BACKGROUND: We previously reported that for men undergoing combined androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer, substitution of LHRH-agonists with 5-α- reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) led to improved preservation of 6-month hormonal quality of life (hQOL). With longer term follow-up, we evaluated disease control.
METHODS: In this non-randomized trial, men with unfavorable intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer, aged ≥70 years or with Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2, were treated with RT (78-79.2 Gy in 39-44 fractions) and either oral ADT (oADT; 5-ARI with antiandrogen) or standard of care ADT (SOC; leuprolide with antiandrogen) for up to 28 months. The primary endpoint was EPIC hQOL; secondary endpoints included biochemical control and survival as well as changes in cholesterol and hemoglobin levels.
RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2018, 70 men were enrolled (40 in oADT; 30 in SOC). Median follow-up was 65 months [IQR 36-94]. Five-year freedom from biochemical failure for oADT and SOC was 89% versus 86%, disease free survival was 62% versus 69%, cancer-specific survival was 100% versus 96%, and overall survival was 70% versus 81% (all P>.1). Testosterone (2 mo through 3 yr) and hemoglobin levels (2 mo through 2 yr) were higher, and cholesterol levels (1 yr) were lower in the oADT groups (all P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: In this non-randomized study, men treated with combined RT and oADT had better preservation of hQOL and comparable 5-year disease outcomes to men treated with SOC. Eugonadal testosterone with this approach may yield measurable benefits in cholesterol and hemoglobin levels.

UNASSIGNED: The current treatment strategy for metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer (mHSPC) is the combination of Androgen Receptor Signaling Inhibitors (ARSIs) medicines with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). However, there is a lack of real-world data comparing the efficacy of different ARSI pharmaceuticals. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of bicalutamide, abiraterone, enzalutamide, and apalutamide in combination with ADT for patients with mHSPC.
UNASSIGNED: We retrospectively analyzed 82 patients diagnosed with mHSPC, including 18 patients treated with abiraterone acetate with prednisone, 21 patients with enzalutamide, 20 patients with apalutamide, and 23 patients with bicalutamide. We evaluated PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), imaging progression-free survival (r PFS), castration resistance progression-free survival (CRPC-PFS), and overall survival (OS) using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. Additionally, we explored relevant factors affecting prognosis through univariate and multivariate Cox risk-proportionality models. PSA response rates at 3, 6, and 12 months, nadir PSA levels (nPSA), and time to nadir (TTN) in different medication subgroups after treatment were documented, and we used one-way ANOVA to determine the effect of these measures on patient prognosis.
UNASSIGNED: In comparison with bicalutamide, both enzalutamide and apalutamide have shown significant advantages in delaying disease progression among mHSPC patients. Specifically, enzalutamide has been found to significantly prolong PSA-PFS (HR 2.244; 95% CI 1.366-3.685, p=0.001), rPFS (HR 2.539; 95% CI 1.181-5.461; p= 0.007), CRPC-PFS (HR 2.131; 95% CI 1.295-3.506; p= 0.003), and OS (HR 2.06; 95% CI 1.183-3.585; P=0.005). Similarly, apalutamide has significantly extended PSA-PFS (HR 5.071; 95% CI 1.711-15.032; P= 0.003) and CRPC-PFS (HR 6.724; 95% CI 1.976-22.878; P=0.002) among patients. On the other hand, the use of abiraterone in combination with ADT did not demonstrate a significant advantage in delaying diseases progression when compared with the other three agents in mHSPC patients. There were no significant differences in overall adverse event rates among the four pharmaceuticals in terms of safety. Additionally, the observation of PSA kinetics revealed that enzalutamide, apalutamide, and abiraterone acetate had a significant advantage in achieving deep PSA response (PSA ≤ 0.2 ng/ml) compared with bicalutamide (p=0.007 at 12 months). Enzalutamide and apalutamide exhibited preeminence efficacy, with no substantial difference observed between the two medications.
UNASSIGNED: Abiraterone, enzalutamide, and apalutamide were found to significantly reduce and stabilize PSA levels in mHSPC patients more quickly and thoroughly than bicalutamide. Furthermore, enzalutamide and apalutamide were found to significantly prolong survival and delay disease progression in mHSPC patients compared with bicalutamide. It should be noted that abiraterone did not demonstrate a significant advantage in delaying disease compared with enzalutamide and apalutamide. After conducting drug toxicity analyses, it was determined that there were no significant differences among the four drugs.

