Real-world treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in the USA, Europe and Asia.

Aim: To characterize real-world patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) and treating physicians and evaluate treatment trends and baseline concordance versus guidelines internationally. Materials & methods: Retrospective, cross-sectional data from the Ipsos Global Oncology Monitor database 2018-2020 were used for descriptive analysis of mHSPC patients, treating physicians and treatment utilization. Results: Among the 6198 mHSPC patients from five countries, the most common treatment was either androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) monotherapy or first-generation androgen receptor inhibitor + ADT. Second-generation androgen receptor inhibitor use was only initiating but increasing over the study period. Conclusion: Despite contemporaneous guidelines recommending treatment intensification of ADT in combination with novel antihormonals or docetaxel, 76.1% of reported mHSPC patients received non-guideline-concordant care.

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer among men worldwide and a leading cause of cancer-related death globally. Metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) refers to the stage of prostate cancer where it has spread to other parts of the body ('metastatic') but still responds to hormonal therapy ('hormone-sensitive'), such as androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Treatment guidelines around the world for men with mHSPC have changed over time, but there remains a lack of understanding of how well guidelines are followed in real-world practice. Consequently, this study analyzes real-world data from five countries between 2018 and 2020 to understand treatment patterns, baseline concordance versus guidelines and potential drivers of treatment trends. The study found prevalent use of ADT monotherapy and older antihormonal agents, and only marginal but increasing use of novel antihormonals in real-world practice. These practices deviate from guidelines from the study period, which generally recommended ADT combination with either newer antihormonal agents or docetaxel for patients with mHSPC. Overall, the proportion of the 6198 patients treated with non­guideline-concordant therapies was 76.1%. Since guideline-recommended care is associated with better outcomes, this baselining finding highlights the need for appropriate treatment selection and intensification for mHSPC patients.

Treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in China: a real-world observational study.

AIM: This study assessed the treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), costs, and annual prevalence and incidence of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) and nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) in China. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using electronic medical records (EMR) of patients with prostate cancer from three tertiary-care hospitals in China between January 2014 and March 2021. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze study outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 1086 patients with mHSPC and 679 patients with nmCRPC were included. From 2015 to 2020, the annual percentage of prevalent and incident cases of mHSPC decreased from 22.4% to 20.0% and 11.1% to 6.9%, respectively; for nmCRPC, these increased from 3.8% to 13.6% and 3.3% to 8.4%. Androgen-deprivation therapy and first-generation antiandrogens (bicalutamide or flutamide) were the most frequently prescribed prostate cancer-related medications at baseline and follow-up in patients with mHSPC. Bicalutamide was the most frequently prescribed prostate cancer-related medication during follow-up in patients with nmCRPC. For mHSPC, inpatient admission costs were the highest, with the median (interquartile range) costs per person-month being USD 403.00 (USD 85.50-1226.20), whereas outpatient visit costs were the highest for nmCRPC (USD 372.60 [USD 139.50-818.50]). LIMITATIONS: EMR-based study design did not capture treatment patterns, HRU and associated costs, and healthcare encounters that occurred outside of participating hospitals, which could have led to underestimation of the true disease burden. CONCLUSIONS: A contrasting trend of a decline in the prevalence and incidence of mHSPC and an increase in these for nmCRPC was observed between 2015 and 2020 in China. Androgen-deprivation therapy and first-generation antiandrogens were the most frequently prescribed prostate cancer-related medications. Healthcare resource utilization was driven by inpatient costs in mHSPC and outpatient costs in nmCRPC.

Association between Statin Use and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with De Novo Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Propensity Score-weighted Analysis.

PURPOSE: Numerous studies have produced conflicting findings regarding the efficacy of statins in prostate cancer treatment. Our objective was to examine the correlation between statin usage and clinical outcomes in Taiwanese men with de novo metastatic prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified patients diagnosed with de novo metastatic prostate cancer from the Chang Gung Research Database spanning the years 2007 to 2020. To minimize confounding bias, we employed the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method. Clinical outcomes were assessed using IPTW-adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was utilized to evaluate the association between mortality and clinical factors. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 1,716 statin users and 276 non-users. Patients who used statins exhibited a longer median overall survival (85.4 months compared to 58.2 months; p=0.001) and cancer-specific survival (112.6 months compared to 75.7 months; p<0.001) compared to non-users. The median time to the development of castration-resistant status was similar between statin users and non-users (p=0.069). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, after IPTW adjustment, demonstrated that statin use was associated with improved overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that the use of statins following a de novo metastatic prostate cancer diagnosis enhances survival outcomes. However, statins did not appear to delay the onset of castration-resistant status. Further large-scale and long-term studies are warranted to investigate the biological effects of statins in men with prostate cancer.

