Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been used in the management of prostate cancer for more than four decades. Initially, hormone therapy was given largely for palliation of symptomatic metastases. Following several randomized trials of patients with intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer that demonstrated improvements in biochemical control and survival with the addition of ADT to external beam radiotherapy, there was a dramatic increase in the use of hormone therapy in the definitive setting. More recently, the safety of ADT has been questioned, as some studies have suggested an association of hormone therapy with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. This is particularly worrisome in light of practice patterns that show ADT use extrapolated to situations for which there has been no proven benefit. In the setting of dose escalation with modern radiotherapy, in conjunction with the latest concerns about cardiovascular morbidity with ADT, the magnitude of expected benefit along with potential risks of ADT use must be carefully considered for each patient.
There is mounting evidence that androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer carries significant health risks. General awareness of the unpleasant but typically tolerable side effects of androgen suppression is not lacking. Recent studies, however, have reported clinically significant cardiovascular morbidity and increased mortality, calling into question the safety of androgen suppression. In the mid-1990s there was a precipitous rise in the use of ADT in the face of emerging data indicating improved disease control, as well as preliminary results of a randomized trial that demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit with ADT. What followed was a dramatic expansion in the role of hormone therapy—from primarily palliation of symptomatic metastases, to a component of definitive treatment. It is estimated that more than 600,000 men in the United States receive ADT. A recent report on practice patterns suggested that almost 70% of hormone therapy is prescribed to patients for whom there is no proven benefit.
The role of androgen suppression in the primary treatment of prostate cancer is most clear for locally advanced disease. Patients with high-risk features (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] > 20 ng/mL, Gleason score ≥ 8, T3–4) are typically treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with ADT, radical prostatectomy, or prostate seed implant plus supplemental EBRT with or without ADT (Figure 1). It has now been more than 20 years since the standard use of ADT for locally advanced disease was first established. Given the latest concerns regarding hormone therapy, its overall effect on survival must be scrutinized. This review will re-examine the impact of ADT on survival as well as the available evidence in the context of issues that have come to light in the last two decades.
Modalities and Mechanism of Action
The Nobel Prize in medicine was awarded to Charles Huggins in 1966 for his discoveries regarding the androgen dependence of prostate cancer. Dr. Huggins’ work demonstrated that orchiectomy led to clinical improvement in patients with metastatic disease and, conversely, that androgen injections caused worsening of symptoms. Androgens promote the growth of both benign glandular epithelial cells and malignant cells in the prostate. Depriving cancer cells of their stimulant causes regression that can be translated into symptomatic control in metastatic disease and possible improvement in cure rates in the definitive-treatment setting. After prolonged hormone therapy, prostate cancer can develop independence from androgens and become refractory to ADT.
Orchiectomy as the primary means of ADT has largely been replaced with pharmacologic agents because of both their reversibility and data from 10 randomized trials and meta-analysis showing equivalence to surgical castration. Leuprolide and goserelin— gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, are the two most commonly used drugs. Under normal conditions, GnRH is released by the hypothalamus in a pulsatile fashion, stimulating the pituitary to secrete leutinizing hormone, which, in turn, promotes testosterone production in the testes. Over time, GnRH agonists induce downregulation of its receptors in the pituitary, thus leading to castrate levels of testosterone. Combined androgen blockade can be achieved by adding anti-androgens—bicalutamide or flutamide, which act directly at the prostate gland and decrease the adrenal contribution of androgens. In conjunction with radiotherapy, ADT is thought to reduce disease burden and therefore augment cell kill and improve tumor control. Androgen suppression has also been shown to promote apoptosis[6,7] and decrease hypoxia, thereby producing a synergistic effect with concurrent ionizing radiation. In vivo experiments have also shown induction of an immune response. Systemically, ADT may serve to eliminate micrometastases. The biologic mechanism of androgen deprivation in combination with radiotherapy and their interactions have not been fully elucidated. Further clarity is expected with ongoing investigations.
Although there are clear advantages to the reversibility of drugs and dampened psycho-physical insult compared with orchiectomy, the development of pharmacologic therapies with its financial incentives and ease of use has led to cavalier and inappropriate application, as evidenced by the millions of men who have received androgen suppression for nonproven indications.[10,11] In Medicare patients alone, more than $1 billion was spent on GnRH agonists in 2001, leading to a federal act instituted in 2004 that cut reimbursement such that, by 2005, reimbursement for GnRH agonists had decreased 40% to 50% compared with that in 2003. Notably, from 2004 to 2005, coinciding with the year following the mandate to reduce reimbursement, there was a decline in the use of GnRH agonists and a corresponding increase in surgical castration, although not of equal magnitude. One can hope that this imbalance is a result of more judicious ADT use and not a consequence of withholding proper treatment in the face of diminishing financial returns.
