen and pelvic (or pelvic MRI), a bone scan, and a CT of the thorax or chest x-ray was recommended. In cases when PSA levels double in < 10 months, more than 90% of clinicians agreed on the use of apalutamide or enzalutamide, regardless of life expectancy. With a doubling time of more than 10 months, > 54% of experts recommended no treatment independent of life expectancy. More than half of the experts, regardless of resources, recommended follow-up with a physical examination and PSA levels every 3-6 months and imaging only in the case of symptoms. CONCLUSION: The voting results and recommendations presented in this document can be used by physicians to support management for biochemical recurrence of castration-resistant PCa in areas of limited resources. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data.

Advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) management: an expert panel recommendation from the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG) and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG).

PURPOSE: The outcome of RCC has improved considerably in the last few years, and the treatment options have increased. LACOG-GU and LARCG held a consensus meeting to develop guidelines to support the clinical decisions of physicians and other health professionals involved in the care of RCC patients. METHODS: Eighty questions addressing relevant advanced RCC treatments were previously formulated by a panel of experts. The voting panel comprised 26 specialists from the LACOG-GU/LARCG. Consensus was determined as 75% agreement. For questions with less than 75% agreement, a new discussion was held, and consensus was determined by the majority of votes after the second voting session. RESULTS: The recommendations were based on the highest level of scientific evidence or by the opinion of the RCC experts when no relevant research data were available. CONCLUSION: This manuscript provides guidance for advanced RCC treatment according to the LACOG-GU/LARCG expert recommendations.

Renal cell cancer treatment: an expert panel recommendation from the Latin American cooperative group-genitourinary and the Latin American renal cancer group: focus on surgery.

BACKGROUND: Renal cell cancer (RCC) is one of the 10 most common cancers in the world, and its incidence is increasing, whereas mortality is declining only in developed countries. Therefore, two collaborative groups, The Latin American Oncology Cooperative Group-Genitourinary Section (LACOG-GU) and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG), held a consensus meeting to develop this guideline. METHODS: Issues (134) related to the treatment of RCC were previously formulated by a panel of experts. The voting panel comprised 26 specialists (urologists and medical oncologists) from the LACOG-GU/LARCG. A consensus was reached if 75% agreement was achieved. If there was less concordance, a new discussion was undertaken, and a consensus was determined by the most votes after a second voting session. RESULTS: The expert meeting provided recommendations that were in line with the global literature; 75.0% of the recommendations made by the panel of experts were evidence-based level A, 22.5% of the recommendations were level B, and 2.5% of the recommendations were level D. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests recommendations for the surgical treatment of RCC according to the LACOG-GU/LARCG experts.

Second brazilian consensus on the treatment of advanced prostate cancer: a SBOC-SBU-SBRT panel review

ABSTRACT Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer and the fifth leading cause of cancer deaths. In Brazil, it is likewise the second most common cancer among men, second only to non-melanoma skin cancers. The aim of this consensus is to align different opinions and interpretations of the medical literature in a practical and patient-oriented approach. The first Brazilian Consensus on the Treatment of Advanced Prostate Cancer was published in 2017, with the goal of reducing the heterogeneity of therapeutic conduct in Brazilian patients with metastatic prostate cancer. We acknowledge that in Brazil the incorporation of different technologies is a big challenge, especially in the Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), which allows for the disparity in the options available to patients treated in different institutions. In order to update the recommendations and to make them objective and easily accessible, once more a panel of specialists was formed in order to discuss and elaborate a new Brazilian Consensus on Advanced Prostate Cancer. This Consensus was written through a joint initiative of the Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology (SBOC) and the Brazilian Society of Urology (SBU) to support the clinical decisions of physicians and other health professionals involved in the care of patients with prostate cancer.

Second brazilian consensus on the treatment of advanced prostate cancer - a SBOC-SBU-SBRT panel review.

