OBJECTIVE: Androgen receptor inhibitors (ARIs) have become an effective treatment for advanced prostate cancer (PC). However, it is unknown which ARI is the most helpful and safe for men with advanced PC. Our aim is to help physicians make clinical decisions and provide medication guidelines for patients with advanced PC to avoid potential risks when using ARIs for treatment.
METHODS: We systematically searched the following databases: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library, with a literature publication deadline of February 2023. The primary efficacy outcomes were 18-month overall survival (OS), treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), hypertension and fatigue. The network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed by Stata 15.1, and Revman 5.3 was used to assess the included studies\' risk of bias.
RESULTS: The analysis included 26 trials with 26 263 people. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) concluded that enzalutamide (86.8%) showed the best effect in prolonging the OS of patients. Flutamide led to the highest risk of TEAEs (29.9%) and AEs leading to discontinuation (12.8%). Apalutamide (13.4%) led to the highest risk of grade ≥3 TEAEs. Enzalutamide had the highest risk of hypertension (0.2%), grade ≥3 hypertension (4.5%) and fatigue (5.2%).
CONCLUSIONS: This NMA indicates there is no one ARI to reach both the most effective and safe therapy aims for treating advanced PC and that there is a compromise between the efficacy and safety of ARIs in the treatment of advanced PC. Physicians should weigh the risks to safety against the anticipated benefits when prescribing these drugs to patients with PC.

There is controversy regarding the most effective primary treatment of choice for prostate cancer (PCa) in terms of patient outcomes, such as surgery or radiotherapy (RT). This study evaluated the comparative efficacy and long-term outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) and RT for PCa treatment. A thorough literature review of relevant databases was conducted, focusing on academic and clinical studies published from 2019 onwards. The inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other observational studies comparing survival outcomes in patients treated with surgery and RT. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines to provide an overview of the data. We selected 19 studies based on the inclusion criteria. Of the total 19 studies, 12 advocated RP as the preferred treatment to improve survival outcomes in patients with PCa. The results of our synthesis showed that prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) was lower in patients treated with RT. The total effect size for the analysis was calculated as Z=1.19 (p-value=0.23). The heterogeneity in the studies was as follows: Tau2=0.09, Chi2=20.25, df=4, I2=80%. Moreover, overall survival (OS) was shown to be higher in patients who underwent prostatectomy. The combined effect for the analysis was found to be: HR=0.97 (0.93, 1.01). The total effect was calculated as Z=1.33 (p-value= 0.18). The heterogeneity was found to be Tau2=0.00, Chi2=1.33, df=2, and I2=0%. However, overall mortality (OM) was shown to be independent of the treatment modality. RT is the preferred strategy for PCa treatment, as it balances efficacy and long-term outcomes. Clinical decision-making should consider individual patient characteristics and future research should delve into specific subpopulations and long-term outcomes to further refine the treatment guidelines.

Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist (LHRH-A), goserelin, and antagonist, degarelix, are both indicated for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer (PCa); however, large comparative trials evaluating their efficacy and safety are lacking. In this review, we assessed the available evidence for both the drugs. Although degarelix achieves an early rapid decline in testosterone (T) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, median T and PSA levels, in addition to prostate volume and International Prostate Symptom Scores, become comparable with goserelin over the remaining treatment period. Degarelix causes no initial flare, therefore it is recommended in patients with spinal metastases or ureteric obstruction. Goserelin achieves lower PSA, improved time to progression, and better survival outcomes when administered adjunctively to radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone, with significant results even over long-term follow-up. The evidence supporting adjuvant degarelix use is limited. Goserelin has better injection site safety, single-step delivery, and an efficient administration schedule compared with degarelix, which has significantly higher injection site reactions and less efficient administration mechanism. There is conflicting evidence about the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and caution is required when using LHRH-A in patients with preexisting CVD. There is considerable long-term evidence for goserelin in patients with advanced PCa, with degarelix being a more recent option. The available comparative evidence of goserelin versus degarelix has several inherent limitations related to study design, sample size, conduct, and statistical analyses, and hence warrants robust prospective trials and long-term follow-up.