The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index Predicts Prognosis in Japanese Patients with LATITUDE High-Risk Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Multi-Center Study.

Malnutrition is associated with prognosis in cancer. The geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI), based on the ratio of actual to ideal body weight and also serum albumin level, is a simple screening tool for assessing nutrition. We investigated the GNRI as a prognostic factor for oncological outcomes in patients with high-risk metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) using a Japanese multicenter cohort. This study included a total of 175 patients with LATITUDE high-risk mHSPC, of whom 102 had received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus upfront abiraterone acetate, and 73 had received ADT plus bicalutamide (Bica), from 14 institutions associated with the Tokai Urologic Oncology Research Seminar. Patients were classified into GNRI-low (<98) or GNRI-high (≥98) groups. The GNRI was based on the body mass index and serum albumin level. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that the median overall survival (OS) of a GNRI-low group (median 33.7 months; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 26.2-not reached [NR]) was significantly worse than that of a GNRI-high group (median: NR; 95% CI: NR-NR; p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis identified Bica and low GNRI (<98) as independent prognostic factors for reduced times to both castration-resistant prostate cancer and OS, and, therefore, a poor prognosis. Our findings indicate the GNRI may be a practical prognostic indicator in the evaluation of survival outcomes in patients with LATITUDE high-risk mHSPC.

Risk of prostate cancer death after radical radiotherapy with neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy with bicalutamide or gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists.

BACKGROUND: Oncological outcome after radical radiotherapy (RRT) combined with neoadjuvant and adjuvant androgen suppression therapy (AST) may differ according to type of AST. The aim of this nationwide register-based study was to investigate risk of prostate cancer (Pca) death after different neoadjuvant and adjuvant ASTs; (i) bicalutamide, (ii) gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRH) or (iii) combined bicalutamide and GnRH (CAB), together with RRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data for 6882 men diagnosed with high-risk Pca between 2007 and 2020 and treated with primary RRT was retrieved from Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden (PCBaSe) 5.0. Time to Pca death according to type of neoadjuvant and adjuvant AST was assessed by use of Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for putative confounders. RESULTS: Data were stratified by RRT type since the effect of AST in risk of Pca death differed according to type of RRT. Compared with the reference RRT combined with neoadjuvant CAB/adjuvant GnRH, risk of Pca death for men treated with CAB/bicalutamide and conventionally fractionated external beam radiotherapy (CF-EBRT) was hazard ratio (HR) 0.73 (95% CI: 0.50-1.04), hypofractionated EBRT (HF-EBRT), HR 1.35 (95% CI: 0.65-2.81) and EBRT with high dose rate brachytherapy (EBRT-HDRBT), HR 0.85 (95% CI: 0.37-1.95). Risk of Pca death for men treated with bicalutamide/bicalutamide and: (i) CF-EBRT was HR 2.35 (95% CI: 1.42-3.90), (ii) HF-EBRT, HR 0.70 (95% CI: 0.26-1.85), (iii) HF-EBRT, HR 4.07 (95% CI: 1.88-8.77) vs the reference. CONCLUSION: In this observational study, risk of Pca death between men receiving different combinations of AST varied according to RRT type. No difference was found in risk of Pca death for men treated with bicalutamide or GnRH as adjuvant therapy to RRT following neoadjuvant CAB. Risk of Pca death was increased for men with monotherapy neo-/adjuvant bicalutamide in combination with CF-EBRT or EBRT-HDRBT.

Poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor combinations in first-line metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer setting: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) among patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) receiving a combination of first-line poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) plus androgen receptor axis-targeted agents (ARAT) vs placebo/ARAT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review/meta-analysis of all published Phase III randomised controlled trials using EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane (inception until 6 June 2023). Published full-text manuscripts and conference abstracts were inclusion eligible. Study selection/data extraction were independently performed by two authors. The Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 Tool was used, and certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations framework. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and relative risks, with corresponding confidence intervals (CIs), were generated using random-effects models. RESULTS: Three trials were identified: PROpel, MAGNITUDE, and TALAPRO-2. Compared to placebo/ARAT, the PARPi/ARAT combination was associated with a 35% rPFS improvement in the overall cohort (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.56-0.76), with 68%, 45%, and 26% improvements in the BReast CAncer gene 1/gene 2 (BRCA1/2)-mutated (BRCA1/2m; P < 0.001), homologous recombination repair-mutated (HRRm; P < 0.001), and non-HRRm cohorts (P = 0.003), respectively. OS data maturity ranged from 31% to 48%, with overall cohort OS data unavailable from MAGNITUDE. The PROpel/TALAPRO-2 pooled analysis demonstrated a 16% OS improvement in the overall cohort (HR 0.84, 95 CI 0.72-0.98; P = 0.02). OS in the HRRm (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61-0.95) and the BRCA1/2m cohorts (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.18-1.56) were improved, with a higher effect magnitude compared to the overall cohort. This combination was associated with a 45% relative risk increase in Grade ≥3 TEAEs, including 6.22-fold for Grade ≥3 anaemia (31.9% vs 4.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of PARPi to ARAT in the first-line mCRPC setting is associated with rPFS benefits across subgroups, with the greatest magnitude of benefit in BRCA1/2m patients. OS benefits remain inconsistent irrespective of HRRm status, with significant increases in Grade ≥3 TEAEs, particularly anaemia. Currently, we suggest this combined approach be selectively offered to HRRm patients, preferentially BRCA1/2m.

Comparison of Intermittent and Continuous Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Prostate Cancer Patients: An Up-to-Date Meta-analysis for Urologists and Medical Providers.

INTRODUCTION: Androgen deprivation therapy first became the treatment of choice for advanced prostate cancer in the 1940s with Charles Huggins' discoveries. Eight decades later, androgen deprivation therapy has significantly evolved, and yet is still utilized in various ways to treat certain forms of prostate cancer. For local recurrence after failed primary treatment and for locally advanced and metastatic disease, continuous androgen deprivation therapy has been standard of treatment. However, intermittent androgen deprivation therapy has emerged as a therapeutic alternative to continuous androgen deprivation therapy. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to provide an update on mortality, specifically prostate cancer-specific and nonprostate cancer causes, in order to offer some guidance when selecting the appropriate form of systemic androgen deprivation therapy. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched for prospective randomized clinical trials. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined. Using statistical software, we analyzed random-effects models with the assumption that the data were randomly sampled, estimated the pooled log risk ratio, assessed heterogeneity, and created funnel plots to evaluate publication bias. RESULTS: A total of 12 randomized clinical trials met all inclusion criteria for final analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality between intermittent androgen deprivation therapy and continuous androgen deprivation therapy (RR=1.10 [0.85-1.42]). The analysis of nonprostate cancer mortality favored intermittent androgen deprivation therapy over continuous androgen deprivation therapy, but the difference was statistically insignificant (RR=0.94 [0.76-1.17]). CONCLUSIONS: These 2 treatment modalities can be considered as equivalent in long-term treatment outcomes. As intermittent androgen deprivation therapy is more cost-efficient and less likely to yield adverse side effects, future treatment guidelines should consider these advantages over continuous androgen deprivation therapy.

Risk of colorectal adenocarcinoma in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer; a nationwide cohort study.

PURPOSE: To assess whether androgens play a role in explaining the sex related differences in the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: A nationwide matched cohort study was conducted employing the Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden (PCBaSe) 4.0 during the study period 2006-2016. Prostate cancer (PC) patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were treated as exposed. Prostate cancer-free men from the general population were randomly selected and matched to the index case by birth year and county of residence, forming the unexposed group. All were followed until a diagnosis of CRC, death, emigration, or end of the study period. The risk of CRC among ADT exposed PC patients compared to unexposed cancer-free men was calculated using a flexible parametric survival model and expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: There was an increased risk of CRC among ADT exposed PC patients compared to unexposed cancer-free men (HR 1.27 [95% CI 1.15-1.41]), in particular an increased risk of adenocarcinoma of the colon (HR 1.33 [95% CI 1.17-1.51]) and more specifically an increased risk of adenocarcinoma of the distal colon (HR 1.53 [95% CI 1.26-1.85]). Examination of latency effects yielded significantly decreased HRs over time for CRC (p = 0.049 for trend). CONCLUSIONS: This population-based study found an increased risk of CRC among PC patients exposed to ADT, specifically adenocarcinoma of the distal colon, which indicates an increased association between ADT (PC + ADT) and CRC but not a positive dose-response trend questioning a true causal effect.

