Linder, Brian J

ABSTRACTIntroductionAndrogen deprivation therapy (ADT) is commonly utilized in the management of both localized and advanced adenocarcinoma of the prostate. The use of ADT is associated with several adverse events, physical changes, and development of medical comorbidities/mortality.AimThe current article reviews known adverse events associated with ADT as well as treatment options, where available. Current recommendations and guidelines are cited for ongoing monitoring of patients receiving ADT.MethodsA PubMed search of topics relating to ADT and adverse outcomes was performed, with select articles highlighted and reviewed based on level of evidence and overall contribution.Main Outcome MeasuresReported outcomes of studies detailing adverse effects of ADT were reviewed and discussed. Where available, randomized trials and meta-analyses were reported.ResultsADT may result in several adverse events including decreased libido, erectile dysfunction, vasomotor symptoms, cognitive, psychological and quality of life impairments, weight gain, sarcopenia, increased adiposity, gynecomastia, reduced penile/testicular size, hair changes, periodontal disease, osteoporosis, increased fracture risk, diabetes and insulin resistance, hyperlipidemia, and anemia. The definitive impact of ADT on lipid profiles, cardiovascular morbidity/mortality, and all-cause mortality is currently unknown with available data. Treatment options to reduce ADT-related adverse events include changing to an intermittent treatment schedule, biophysical therapy, counseling, and pharmacotherapy.ConclusionsPatients treated with ADT are at increased risk of several adverse events and should be routinely monitored for the development of potentially significant morbidity/mortality. Where appropriate, physicians should reduce known risk factors and counsel patients as to known risks and benefits of therapy.

ObjectivesTo examine the ability of standard and saturation transrectal prostate biopsy techniques to predict appropriate candidates for active surveillance.MethodsBetween 2005 and 2007, 500 consecutive patients underwent transrectal ultrasound‐guided biopsy by a standard template (12 cores) or saturation template (≥18 cores, median 27 cores), with subsequent radical prostatectomy. Using the criteria of Gleason score ≤6, clinical stage T1 or T2a, prostate‐specific antigen <10 and ≤33% of cores involved, 218 patients were potential candidates for active surveillance. Pathology results from the prostatectomy specimens were used to determine the accuracy of each biopsy technique. Biochemical failure after prostatectomy was evaluated using logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression.ResultsA standard biopsy was carried out for 124 patients and saturation biopsy for 94 patients. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of median age (P = 0.14), preoperative prostate‐specific antigen (P = 0.52) and clinical stage (P = 0.23). Similar rates of Gleason score ≥7 at the time of radical prostatectomy were found, with 14% for standard biopsy and 15% for saturation biopsy (P = 0.70). Upstaging was shown in two standard biopsy patients (1.6%) and no saturation biopsy patients (P = 0.62). A multivariate analysis adjusting for prior prostate biopsy, preoperative prostate‐specific antigen and clinical stage showed no difference in the rate of upgrading based on biopsy technique (P = 0.26). During follow up, 5‐year biochemical failure‐free survival estimates were not significantly different (P = 0.11).ConclusionsIn men with prostate cancer, standard and saturation transrectal prostate biopsies techniques are equally predictive of candidates for active surveillance.

BackgroundTo evaluate the impact of adjuvant hormonal therapy after radical prostatectomy on overall survival in high‐risk prostate cancer patients, stratified by comorbidity status.MethodsWe identified 1247 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy from 1988 to 2004 for high‐risk prostate cancer, as defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network classification. Comorbidity status was stratified by Charlson Comorbidity Index as 0, 1 or >2, as well as by the presence or absence of cardiovascular disease. Overall survival was estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method, and compared within each comorbidity category/adjuvant hormonal therapy strata with the log–rank test.ResultsMedian patient age was 65 years, and the median postoperative follow up was 11.2 years. In total, 419 patients (34%) received adjuvant hormonal therapy. The distribution of Charlson Comorbidity Index was 0, 1 and ≥2 in 861 (69%), 244 (20%) and 142 (11%) patients, respectively. The 10‐year overall survival for patients who received adjuvant hormonal therapy versus those who did not was 75% versus 82% (P = 0.54) for patients with Charlson Comorbidity Index = 0, 72% versus 76% (P = 0.83) with Charlson Comorbidity Index = 1, and 70% versus 68% (P = 0.33) with Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2. Meanwhile, 155 (12%) patients had cardiovascular disease, and the 10‐year overall survival for patients with cardiovascular disease who received adjuvant hormonal therapy was 72%, compared with 76% without adjuvant hormonal therapy (P = 0.97). On multivariate analysis, receipt of adjuvant hormonal therapy was not associated with non‐prostate cancer mortality (P = 0.24).ConclusionsAdjuvant hormonal therapy after radical prostatectomy for high‐risk prostate cancer does not increase non‐prostate cancer mortality, even among patients with multiple comorbidities. Additional studies are warranted to determine optimal multimodal treatment approach for high‐risk patients.