Androgen Deprivation Therapy and External Beam Radiotherapy
Numerous phase III randomized trials have been completed investigating the role of ADT with EBRT in high-risk patients (Table 1). Three trials demonstrated an OS benefit and all studies found an improvement in prostate cancer mortality—these trials form the basis for the current standard use of ADT in the high-risk setting. One of the landmark studies was a European collaborative trial that randomized 415 patients with high-grade and/or T3–4 prostate cancer to EBRT alone or EBRT plus concurrent and adjuvant ADT for 3 years. At 5 years, there was a 26% statistically significant OS benefit in patients who received hormone therapy. Recent key updates of two Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) studies provided 10-year outcomes that remarkably also showed improvement in OS of 26%.[14,15] Given that it has been 10–20 years since the inception of these trials, it is important to note the changes in practice over this period in order to appropriately apply these data to current times. First, with the exception of one trial, these studies primarily used clinical staging as eligibility criteria and represent a more locally advanced group than what is commonly diagnosed today as high-risk. For example, in the EORTC trial, 91% of patients had T3–T4 tumors and 33% had PSA > 40ng/mL; currently this currently this is not a typical presentation. A more common high-risk patient in the modern era is one with a moderately elevated PSA, normal digital rectal exam, and Gleason score of 8; such a patient was in the minority of historic trials. In the setting of gross tumor and higher disease burden seen in earlier studies, ADT likely played a more critical role as EBRT alone at conventional doses was likely to be insufficient.
The second major change in the landscape of prostate cancer is that in recent years, a number of dose escalation trials have shown improvement in biochemical control rates with radiation doses greater than 70 Gy,[17-20] and as a result, the doses of 65–70 Gy utilized in all of the ADT trials are considered inadequate by today’s standards. Therefore, there is debate regarding the role of androgen suppression with higher doses of radiation, and the question arises as to whether ADT was simply compensating for inadequate dose. Retrospective data have suggested that the benefit of an escalated dose is greater than that from addition of ADT to conventional doses, suggesting that ADT cannot replace dose escalation. To date, however, there has been no survival benefit shown with dose escalation, so one can argue that even with increasing radiation doses, ADT may still confer an additional benefit in highly selected patients. This question remains to be answered in a randomized trial.
1. Bolla M, Gonzalez D, Warde P, et al: Improved survival in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy and goserelin. N Engl J Med 337:295-300, 1997.
2. Smith MR: Androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: New concepts and concerns. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 14:247-254, 2007.
3. Shahinian VB, Kuo YF, Freeman JL, et al: Characteristics of urologists predict the use of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:5359-5365, 2007.
4. Huggins C, Hodges CV: Studies on prostatic cancer. I. The effect of castration, of estrogen and androgen injection on serum phosphatases in metastatic carcinoma of the prostate. CA Cancer J Clin 22:232-240, 1972.
5. Seidenfeld J, Samson DJ, Hasselblad V, et al: Single-therapy androgen suppression in men with advanced prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 132:566-577, 2000.
6. Kyprianou N, English HF, Isaacs JT: Programmed cell death during regression of PC-82 human prostate cancer following androgen ablation. Cancer Res 50:3748-3753, 1990.
7. Joon DL, Hasegawa M, Sikes CI, et al: Supraadditive apoptotic response of R3327-G rat prostate tumors to androgen ablation and radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 38:1071-1077, 1997.
8. Nakashima J, Imai Y, Tachibana M, et al: Effects of endocrine therapy on the primary lesion in patients with prostate carcinoma as evaluated by endorectal magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 80:237-241, 1997.
9. Mercader M, Bodner BK, Moser MT, et al: T cell infiltration of the prostate induced by androgen withdrawal in patients with prostate cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:14565-14570, 2001.
10. Cooperberg MR, Grossfeld GD, Lubeck DP, et al: National practice patterns and time trends in androgen ablation for localized prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 95:981-989, 2003.
11. Shahinian VB, Kuo YF, Freeman JL, et al: Increasing use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists for the treatment of localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 103:1615-1624, 2005.
12. Weight CJ, Klein EA, Jones JS: Androgen deprivation falls as orchiectomy rates rise after changes in reimbursement in the U.S. Medicare population. Cancer 112:2195-2201, 2008.
13. Bolla M, Collette L, Blank L, et al: Long-term results with immediate androgen suppression and external irradiation in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (an EORTC study): A phase III randomised trial. Lancet 360:103-106, 2002.
14. Pilepich MV, Winter K, Lawton CA, et al: Androgen suppression adjuvant to definitive radiotherapy in prostate carcinoma--long-term results of phase III RTOG 85-31. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61:1285-1290, 2005.
