The role of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists in the treatment of patients with advanced hormone-dependent prostate cancer in the UK.

PURPOSE: Comparing gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists and agonists as androgen deprivation therapy for advanced prostate cancer (PC). METHODS: This article stems from a round-table meeting in December 2014 to compare the properties of GnRH agonists and antagonists in the published literature in order to identify the patient groups most likely to benefit from GnRH antagonist therapy. A broad PubMed and congress abstract search was carried out in preparation for the meeting to ensure that the latest data and opinion were available for the discussions. RESULTS: In randomised, controlled trials, GnRH antagonist therapy provides more rapid suppression of luteinising hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone and testosterone than GnRH agonist treatment. Compared with the GnRH agonist, there is evidence of improved disease control by a GnRH antagonist, with longer interval to prostate-specific antigen progression and greater reduction of serum alkaline phosphatase. In a post hoc analysis of six randomised trials, the risk of cardiac events within 1 year of initiating therapy was significantly lower among men receiving GnRH antagonist than agonist. Pre-clinical laboratory data suggest a number of mechanisms whereby GnRH antagonist therapy may benefit men with pre-existing cardiovascular disease (CVD), the most plausible hypothesis being that, unlike GnRH agonists, GnRH antagonists do not activate T lymphocytes, which act to increase atherosclerotic plaque rupture. CONCLUSION: When making treatment decisions, clinicians should consider comorbidities, particularly CVD, in addition to effects on PC. GnRH antagonists may be appropriate in patients with significant CV risk, existing osteopenia, lower urinary tract symptoms and significant metastatic disease

“The only way I know how to live is to work”: a qualitative study of work following treatment for prostate cancer

Objective: For many survivors of prostate cancer, returning to work posttreatment is a realistic goal. However, little research to date has explored work among prostate cancer survivors. The focus of this study was to explore the meaning of work among prostate cancer survivors and to describe the linkages between masculinity and work following prostate cancer treatment. Method: Fifty prostate cancer survivors who were in paid employment prior to their diagnosis completed a semistructured interview following completion of their treatment and of these, 41 also completed a 12-month follow-up interview. Framework analysis of the 91 transcripts was undertaken. Results: The majority of the men had returned to work at the 12-month interview. Four themes were identified, and these were labeled “Work and self-identity,” “Work-related implications of treatment side effects,” “Disclosure of cancer,” and “Perceptions of future as a cancer survivor.” A degree of embarrassment and concern about residual side effects and whether these would present a challenge within the workplace was apparent among our sample and was compounded by a reluctance to disclose these. Conclusions: The descriptions provided by the men in this study reveal that the experience of prostate cancer can lead to challenges for both social and work-related roles. The influence of prostate cancer on men's reports of masculinity was variable, and recognition of these differences is required. In addition, some survivors of prostate cancer may require specific interventions aimed at helping them to manage disclosure of their illness, particularly within a work environment

The requirements of a specialist Prostate Cancer Unit : a discussion paper from the European School of Oncology

The widely recognised benefits of a multidisciplinary approach to treating cancer may be particularly important in prostate cancer, where there are so many treatment options to choose from. It offers patients the best chance of receiving high-quality medical procedures administered by a team of specialists in prostate disease, which is able to tailor treatment and observational strategies to their needs, and ensure access to specialist counselling, supportive care and rehabilitation. This article proposes Prostate Cancer Units as the most suitable structures for organising specialist multidisciplinary care for patients at all stages, from newly diagnosed to advanced disease, including preventing and managing the main complications, whether physical, emotional or psychological, arising from the disease and its treatment. Following the German example with prostate cancer, the British example with urological malignancies and the European breast cancer units, this article proposes general recommendations and mandatory requirements for Prostate Cancer Units, with a view to laying the basis for a network of certified units across Europe. Such a network could help improve standards of care throughout the region, providing patients, practitioners and health authorities with a means of identifying high-quality units and providing a system of quality control and audit. The article is intended as a contribution to the debate within the European uro-oncologic community on the best way to organise prostate cancer care

The requirements of a specialist Prostate Cancer Unit: A discussion paper from the European School of Oncology

The widely recognised benefits of a multidisciplinary approach to treating cancer may be particularly important in prostate cancer, where there are so many treatment options to choose from. It offers patients the best chance of receiving high-quality medical procedures administered by a team of specialists in prostate disease, which is able to tailor treatment and observational strategies to their needs, and ensure access to specialist counselling, supportive care and rehabilitation. This article proposes Prostate Cancer Units as the most suitable structures for organising specialist multidisciplinary care for patients at all stages, from newly diagnosed to advanced disease, including preventing and managing the main complications, whether physical, emotional or psychological, arising from the disease and its treatment. Following the German example with prostate cancer, the British example with urological malignancies and the European breast cancer units, this article proposes general recommendations and mandatory requirements for Prostate Cancer Units, with a view to laying the basis for a network of certified units across Europe. Such a network could help improve standards of care throughout the region, providing patients, practitioners and health authorities with a means of identifying high-quality units and providing a system of quality control and audit. The article is intended as a contribution to the debate within the European uro-oncologic community on the best way to organise prostate cancer care. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Guidance for the assessment and management of prostate cancer treatment-induced bone loss. A consensus position statement from an expert group

Context and objective Incidence of prostate cancer (PC) is increasing, but androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and other therapies are substantially improving survival. In this context, careful consideration of skeletal health is required to reduce the risk of treatment-related fragility fractures and their associated morbidity and mortality. This risk is currently not well-managed. ADT causes significant loss of bone mineral density (BMD). In the metastatic setting, systemic treatments (eg chemotherapy, abiraterone, enzalutamide) are used alongside ADT and may require concomitant glucocorticoids. Both ADT and glucocorticoids pose significant challenges to skeletal health in a population of patients already likely to have ongoing age-related bone loss and/or comorbid conditions. Current PC guidelines lack specific recommendations for optimising bone health. This guidance presents evidence for assessment and management of bone health in this population, with specific recommendations for clinical practitioners in day-to-day PC management. Methods Structured meetings of key opinion leaders were integrated with a systematic literature review. Input and endorsement was sought from patients, nursing representatives and specialist societies. Summary of guidance All men starting or continuing long-term ADT should receive lifestyle advice regarding bone health. Calcium/vitamin D supplementation should be offered if required. Fracture risk should be calculated (using the FRAX® tool), with BMD assessment included where feasible. BMD should always be assessed where fracture risk calculated using FRAX® alone is close to the intervention threshold. Intervention should be provided if indicated by local or national guidelines e.g. UK National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) thresholds. Men requiring bone protection therapy should be further assessed (e.g. renal function), with referral to specialist centres if available and offered appropriate treatment to reduce fracture risk. Those near to, but below an intervention threshold, and patients going on to additional systemic therapies (particularly those requiring glucocorticoids), should have FRAX® (including BMD) repeated after 12-18 months. Patient Summary Modern treatments for prostate cancer have led to significant improvements in survival and quality of life. However, some of these treatments may lead to weakening of patient’s bones with risk of fracture and it is therefore important to monitor patients’ bone health and provide bone protection where needed. This paper provides specific guidance to clinical teams, based on the most recent research evidence, to ensure optimal bone health in their patients