The Impact of Medicare Low-income Subsidy on Access to Treatment, Treatment Choice, and Oncologic Outcomes in Patients With Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients eligible for Medicare Part D low-income subsidy have lower cost-sharing for both IV and oral cancer therapies. We evaluated associations between low-income subsidy and treatment choice, treatment initiation, and overall survival in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified men aged 66 years and older diagnosed with stage IV prostate cancer between 2010 and 2017 included in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data set. Using linear probability models, we evaluated the impact of low-income subsidy on type of first supplementary treatment (oral vs IV) among patients who received nonandrogen deprivation therapy supplementary systemic therapy, and initiation of any nonandrogen deprivation therapy supplementary systemic therapy. Overall survival was estimated with Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: Of the 5,929 patients included, 1,766 (30%) had low-income subsidy. On multivariable analysis, those with low-income subsidy were more likely to receive oral as opposed to IV treatments compared to patients without low-income subsidy (probability difference: 17%, 95% CI 12, 22). However, patients with low-income subsidy were less likely to initiate any nonandrogen deprivation therapy supplementary systemic therapy (oral or IV) compared to those without low-income subsidy (probability difference: 7.9%, 95% CI 4.8-11). Additionally, patients with low-income subsidy experienced worse overall survival than those without low-income subsidy (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: While low-income subsidy was associated with increased use of more expensive oral therapies in men with metastatic prostate cancer, barriers to accessing these treatments still exist. These findings stress the importance of continued efforts to improve health care access to low-income individuals.

Real-World Treatment Trends Among Patients with Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: Results from an International Study.

BACKGROUND: Continuous androgen deprivation therapy ± first-generation non-steroidal antiandrogen was previously the standard-of-care for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Treatment intensification with novel hormonal therapy (NHT) or taxane chemotherapy is now approved and guideline-recommended for these patients. METHODS: Physician-reported data on adult patients with mCSPC from the Adelphi Prostate Cancer Disease Specific Programme were analyzed descriptively. We evaluated real-world treatment trends for patients with mCSPC in 5 European countries (United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy) and the United States (US), looking at differences between patients initiating treatment in 2016-2018 and in 2019-2020. We also investigated treatment trends by ethnicity and insurance status in the US. RESULTS: This study found that most patients with mCSPC do not receive treatment intensification. However, greater use of treatment intensification with NHT and taxane chemotherapy was observed in 2019-2020 than in 2016-2018 across 5 European countries. In the US, greater use of treatment intensification with NHT in 2019-2020 than in 2016-2018 was observed for all ethnicity groups and those with Medicare and commercial insurance status. CONCLUSIONS: As the number of patients with mCSPC who receive treatment intensification increases, more patients who progress to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) will have been exposed to intensified treatments. Treatment options for patients with mCSPC and mCRPC overlap, suggesting that an unmet need will emerge for new therapies. Further studies are needed to understand optimal treatment sequencing in mCSPC and mCRPC.

Real-World Treatment Patterns Among Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Results From an International Study.

BACKGROUND: There is limited real-world evidence on how increasing use of treatment intensification in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) has influenced treatment decisions in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The study objective was to evaluate the impact of novel hormonal therapy (NHT) and docetaxel use in mCSPC on first-line treatment patterns among patients with mCRPC in 5 European countries and the United States (US). METHODS: Physician-reported data on patients with mCRPC from the Adelphi Prostate Cancer Disease Specific Program were descriptively analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 215 physicians provided data on 722 patients with mCRPC. Across 5 European countries and the US, 65% and 75% of patients, respectively, received NHT, and 28% and 9% of patients, respectively, received taxane chemotherapy as first-line mCRPC treatment. In Europe, patients who had received NHT in mCSPC (n = 76) mostly received taxane chemotherapy in mCRPC (55%). Patients who had received taxane chemotherapy, or who did not receive taxane chemotherapy or NHT in mCSPC (n = 98 and 434, respectively) mostly received NHT in mCRPC (62% and 73%, respectively). In the US, patients who had received NHT, taxane chemotherapy, or neither in mCSPC (n = 32, 12, and 72, respectively) mostly received NHT in mCRPC (53%, 83%, and 83%, respectively). Two patients in Europe were rechallenged with the same NHT. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that physicians consider mCSPC treatment history when making first-line treatment decisions in mCRPC. Further studies are needed to better understand optimal treatment sequencing, especially as new treatments emerge.