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer and the fi fth leading cause of cancer deaths. In Brazil, it is likewise the second most common cancer among men, second only to non-melanoma skin cancers. The aim of this consensus is to align different opinions and interpretations of the medical literature in a practical and patient-oriented approach. The fi rst Brazilian Consensus on the Treatment of Advanced Prostate Cancer was published in 2017, with the goal of reducing the heterogeneity of therapeutic conduct in Brazilian patients with metastatic prostate cancer. We acknowledge that in Brazil the incorporation of different technologies is a big challenge, especially in the Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), which allows for the disparity in the options available to patients treated in different institutions. In order to update the recommendations and to make them objective and easily accessible, once more a panel of specialists was formed in order to discuss and elaborate a new Brazilian Consensus on Advanced Prostate Cancer. This Consensus was written through a joint initiative of the Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology (SBOC) and the Brazilian Society of Urology (SBU) to support the clinical decisions of physicians and other health professionals involved in the care of patients with prostate cancer.

First brazilian consensus of advanced prostate cancer: recommendations for clinical practice

ABSTRACT Introduction Prostate cancer still represents a major cause of morbidity, and still about 20% of men with the disease are diagnosed or will progress to the advanced stage without the possibility of curative treatment. Despite the recent advances in scientific and technological knowledge and the availability of new therapies, there is still considerable heterogeneity in the therapeutic approaches for metastatic prostate cancer. Objectives This article presents a summary of the I Brazilian Consensus on Advanced Prostate Cancer, conducted by the Brazilian Society of Urology and Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology. Materials and Methods Experts were selected by the medical societies involved. Forty issues regarding controversial issues in advanced disease were previously elaborated. The panel met for consensus, with a threshold established for 2/3 of the participants. Results and Conclusions The treatment of advanced prostate cancer is complex, due to the existence of a large number of therapies, with different response profiles and toxicities. The panel addressed recommendations on preferred choice of therapies, indicators that would justify their change, and indicated some strategies for better sequencing of treatment in order to maximize the potential for disease control with the available therapeutic arsenal. The lack of consensus on some topics clearly indicates the absence of strong evidence for some decisions.

FOLFOXIRI Regimen for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Cytotoxic chemotherapy is the mainstay treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan are the most active drugs; however, their optimal sequencing has not yet been established. Some evidence has shown that upfront treatment with 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI regimen) can improve outcomes for patients with mCRC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic search in electronic databases. Studies reporting results from prospective, randomized clinical trials comparing FOLFOXIRI to less aggressive regimens for treatment of mCRC were selected for meta-analysis. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and toxicity were the outcomes of interest. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) and pooled odds ratio (OR) was calculated for the time-to-event endpoints and dichotomous endpoints, respectively. RESULTS: Four studies were included in the final analysis. The pooled data showed a significant benefit favoring FOLFOXIRI in terms of OS (HR, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.92), PFS (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.55-0.85), and ORR (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.36-2.67). Toxicity was significantly greater in the FOLFOXIRI arm. Heterogeneity across trials and risk of publication bias were low. CONCLUSION: FOLFOXIRI provides superior outcomes for mCRC compared with standard chemotherapy regimens. The toxicity is greater with FOLFOXIRI but manageable. The role of targeted agents combined with FOLFOXIRI is uncertain, and further research is warranted.

18F-Fluoride PET/CT tumor burden quantification predicts survival in breast cancer.

PURPOSE: In bone-metastatic breast cancer patients, there are no current imaging biomarkers to identify which patients have worst prognosis. The purpose of our study was to investigate if skeletal tumor burden determined by 18F-Fluoride PET/CT correlates with clinical outcomes and may help define prognosis throughout the course of the disease. RESULTS: Bone metastases were present in 49 patients. On multivariable analysis, skeletal tumor burden was significantly and independently associated with overall survival (p < 0.0001) and progression free-survival (p < 0.0001). The simple presence of bone metastases was associated with time to bone event (p = 0.0448). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We quantified the skeletal tumor burden on 18F-Fluoride PET/CT images of 107 female breast cancer patients (40 for primary staging and the remainder for restaging after therapy). Clinical parameters, primary tumor characteristics and skeletal tumor burden were correlated to overall survival, progression free-survival and time to bone event. The median follow-up time was 19.5 months. CONCLUSIONS: 18F-Fluoride PET/CT skeletal tumor burden is a strong independent prognostic imaging biomarker in breast cancer patients.