15. Roach M, 3rd, Bae K, Speight J, et al: Short-term neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy and external-beam radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: Long-term results of RTOG 8610. J Clin Oncol 26:585-591, 2008.
16. D’Amico AV, Chen MH, Renshaw AA, et al: Androgen suppression and radiation vs radiation alone for prostate cancer: A randomized trial. JAMA 299:289-295, 2008.
17. Dearnaley DP, Sydes MR, Graham JD, et al: Escalated-dose versus standard-dose conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer: First results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 8:475-487, 2007.
18. Kuban DA, Tucker SL, Dong L, et al: Long-term results of the M. D. Anderson randomized dose-escalation trial for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70:67-74, 2008.
19. Peeters ST, Heemsbergen WD, Koper PC, et al: Dose-response in radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: Results of the Dutch multicenter randomized phase III trial comparing 68 Gy of radiotherapy with 78 Gy. J Clin Oncol 24:1990-1996, 2006.
20. Zietman AL, DeSilvio ML, Slater JD, et al: Comparison of conventional-dose vs high-dose conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 294:1233-1239, 2005.
21. Nguyen KH, Horwitz EM, Hanlon AL, et al: Does short-term androgen deprivation substitute for radiation dose in the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 57:377-383, 2003.
22. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al: Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280:969-974, 1998.
23. Dattoli M, Wallner K, True L, et al: Long-term outcomes after treatment with brachytherapy and supplemental conformal radiation for prostate cancer patients having intermediate and high-risk features. Cancer 110:551-555, 2007.
24. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE, et al: Androgen deprivation therapy does not impact cause-specific or overall survival in high-risk prostate cancer managed with brachytherapy and supplemental external beam. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 68:34-40, 2007.
25. Stock RG, Ho A, Cesaretti JA, et al: Changing the patterns of failure for high-risk prostate cancer patients by optimizing local control. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 66:389-394, 2006.
26. Lee LN, Stock RG, Stone NN: Role of hormonal therapy in the management of intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer treated with permanent radioactive seed implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52:444-452, 2002.
27. Stone NN, Potters L, Davis BJ, et al: Multicenter analysis of effect of high biologic effective dose on biochemical failure and survival outcomes in patients with Gleason Score 7-10 prostate cancer treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 73:341-346, 2009.
28. Aus G, Abrahamsson PA, Ahlgren G, et al: Three-month neoadjuvant hormonal therapy before radical prostatectomy: A 7-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. BJU Int 90:561-566, 2002.
29. Meyer F, Moore L, Bairati I, et al: Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy before radical prostatectomy and risk of prostate specific antigen failure. J Urol 162:2024-2028, 1999.
30. Soloway MS, Pareek K, Sharifi R, et al: Neoadjuvant androgen ablation before radical prostatectomy in cT2bNxMo prostate cancer: 5-year results. J Urol 167:112-116, 2002.
31. Schulman CC, Debruyne FM, Forster G, et al: 4-year follow-up results of a European prospective randomized study on neoadjuvant hormonal therapy prior to radical prostatectomy in T2-3N0M0 prostate cancer. European Study Group on Neoadjuvant Treatment of Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol 38:706-713, 2000.
32. Messing EM, Manola J, Yao J, et al Immediate versus deferred androgen deprivation treatment in patients with node-positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Lancet Oncol 7:472-479, 2006.
33. Horwitz EM, Bae K, Hanks GE, et al: Ten-year follow-up of radiation therapy oncology group protocol 92-02: A phase III trial of the duration of elective androgen deprivation in locally advanced prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 26:2497-2504, 2008.
34. Bolla M, de Reijke TM, Van Tienhoven G, et al: Duration of androgen suppression in the treatment of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 360:2516-2527, 2009.
35. Lawton CA, DeSilvio M, Roach M, 3rd, et al: An update of the phase III trial comparing whole pelvic to prostate only radiotherapy and neoadjuvant to adjuvant total androgen suppression: Updated analysis of RTOG 94-13, with emphasis on unexpected hormone/radiation interactions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69:646-655, 2007.
36. Basaria S, Lieb J, 2nd, Tang AM, et al: Long-term effects of androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer patients. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 56:779-786, 2002.
37. Lee H, McGovern K, Finkelstein JS, et al: Changes in bone mineral density and body composition during initial and long-term gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist treatment for prostate carcinoma. Cancer 104:1633-1637, 2005.
38. Berruti A, Dogliotti L, Terrone C, et al: Changes in bone mineral density, lean body mass and fat content as measured by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry in patients with prostate cancer without apparent bone metastases given androgen deprivation therapy. J Urol 167:2361-2367; discussion 2367, 2002.