Consenso multidisciplinar sobre idoneidad farmacológica en cáncer de próstata hormono-sensible metastásico / A multidisciplinary consensus statement on the optimal pharmacological treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer

La terapia de privación androgénica (TPA) es el pilar del tratamiento del cáncer de próstata hormono-sensible metastásico (CPHSm). La adición de docetaxel o de nuevas terapias hormonales (abiraterona, apalutamida o enzalutamida) mejora la supervivencia global (SG) y es en la actualidad el estándar de tratamiento. Sin embargo, la decisión sobre el régimen específico que acompañe a la TPA debe ser discutida con el paciente teniendo en cuenta factores como las posibles toxicidades asociadas, la duración del tratamiento, las comorbilidades o sus preferencias, pues no hay evidencia suficiente para recomendar un régimen sobre otro en la mayoría de los casos. En este trabajo se resume la evidencia sobre el manejo del CPHSm y se aportan recomendaciones consensuadas sobre el tratamiento óptimo para añadir a la TPA en pacientes con CPHSm con especial atención al perfil clínico del paciente (AU)

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the mainstay treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). The addition of docetaxel or new hormone therapies (abiraterone, apalutamide, or enzalutamide) improves overall survival and is currently the standard of care. However, the decision on the specific regimen to accompany ADT should be discussed with the patient, considering factors such as possible associated toxicities, duration of treatment, comorbidities, patient preferences, as there is no sufficient evidence to recommend one regimen over the other in most cases. This paper summarizes the evidence on the management of mHSPC and provides consensus recommendations on the optimal treatment in combination with ADT in mHSPC patients, with special attention to the patient's clinical profile (AU)

A multidisciplinary consensus statement on the optimal pharmacological treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the mainstay treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). The addition of docetaxel or new hormone therapies (abiraterone, apalutamide, or enzalutamide) improves overall survival and is currently the standard of care. However, the decision on the specific regimen to accompany ADT should be discussed with the patient, considering factors such as possible associated toxicities, duration of treatment, comorbidities, patient preferences, as there is no sufficient evidence to recommend one regimen over the other in most cases. This paper summarizes the evidence on the management of mHSPC and provides consensus recommendations on the optimal treatment in combination with ADT in mHSPC patients, with special attention to the patient's clinical profile.

Adherence With Oral Anticancer Therapies: Clinical Trial vs Real-world Experiences With a Focus on Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: In this review, we address adherence rates in clinical settings, barriers to compliance with dosing schedules, and potential strategies to overcome challenges in maintaining high levels of adherence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four studies reporting real-world adherence to prostate cancer medications, 52 studies describing barriers to adherence, and 16 studies on methods to minimize poor adherence were reviewed. RESULTS: Mean nonadherence rates of 25% to 51% have been identified in prostate cancer patients prescribed oral therapies, with higher rates in older patients. An extensive review of prostate cancer patients receiving gonadotropin hormone-releasing hormone agonist injections found an overall nonadherence rate of over 27%. Patients may encounter barriers to complying with dosing instructions related to the medication (eg, complex dosing schedules, the total burden of medication management, fasting or dietary requirements, high medication costs, adverse effects, and drug-drug interactions). Barriers may also be related to patient-specific factors (eg, suboptimal education regarding the importance of adherence, physical limitations and cognitive decline associated with advancing age, living alone without a care partner, high symptom burden, needle phobia, and comorbid mental disorders). Interventions to improve dosing adherence may include automated reminders, treatment diaries, educational materials, and the involvement of patients, family members, care partners, and health care teams. CONCLUSIONS: Many oral anticancer medications improve survival in men with prostate cancer, and therefore it is vital to establish good adherence by understanding the pitfalls that patients may encounter. In situations where both oral and injectable drugs are interchangeable, injections of long-acting drugs lead to fewer opportunities for dosing nonadherence than oral therapies. In contrast, oral medicines do not require scheduling for injections and travel for injection appointments. Therefore, maximizing adherence to all treatment regimens will reduce the chance of efficacy failures and likely lead to improved clinical outcomes.

