Search

Background: As androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) becomes a standard of treatment for men with recurrent or metastatic prostate cancer, evaluation of adverse effects associated with this treatment is needed. In this study, the authors evaluated the effect of ADT administered as monotherapy and in combination with local treatment on physical well-being in a longitudinal sample of men with prostate cancer., Methods: Exposure to ADT was defined by 3 groups: local (local treatment only), combination (local treatment with adjuvant and/or neoadjuvant ADT), and primary ADT. Associations between exposure to ADT and physical well-being measured by self-reported health-related quality of life outcomes over time were evaluated by repeated measures analysis using mixed modeling. Estimates adjusted for various clinical and demographic variables are reported., Results: A total of 2922 men, who completed both pretreatment and follow-up health-related quality of life assessment, were identified from the CaPSURE (Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor) registry. During 24 months of follow-up, exposure to ADT was associated with worse physical well-being compared with local treatment at all time points (P < .001). Being exposed to ADT as primary therapy was associated with more severe declines compared with combination therapy., Conclusions: The potential consequence of decline in physical well-being in patients exposed to ADT has to be included in treatment decision making., (Copyright © 2011 American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: The potential association between androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and cardiovascular mortality (CVM) remains controversial. This study assessed mortality outcomes in a large national registry to further elucidate the association between treatment selection and cause of mortality., Patients and Methods: A total of 7,248 men in the CaPSURE registry were analyzed. Treatment was categorized as local only, primary ADT monotherapy, local treatment plus ADT, and watchful waiting/active surveillance (WW/AS). Competing hazards survival analysis was performed for prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), CVM, and all-cause mortality. A propensity score-adjusted and a propensity-matched analysis were undertaken to adjust for imbalances in covariates among men receiving various treatments., Results: Patients treated with ADT or WW/AS had a higher likelihood of PCSM than those treated with local therapy alone. Patients treated with primary ADT had an almost two-fold greater likelihood of CVM (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.29 to 2.97) than those treated with local therapy alone; however, patients treated with WW/AS had a greater than two-fold increased risk of CVM (HR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.53 to 3.95). A propensity-matching algorithm in a subset of 1,391 patients was unable to find a significant difference in CVM between those who did or did not receive ADT., Conclusion: Patients matched on propensity to receive ADT did not show an association between ADT and CVM. This suggests that potential unmeasured variables affecting treatment selection may confound the relationship between ADT use and cardiovascular risk. However, an association may yet exist, because the propensity score could not include all known risk factors for CVM.

Purpose: We examined whether maximum androgen blockade (MAB) is associated with a decreased recurrence risk vs. single-agent androgen suppression (monotherapy) for men undergoing brachytherapy (BT) for localized prostate cancer., Methods and Materials: Data from 223 men in the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor database who received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) concurrent with BT for intermediate- or high-risk prostatic adenocarcinoma were included; 159 (71%) received MAB, and 64 (29%) monotherapy (luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist or anti-androgen alone). Cox regression analysis was performed to assess whether the choice of ADT was associated with disease recurrence adjusting for known prognostic factors., Results: Men who received MAB had similar Gleason scores, T categories, and pretreatment prostate-specific antigen as those who received monotherapy. After a median follow-up of 49 months, the use of MAB was not associated with a decrease in the risk recurrence (p = 0.72), after adjusting for known prognostic factors. A higher PSA at diagnosis (p = 0.03) and younger age at diagnosis (p < 0.01) were associated with increased recurrence risk. The 3-year recurrence free survival was 76% for patients in both monotherapy and MAB groups., Conclusions: There are varied practice patterns in physicians' choice of the extent of concurrent ADT when used with brachytherapy for men with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer. Given a lack of demonstrated superiority from either ADT choice, both appear to be reasonable options.

Background: We investigated whether androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use is associated with an increased risk of death from cardiovascular causes in patients treated for localized prostate cancer., Methods: From the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor database, data on 3262 patients treated with radical prostatectomy and 1630 patients treated with external beam radiation therapy, brachytherapy, or cryotherapy for localized prostate cancer were included in this analysis. Competing risks regression analyses were performed to assess whether use of ADT was associated with a shorter time to death from cardiovascular causes after controlling for age (as a continuous variable) and the presence of baseline cardiovascular disease risk factors. All tests for statistical significance were two-sided., Results: The median follow-up time was 3.8 years (range = 0.1-11.3 years). Among the 1015 patients who received ADT, the median duration of ADT use was 4.1 months (range = 1.0-32.9 months). In a competing risks regression analysis that controlled for age and risk factors for cardiovascular disease, both ADT use (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4 to 4.7; P = .002) and age (adjusted HR = 1.07; 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.1; P = .003) were associated with statistically significantly increased risks of death from cardiovascular causes in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Among patients 65 years or older treated with radical prostatectomy, the 5-year cumulative incidence of cardiovascular death was 5.5% (95% CI = 1.2% to 9.8%) in those who received ADT and 2.0% (95% CI = 1.1% to 3.0%) in those who did not. Among patients 65 years or older treated with external beam radiation therapy, brachytherapy, or cryotherapy, ADT use was associated with a higher cumulative incidence of death from cardiovascular causes, but the difference did not reach statistical significance., Conclusions: The use of ADT appears to be associated with an increased risk of death from cardiovascular causes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer.

Although once reserved for the management of metastatic prostate cancer, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is being used increasingly to treat lower stages of disease. We sought to assess patterns of ADT use in a contemporary cohort of men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer. Men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer who had > or =12 months of follow-up evaluation were identified in a national disease registry of patients with prostate cancer. The patterns of ADT use, both primary and secondary, were characterized and stratified by risk according to prostate-specific antigen levels, clinical stage, and Gleason score. In a cohort of 1485 men, 46% underwent ADT at some point during their treatment: 41% as primary therapy (either sole therapy or neoadjuvant therapy), and 5% as secondary therapy. In all, 50% of men receiving initial ADT had low- or intermediate-risk disease characteristics. Among patients treated with radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy, neoadjuvant ADT was administered in 20% and 48% of patients, respectively. Secondary hormonal manipulation was observed in 5% and 7% of patients treated initially with surgery or radiation, respectively. ADT is commonly used to treat men with prostate cancer. Much of the use of ADT is in men with low- and intermediate-risk disease characteristics. The appropriateness of such therapy requires further study, including its effect, not only on disease endpoints, but also on resource utilization and health-related quality of life.