Cost-effectiveness of cetuximab and panitumumab for chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab and panitumumab are monoclonal antibodies targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor. Both drugs are active against RAS wild type metastatic colorectal cancer after chemotherapy failure, with similar efficacy and toxicity profiles. However, their cost and limited survival benefits may compromise incorporation in the Brazilian public healthcare system, the Unified Heath System (Sistema Único de Saúde) (SUS). METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a Markov model from the Brazilian Public health perspective and a lifetime horizon in patients with RAS -wt mCRC. Transition probabilities and mortality rates were extracted from randomized studies. Treatment costs were obtained from price tables regulated by the Brazilian Health Ministry. The World Health Organization recommendation of three times GDP per capita was used to define the cost-effectiveness threshold. RESULTS: The use of cetuximab or panitumumab for chemotherapy-refractory mCRC patients resulted in 0.22 additional life-years relative to BSC, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $58,240 and $52,772 per LY, respectively. That exceeds the pre-specified threshold for cost-effectiveness. Acquisition of biological agents was the major driver of increased costs. CONCLUSIONS: Our economic evaluation demonstrates that both cetuximab and panitumumab are not a cost-effective approach in RAS-wt mCRC patients. Discussion about drug price should be prioritized to enable incorporation of these monoclonal antibodies in the SUS.

First Brazilian Consensus of Advanced Prostate Cancer: Recommendations for Clinical Practice.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer still represents a major cause of morbidity, and still about 20% of men with the disease are diagnosed or will progress to the advanced stage without the possibility of curative treatment. Despite the recent advances in scientific and technological knowledge and the availability of new therapies, there is still considerable heterogeneity in the therapeutic approaches for metastatic prostate cancer. OBJECTIVES: This article presents a summary of the I Brazilian Consensus on Advanced Prostate Cancer, conducted by the Brazilian Society of Urology and Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Experts were selected by the medical societies involved. Forty issues regarding controversial issues in advanced disease were previously elaborated. The panel met for consensus, with a threshold established for 2/3 of the participants. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of advanced prostate cancer is complex, due to the existence of a large number of therapies, with different response profiles and toxicities. The panel addressed recommendations on preferred choice of therapies, indicators that would justify their change, and indicated some strategies for better sequencing of treatment in order to maximize the potential for disease control with the available therapeutic arsenal. The lack of consensus on some topics clearly indicates the absence of strong evidence for some decisions.

Optimal duration of androgen deprivation therapy following radiation therapy in intermediate- or high-risk nonmetastatic prostate cancer: A systematic review and metaanalysis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate current evidence on the optimal duration of adjuvant hormone deprivation for prostate cancer treated with radiation therapy with curative intent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was performed in electronic databases. Data from randomized trials comparing different durations of hormone blockade was collected for pooled analysis. Overall survival, disease-free survival, disease-specific survival and toxicity were the outcomes of interest. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects model. RESULTS: Six studies met the eligibility criteria. For overall survival, the pooled data from the studies demonstrated a statistically significant benefit for longer hormone deprivation (Hazard Ratio 0.84; 95% CI 0.74 - 0.96). A statistically significant benefit was also found for disease-free survival (Hazard Ratio 0.74; 95% CI 0.62 - 0.89), and disease-specific survival (Hazard Ratio 0.73; 95% CI 0.62 - 0.85). Studies with longer blockade duration arm demonstrated greater benefit. Toxicity was low, with no increase in cardiovascular events. CONCLUSIONS: Longer duration of androgen deprivation combined to radiotherapy prolongs OS, DFS and DSS in patients with intermediate and high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer. However, this evidence is based on trials using older radiation techniques, and further research of combination of androgen deprivation and new RT technologies may be warranted.

Optimal duration of androgen deprivation therapy following radiation therapy in intermediate- or high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

To investigate current evidence on the optimal duration of adjuvant hormone deprivation for prostate cancer treated with radiation therapy with curative intent.