Application of the ASCO value framework to evaluate the clinical and economic value of enzalutamide and apalutamide in the early stages of prostate cancer in Colombia.

Introduction: Prostate cancer has increased in recent years, increasing the costs associated with its treatment. Second-generation oral antiandrogens have emerged as an attractive therapeutic option. Objective: To compare the health value provided by enzalutamide and apalutamide, by evaluating two stages of prostate cancer: non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) and metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Methods: To establish, through the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) value framework, a contrast between two technologies in two stages of prostate cancer. The monthly cost of the two technologies was calculated according to the current price regulation norm in Colombia. Results: Enzalutamide showed a higher net health benefit score compared to apalutamide for both nmCRPC (48.33 versus 33.46) and mHSPC (52.0 versus 40.75). The cost per net health benefit point for the nmCRPC stage was $214,723 Colombian Pesos (COP) ($54.84 USD) with enzalutamide compared to $291,925 COP ($74.56 USD) with apalutamide, and for the mHSPC stage was $199,692 COP ($51.00 USD) with enzalutamide and $239,701 COP ($61.22 USD) with apalutamide. Conclusion: After comparing enzalutamide versus apalutamide in the nmCRPC and mHSPC stages through the ASCO value framework, enzalutamide showed a more prominent net clinical benefit and a lower investment per point awarded.

Extensive Alteration of Androgen Precursor Levels After Castration in Prostate Cancer Patients and Their Association With Active Androgen Level.

PURPOSE: Dihydrotestosterone and testosterone are thought to be major contributors of prostate cancer progression and resistance. We studied the modulation of 15 circulating steroids by castration and their association with dihydrotestosterone and testosterone levels. MATERIALS METHODS: A total of 116 serum samples were collected from 99 prostate cancer patients and categorized as eugonadal, castration-sensitive prostate cancer, castration-resistant prostate cancer, or castration-resistant prostate cancer under abiraterone acetate. Serum levels of 15 steroids were measured using mass spectrometry and compared between groups using analysis of variance. Intrapatient association of steroid levels and the androgens testosterone and dihydrotestosterone were assessed using Pearson correlation and linear regression. RESULTS: Testosterone, dihydrotestosterone, androstenedione, dehydroepiandrosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone-sulfate, androsterone, androstenediol, estrone, estrone-sulfate, estradiol, and androsterone/3α-diol-3/3α-diol-17-glucuronide levels were significantly decreased in castration-sensitive prostate cancer (castrated) compared to eugonadal patients. Testosterone levels were strongly associated with multiple steroids under eugonadal conditions, whereas they were weakly affected by precursor steroids in castrated patients. By contrast, dihydrotestosterone levels under androgen deprivation therapy were associated with testosterone and the backdoor pathway metabolite androsterone. In castration-resistant prostate cancer patients, levels of androstenedione were significantly associated with testosterone level, while testosterone was the only steroid associated with dihydrotestosterone levels. CONCLUSIONS: Androgen deprivation therapy significantly reduces the levels of 13 circulating steroids. Upon androgen deprivation therapy initiation, the backdoor pathway metabolite androsterone are strongly associated with dihydrotestosterone levels. Under castration-resistant prostate cancer conditions, androstenedione was significantly associated with testosterone levels, suggesting the presence of tumor-related circulating androgens in these patients. These results provide further rationale to intensify treatments with androgen receptor axis signaling pathway inhibitors in patients with prostate cancer.

Treatment strategies and outcomes in a long-term registry study of patients with high-risk metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer in Japan: An interim analysis of the J-ROCK study.