Purpose: Following radical prostatectomy, prostate bed radiotherapy (PBRT) has been combined with either long-term androgen deprivation therapy (LT-ADT) or short-term ADT with pelvic lymph node radiotherapy (PLNRT) to provide an oncological benefit in randomized trials. McGill 0913 was designed to characterize the efficacy of combining PBRT, PLNRT, and LT-ADT. It is the first study to do so prospectively. Methods: In a single arm phase II trial conduced from 2010 to 2016, 46 post-prostatectomy prostate cancer patients at a high-risk for relapse (pathological Gleason 8+ or T3) were assessed for treatment with combined LT-ADT (24 months), PBRT, and PLNRT. Patients received PLNRT and PBRT (44 Gy in 22 fractions) followed by a PBRT boost (22 Gy in 11 fractions). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Toxicity and quality of life (QoL) were evaluated using CTCAE V3.0 and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires, respectively. Results: Among the 43 patients were treated as per protocol, median PSA was 0.30 μg/L. On surgical pathology, 51% had positive margins, 40% had Gleason 8+ disease, 42% had seminal vesicle involvement, and 19% had lymph node involvement. At a median follow-up of 5.2 years, there were no deaths or clinical progression. At 5 years, PFS was 78.0% (95% Confidence Interval 63.7-95.5%). Not including erectile dysfunction, patients experienced: 14% grade 2 endocrine toxicity while on ADT, one incident of long-term gynecomastia, 5% grade 2 acute urinary toxicity, 5% grade 2 late Urinary toxicity, and 24% long-term hypogonadism. No comparison between the average or minimum self-reported QoL at baseline, during ADT, nor after ADT demonstrated a statistically significant difference. Conclusions: Combining PBRT, PLNRT, and LT-ADT had an acceptable PFS in patients with significant post-operative risk factors for recurrence. While therapy was well-tolerated, long-term hypogonadism was a substantial risk. Further investigations are needed to determine if this combination is beneficial. Trial registration: NCT01255891.

Strategies to improve bone health care in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) are not consistently implemented. The authors conducted a phase 2 randomized controlled trial of 2 education-based models-of-care interventions to determine their feasibility and ability to improve bone health care.
A single-center parallel-group randomized controlled trial of men with prostate cancer who were receiving ADT was performed. Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to 1) a patient bone health pamphlet and brief recommendations for their family physician (BHP+FP); 2) a BHP and support from a bone health care coordinator (BHP+BHCC); or 3) usual care. The primary efficacy outcome was receipt of a bone mineral density (BMD) test within 6 months. Secondary efficacy outcomes included guideline-appropriate calcium and vitamin D use and bisphosphonate prescriptions for men at high fracture risk. Feasibility endpoints included recruitment, retention, satisfaction, contamination, and outcome capture. The main analysis used logistic regression with a 1-sided P of .10. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT02043236).
A total of 119 men were recruited. The BHP+BHCC strategy was associated with a greater percentage of men undergoing a BMD test compared with the usual-care group (78% vs 36%; P<.001). BMD ordering also was found to be increased with the BHP+FP strategy (58% vs 36%; P = .047). Both strategies were associated with higher percentages of patients using calcium and vitamin D, but only the BHP+FP arm was statistically significant (P = .039). No men were detected to be at high fracture risk. All but one feasibility endpoint was met.
Educational strategies to improve bone health care appear feasible and are associated with improved BMD ordering in men receiving ADT. Cancer 2018;124:1132-40. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

BACKGROUND: Bicalutamide blocks androgen action and is frequently used in men with non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). By reducing intracellular dihydrotestosterone, dutasteride (dual 5-alpha reductase inhibitor) could increase the effectiveness of bicalutamide in this setting. The objective of the study is therefore to prospectively evaluate dutasteride plus bicalutamide in men with asymptomatic, non-metastatic CRPC with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA).
METHODS: Prostate cancer patients with rising PSA whilst on first-line androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were randomised (1:1) in a double-blind trial to receive bicalutamide 50mg plus placebo or bicalutamide 50mg plus dutasteride 3.5mg once daily for 18 months. Randomisation was stratified by centre; treatment assignments were generated using GlaxoSmithKline\'s RandAll System. Subjects who completed 18 months could participate in the 2-year extension. Central laboratory and study sites/monitors remained treatment-blinded. Primary end-point was time to disease progression (TDP) up to 42 months (defined as PSA progression from baseline or nadir, radiographic disease progression, death from prostate cancer or receipt of rescue medication).
RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in TDP in 127 men treated with bicalutamide/dutasteride (n=62) compared with bicalutamide/placebo (n=65) (hazard ratio (HR)=0.94 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61, 1.46]; p=0.79). The estimated median TDP was 425 days (95% CI 302, 858) in the bicalutamide/placebo group and 623 days (95% CI 369, 730) in the bicalutamide/dutasteride group. There was no statistically significant difference between the treatment groups for any secondary efficacy end-points, including time to treatment failure or PSA response. In the multivariate analysis, age, non-White race, higher baseline testosterone and lower baseline PSA were associated with longer TDP. Adverse events were comparable between treatment groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In men with non-metastatic CRPC, adding dutasteride to bicalutamide did not significantly prolong TDP. Prospective data are provided concerning the common practice of using bicalutamide in this setting.