The impact of complete chemotherapy stop on the overall survival of patients with advanced colorectal cancer in first-line setting: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the duration of chemotherapy on the overall survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is controversial and studies have failed to define a clear standard. METHODS: We searched medical literature databases and oncology conferences proceedings for randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compared the overall survival of mCRC patients who received continuous first-line chemotherapy until disease progression versus those who were offered complete treatment stop after a fixed number of cycles. Studies including targeted agents were also included. A meta-analysis of reported hazard ratios (HRs) for survival was performed. RESULTS: We retrieved 240 trials, of which six were eligible and five were included in the pooled analysis of overall survival (N = 3061). The overall survival between continuously delivered chemotherapy and complete stop was not statistically different (HR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.85-1.02; p = 0.12; I² = 5%). The results are similar when we analyzed separately the trials performing randomization before versus after induction therapy. The median chemotherapy free interval in the complete stop group was 3.9 months (3.6-4.3 months). Chemotherapy administered until progression was associated with more adverse effects and impaired quality of life. CONCLUSION: Compared with first-line continuous chemotherapy administered until disease progression, complete treatment stop did not have a detrimental impact on the overall survival of patients with mCRC. Identification of predictive biomarkers could help clinicians to select the patients who would benefit from continuous cancer-directed therapies.

Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy for resectable breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The role of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy for resectable breast cancer is not well established, despite encouraging results obtained in the metastatic and adjuvant settings. This systematic review aims to examine existing medical literature on neoadjuvant hormone therapy (HT). METHODS: Data from prospective, randomized trials was included if comparing neoadjuvant HT versus surgery alone without adjuvant treatment, or neoadjuvant HT versus chemotherapy (CT), or HT plus CT versus CT alone, or HT plus CT versus HT alone, or two distinct HT. Odds Ratios (OR) were calculated from pooled data. RESULTS: Five studies compared HT with tamoxifen versus HT with aromatase inhibitors (AI). A meta-analysis of their results demonstrated superiority of AIs in overall response rate (ORR) (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.17-3.08). Two trials compared HT against CT, and pooled data from them demonstrated a trend favoring CT (OR for ORR 0.75; 95% CI 0.35-1.6). That trend disappeared when only postmenopausal women were considered (OR 1.01; 95% CI 0.62-1.63). One trial compared HT plus CT with no neoadjuvant treatment, and obtained an 83% ORR. One trial compared HT plus CT versus CT alone and found a non-significant increase in ORR for adding HT to CT (OR 1.48; 95% CI 0.58-3.77). No trial compared HT plus CT versus HT alone. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant HT is a safe and feasible option, but it cannot be considered equivalent to CT. If neoadjuvant HT is performed, AIs are preferable over tamoxifen due to higher response rates.

Cardiovascular events associated with androgen deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: A recently published meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT) showed that androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) did not significantly increase cardiovascular mortality in prostate cancer patients. However, cardiovascular morbidity, which can impact quality of life, was not evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of cardiovascular morbidity associated with ADT in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted a literature search from January 1960 to June 2012. RCT and large cohort studies that evaluated first-line endocrine therapy and ADT longer than 6 months were screened for inclusion. RESULTS: In total, 126,898 patients were included in four cohort studies, and 10,760 patients were included in nine RCTs. Analysis of the RCTs showed no differences in the development of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (OR 1.23; 95 % CI 0.92-1.64; I (2): 0 %) among the patients receiving ADT or not. The analysis of randomized studies that reported other nonfatal cardiovascular events demonstrated a significant increase in such events in the group receiving ADT (OR 1.55; 95 % CI 1.09-2.20; I (2): 0 %). When the large cohort studies were included in the analysis, an increased risk of AMI among men with ADT was found (OR 2.01, 95 % CI 1.90-2.13; I (2): 91,3 %). CONCLUSION: The use of ADT in prostate cancer patients corresponded with a significant increase in cardiovascular morbidity associated with AMI and with nonfatal events. Therefore, ADT is linked to a significant negative impact on quality of life. Periodic cardiovascular evaluation is required for these patients.