OBJECTIVE: The prognosis of high-risk metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer is poor, and real-world evidence of therapeutic options and sequences is lacking. The J-ROCK study aimed to evaluate the outcomes in a real-world setting in Japan. METHODS: Patients with high-risk metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer diagnosed after May 2019 were eligible. Based on their treatment within 3 months after diagnosis, patients were allocated to either cohort 1 (androgen deprivation therapy alone or combined androgen blockade with bicalutamide) or cohort 2 (androgen deprivation therapy with abiraterone acetate+prednisolone, docetaxel, enzalutamide, or apalutamide). RESULTS: In this first interim analysis (cut-off January 2021), 410 patients were enrolled, including 163 patients in cohort 1 and 247 in cohort 2. The median follow-up period was 7.6 (range 0.1-20.5) months. A higher proportion of patients in cohort 2 (42.5%) achieved nadir prostate-specific antigen levels ≤0.2 ng/ml within a year, compared with cohort 1 (22.1%). Prostate-specific antigen-progression-free survival was also more favorable in cohort 2 (adjusted hazard ratio 0.629 [95% confidence interval 0.345-1.147]). CONCLUSIONS: The higher proportion of cohort 2 suggest a paradigm shift has occurred in the real-world treatment of high-risk metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer in Japan. Some factors including prostate-specific antigen may affect treatment selection but need further observation. Most patients in cohort 2 received abiraterone acetate+prednisolone. The proportion of patients in cohort 1 receiving combined androgen blockade was lower than previously reported in Japan. This analysis suggest that more intensive therapy tends to prolong prostate-specific antigen-progression-free survival in patients with high-risk metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer.

Assessing salivary matrix metalloproteinase-8 in prostate cancer patients undergoing androgen deprivation therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Matrix metalloproteinase-8 (MMP-8) is considered as one of the most promising diagnostic markers for periodontal disease. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been correlated with impaired collagen synthesis and an increase in periodontal tissue susceptibility to pathogenic microorganisms. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the impact of ADT on salivary MMP-8 level and periodontal parameters, which might be useful in monitoring periodontal disease in prostate cancer patients undergoing ADT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 88 subjects were selected and were divided into two groups: Group I included n = 78 PC patients who have been undergoing ADT); Group II included n = 10 healthy individuals. Periodontal parameters such as plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), periodontal probing depth (PPD), and clinical attachment level (CAL) were examined. The salivary MMP-8 level was estimated by using the sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay method. RESULTS: Significant differences in mean salivary MMP-8 level were found between PC patients undergoing ADT and healthy individuals. Salivary MMP-8 levels of all individuals were positively correlated with GI, PI, PPD, and CAL. Salivary MMP-8 can distinguish between periodontitis and healthy individuals with an accuracy of about 80%. CONCLUSION: Salivary MMP-8 levels were found to be higher in prostate cancer patients undergoing ADT compared to healthy individuals.

Hormone Treatment of Prostate Cancer:: Evidence for Usage and Safety.

Androgen deprivation therapy, used alone or in combination, inhibits androgen activity either upstream at the level of the pituitary gland or downstream by disrupting the androgenesis pathway in the adrenal or androgen activity in prostate cells. Its appropriate utilization varies depending on disease stage, aggressivity, and resistance. Special consideration should be given to side effects, as it can affect patients' quality of life and their treatment of other conditions.

Depression, Anxiety, and Patterns of Mental Health Care Among Men With Prostate Cancer Receiving Androgen Deprivation Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use is associated with an increased risk of developing depression and anxiety. Little is known about how the mental health of these men is treated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified men with prostate cancer who received ADT between 2001 and 2015 using Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. We determined the incidence of depression or anxiety diagnoses, mental health treatments, and the specialty of providers initiating psychotropic medications, after the start of ADT. Outcomes were compared with those of men with prostate cancer not receiving ADT and men without prostate cancer. RESULTS: Of 37 388 men with prostate cancer treated with ADT, 3964 (10.6%) received a new diagnosis of depression or anxiety. Of those 3964 men, 1892 (47.7%) did not receive a documented treatment, 10 (0.3%) received psychotherapy, 1321 (33.3%) a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, and 744 (18.8%) a benzodiazepine. The median time from initiation of ADT to a depression or anxiety diagnosis was 9.3 months. Primary care physicians were the most common prescribers of psychotropic medications (72.2%). The proportion of men not receiving mental health treatments of interest (47.7%) was similar compared to men without prostate cancer (49.1%), but statistically significantly lower compared to men with prostate cancer not receiving ADT (52.7%). CONCLUSIONS: In men with prostate cancer receiving ADT with a new diagnosis of depression or anxiety, nearly half are not receiving mental health care while one in five is introduced to a benzodiazepine. Further investigation toward improving the mental health care for men on ADT is needed.