Androgen receptor signaling primarily influences both the normal growth and proliferation of the prostate gland and the development of prostatic carcinoma. While localized prostate cancers are typically managed with definitive therapies like surgery and radiotherapy, many patients have recurrences in the form of metastatic disease. Androgen deprivation therapy, by way of castration via orchiectomy or with drugs like luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (commonly called gonadotropin-releasing hormone) agonists and luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone antagonists, is the primary mode of therapy for advanced castration-sensitive prostate cancer. Castration resistance invariably develops in these patients. Further treatment has shifted to newer anti-androgen drugs like enzalutamide or abiraterone and taxane-based chemotherapy. Prolonged inhibition of the androgen receptor signaling pathway causes androgen receptor-independent clonal evolution which leads to the development of treatment-emergent neuroendocrine prostate cancer. All prostate cancers at the initial presentation should undergo evaluation for the markers of neuroendocrine differentiation. Detection of serum biomarkers of neuroendocrine differentiation and circulating tumor cells is a prospective non-invasive method of detecting neuroendocrine transdifferentiation in patients undergoing treatment with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors. It is essential to perform a biopsy in the presence of red flags of neuroendocrine differentiation. Alisertib, an Aurora kinase inhibitor, showed promising clinical benefit in a subgroup of patients with certain molecular alterations. A thorough understanding of the molecular and clinical programming of treatment-emergent neuroendocrine prostate cancer can potentially lead to the development of drugs to prevent the development of this lethal variant of prostate cancer.