39. Smith MR, Finkelstein JS, McGovern FJ, et al: Changes in body composition during androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 87:599-603, 2002.
40. Marin P, Holmang S, Jonsson L, et al: The effects of testosterone treatment on body composition and metabolism in middle-aged obese men. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 16:991-997, 1992.
41. Braga-Basaria M, Dobs AS, Muller DC, et al: Metabolic syndrome in men with prostate cancer undergoing long-term androgen-deprivation therapy. J Clin Oncol 24:3979-3983, 2006.
42. Basaria S, Muller DC, Carducci MA, et al: Hyperglycemia and insulin resistance in men with prostate carcinoma who receive androgen-deprivation therapy. Cancer 106:581-588, 2006.
43. Nishiyama T, Ishizaki F, Anraku T, et al: The influence of androgen deprivation therapy on metabolism in patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 90:657-660, 2005.
44. Dockery F, Bulpitt CJ, Agarwal S, et al: Testosterone suppression in men with prostate cancer leads to an increase in arterial stiffness and hyperinsulinaemia. Clin Sci (Lond) 104:195-201, 2003.
45. Smith MR, Lee H, Nathan DM: Insulin sensitivity during combined androgen blockade for prostate cancer. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 91:1305-1308, 2006.
46. Isomaa B, Almgren P, Tuomi T, et al: Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality associated with the metabolic syndrome. Diabetes Care 24:683-689, 2001.
47. Keating NL, O’Malley AJ, Smith MR: Diabetes and cardiovascular disease during androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:4448-4456, 2006.
48. Alibhai SM, Duong-Hua M, Sutradhar R, et al: Impact of androgen deprivation therapy on cardiovascular disease and diabetes. J Clin Oncol 27:3452-3458, 2009.
49. D’Amico AV, Denham JW, Crook J, et al: Influence of androgen suppression therapy for prostate cancer on the frequency and timing of fatal myocardial infarctions. J Clin Oncol 25:2420-2425, 2007.
50. Tsai HK, D’Amico AV, Sadetsky N, et al: Androgen deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer and the risk of cardiovascular mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 99:1516-1524, 2007.
51. Pickles T, Agranovich A, Berthelet E, et al: Testosterone recovery following prolonged adjuvant androgen ablation for prostate carcinoma. Cancer 94:362-367, 2002.
52. Efstathiou JA, Bae K, Shipley WU, et al: Cardiovascular mortality after androgen deprivation therapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: RTOG 85-31. J Clin Oncol 27:92-99, 2009.
53. Efstathiou JA, Bae K, Shipley WU, et al: Cardiovascular mortality and duration of androgen deprivation for locally advanced prostate cancer: Analysis of RTOG 92-02. Eur Urol 54:816-823, 2008.
54. Daniell HW, Dunn SR, Ferguson DW, et al: Progressive osteoporosis during androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. J Urol 163:181-186, 2000.
55. Diamond T, Campbell J, Bryant C, et al: The effect of combined androgen blockade on bone turnover and bone mineral densities in men treated for prostate carcinoma: Longitudinal evaluation and response to intermittent cyclic etidronate therapy. Cancer 83:1561-1566, 1998.
56. Maillefert JF, Sibilia J, Michel F, et al: Bone mineral density in men treated with synthetic gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists for prostatic carcinoma. J Urol 161:1219-1222, 1999.
57. Shahinian VB, Kuo YF, Freeman JL, et al: Risk of fracture after androgen deprivation for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 352:154-164, 2005.
58. Smith MR, Boyce SP, Moyneur E, et al: Risk of clinical fractures after gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist therapy for prostate cancer. J Urol 175:136-139; discussion 139, 2006.
59. Oefelein MG, Ricchiuti V, Conrad W, et al: Skeletal fractures negatively correlate with overall survival in men with prostate cancer. J Urol 168:1005-1007, 2002.
60. Beyer DC, McKeough T, Thomas T: Impact of short course hormonal therapy on overall and cancer specific survival after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61:1299-1305, 2005.
61. Nanda A, Chen MH, Braccioforte MH, et al: Hormonal therapy use for prostate cancer and mortality in men with coronary artery disease-induced congestive heart failure or myocardial infarction. JAMA 302:866-873, 2009.
62. Bria E, Cuppone F, Giannarelli D, et al: Does hormone treatment added to radiotherapy improve outcome in locally advanced prostate cancer? Meta-analysis of randomized trials. Cancer 115:3446-3456, 2009.
63. Denham JW, Steigler A, Lamb DS, et al: Short-term androgen deprivation and radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: Results from the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 96.01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 6:841-850, 2005.
64. Zwergel U, Suttman H, Schroeder T: Outcome of prostate cancer patients with initial PSA > or = 20 ng/ml undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 52:1058-1065, 2007.