Bone health impairment is a frequent detrimental consequence of the high bone tropism of prostate cancer (PCa) cells. It is further worsened by administration of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), the current standard of care in the management of advanced PCa, through a rapid and dramatic increase in bone turnover and body mass changes. As a result, patients may experience substantial pain and poor quality of life (QoL) and have an increased risk of death. Notwithstanding the importance of this issue, however, bone health preservation is not yet a widespread clinical goal in daily practice.To address this urgent unmet need, following a thorough discussion of available data and sharing of their clinical practice experience, a panel of Italian experts in the field of bone health and metabolism formulated a number of practical advices for optimising the monitoring and treatment of bone health in men undergoing ADT during all phases of the disease. The rationale behind the venture was to raise awareness on the importance of bone preservation in this complex setting, while providing an instrument to support physicians and facilitate the management of bone health.Current evidence regarding the effects on bone health of ADT, of novel hormone therapies (which improve progression delay, pain control and QoL while consistently carrying the risk of non-pathological fractures in both non-metastatic and metastatic PCa) and of bone turnover inhibitors (whose use is frequently suboptimal) is reviewed. Finally, the expert opinion to optimise bone health preservation is given.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of \"soft\" endpoints such as health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is increasingly relevant when evaluating the optimal treatment sequence of novel therapeutic options in patients with advanced prostate cancer (PCa).
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review contemporary data regarding HRQOL outcomes in patients with advanced PCa.
METHODS: A systematic review of the literature published between January 2011 and March 2019 was performed using the PubMed/Medline Database. In total, 873 articles were screened, and 14 articles including 12 661 patients were selected for synthesis and included in the current analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) and European Association of Urology recommendations.
RESULTS: Regarding HRQOL assessment, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire was used in 11 of 14 studies, the European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire in six of 14 studies, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) in two of 14, and its prostate-specific amendment QLQ-PR25 was used in one of 14 studies. Three studies included patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate PCa, and found beneficial HRQOL effects for abiraterone acetate and docetaxel compared with standard androgen deprivation therapy. Two studies included patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant PCa, and positive HRQOL effects for enzalutamide and apalutamide were observed. Nine studies focused on patients with metastatic castration-resistant PCa. Hereby, beneficial HRQOL outcomes were described for enzalutamide, abiraterone acetate, and radium-223. Evidence synthesis was mostly based on studies with a low risk of bias based on standardized risk of bias assessment. Limitations include hampered comparability between different validated questionnaires, lack of baseline values, and unclear impact of supportive care on HRQOL outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: There is strong evidence from several phase III trials supporting a beneficial effect of current systemic treatment options on HRQOL outcomes in patients with advanced PCa compared with standard androgen deprivation therapy.
RESULTS: In this systematic review, we provide an overview of contemporary data from large clinical trials on the effect of current treatment strategies on patients\' health-related quality of life (HRQOL). We summarize the assessment tools that have been used to measure HRQOL and show that there are robust data for positive HRQOL effects of numerous agents in different clinical stages of advanced prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Estramustine is an stable estradiol and nitrogenated mustard conjugatewith antymicotic properties. Currently, with the appearance of chemotherapy and new molecules, estramustin acetate is not a drug of choice for castration resistant prostate cancer.
METHODS: We describe two patients with castration resistant prostate cancer under treatment with estramustine acetate and complete biochemical response and stable disease. We review the literature to elucidate if the drug should be stopped and changed for the new molecules that have demonstrated survival increase.
RESULTS: To our knowledge, there are not data in the literature to either solve the questions posed or shed light regarding cumulative toxicity due to prolongued use of estramustine acetate.
CONCLUSIONS: We recognize that these clinical cases do not translate that estramustine acetate is a first line treatment for patients with CRPC. Nevertheless, they translate the heterogeneity of CRPC. It would be interesting to investigate the combination of new agents with estramustine acetate as well as the search of biomarkers that enable selection of candidates who could respond to estramustine acetate.
UNASSIGNED: La estramustina es un conjugado estable de estradiol y una mostaza nitrogenada que tiene propiedades antimitóticas. Actualmente, con la aparición de la quimioterpia y las nuevas moléculas, el acetato de estramustina -no es un fármaco de elección en el cáncer de próstata resistente a castración.MÉTODO: Describimos dos pacientes con cáncer de próstata resistente a la castración en tratamiento con acetato de estramustina, y con una respuesta bioquímica completa y enfermedad estable. Revisamos la literatura para dilucidar si se debería retirar el acetato de estramustina y cambiar por las nuevas moléculas que han demostrado un aumento de supervivencia.
UNASSIGNED: Hasta donde llega nuestro conocimiento, no hay datos en la literatura que resuelvan las dudas planteadas y tampoco que aporten luz en cuanto a la toxicidad acumulada por el uso prolongado del acetato de estramustina.CONCLUSIÓN: Somos conscientes de que estos casos clínicos no traducen que el acetato de estramustina sea un tratamiento de primera línea para los pacientes con cáncer de próstata resistente a la castración. Sin embargo, traducen la heterogeneidad del CPRC. Sería interesante investigar la combinación de los nuevos agentes con el acetato de estramustina así como la búsqueda de biomarcadores que permitan la selección de los candidatos que podrían responder al acetato de estramustina.

BACKGROUND: The role of radical prostatectomy (RP) is still controversial for locally advanced prostate cancer (PC). Radiotherapy (RT) and hormonal therapy (HT) are usually used as a primary treatment.
METHODS: A systematic online search was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Eligible publications reporting the overall survival (OS) and/or disease-specific survival (DSS) were included. A total of 14 studies, including 17,869 patients, were considered for analysis. The impact of therapeutic modalities on survival was assessed, with a risk of bias assessment according to the Newcastle Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS: For RP, RT, and HT, the mean 10-year OS was 70.7% (95% CI 61.3-80.2), 65.8% (95% CI 48.1-83.3), and 22.6% (95% CI 4.9-40.3; p = 0.001), respectively. The corresponding 10-year DSS was 84.1% (95% CI 75.1-93.2), 89.4% (95% CI 70.1-108.6), and 50.4% (95% CI 31.2-69.6; p = 0.0127), respectively. Among all treatment combinations, RP displayed significant improvement in OS when included in the treatment (Z = 4.01; p < 0.001). Adjuvant RT significantly improved DSS (Z = 2.7; p = 0.007). Combination of RT and HT favored better OS in comparison to monotherapy with RT or HT (Z = 3.61; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Improved outcomes in advanced PC were detected for RP plus adjuvant RT vs. RP alone and RT plus adjuvant HT vs. RT alone with comparable survival results between both regimens. RP with adjuvant RT may present the modality of choice when HT is contraindicated.