Dataset Information

Association of Second-generation Antiandrogens With Depression Among Patients With Prostate Cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Previous studies have shown a consistent association between hormone therapy (HT), such as androgen deprivation therapy, to treat prostate cancer and depression risk. However, the association between second-generation antiandrogens (AAs) and depression is unknown.

Objective

To test the a priori hypothesis that second-generation AAs are associated with an increased risk of depression, including compared with traditional forms of HT.

Design, setting, and participants

This retrospective cohort study analyzed patients aged 66 years and older who were diagnosed with prostate cancer without a second cancer in 12 months from January 2011 to December 2015. Patients with continuous Medicare Parts A, B, and D coverage were included. Individuals who received any form of HT prior to prostate cancer diagnosis and those previously diagnosed with depression were excluded. Data were collected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare and Texas Cancer Registry-Medicare linked databases. Data were analyzed from February to May 2021.

Exposures

The following treatment groups were compared: (1) no HT group, (2) traditional HT group (HT without second-generation AA exposure), and (3) second-generation AA group.

Main outcomes and measures

Risk of depression in the second-generation AA group compared with the no HT and traditional HT groups, determined prior to data collection, stratified by diagnosis stage.

Results

Of 210 804 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer during the study window, 30 069 men (11 484 [38%] aged 66-70 years; 22 594 [75%] White) who met inclusion criteria were identified. Overall, 17 710 (59%) received no HT, 11 311 (38%) received traditional HT only, and 1048 (3%) received a second-generation AA. Those receiving a second-generation AA were more likely to be older (aged ≥81 years: second-generation AA group, 246 [24%]; traditional HT group, 1997 [18%]; no HT group, 1173 [7%]) and present with advanced disease (eg, distant disease: second-generation AA group, 562 [24%]; traditional HT group, 876 [8%]; no HT group, 129 [0.7%]). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that the second-generation AA group had an increased risk of depression compared with the no HT group (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; 95% CI, 1.79-2.59; P < .001) and the traditional HT group (HR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.88-2.73; P < .001), including specifically among those with metastatic disease at diagnosis (HR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.38-4.15; P = .002).

Conclusions and relevance

In this cohort study, patients with prostate cancer who received a second-generation AA had a large and clinically significant increased risk of depression compared with patients who received traditional HT alone or no HT, including when limiting our analysis to individuals with metastatic disease at diagnosis.

SUBMITTER: Nowakowska MK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8703250 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) is defined as a rising prostate-specific antigen concentration, despite castrate levels of testosterone with ongoing androgen-deprivation therapy or orchiectomy, and no detectable metastases by conventional imaging. Patients with nmCRPC progress to metastatic disease and are at risk of developing cancer-related symptoms and morbidity, eventually dying of their disease. While patients with nmCRPC are generally asymptomatic from their disease, they are often older and have chronic comorbidities that require long-term concomitant medication. Therefore, careful consideration of the benefit-risk profile of potential treatments is required.MethodsIn this review, we will discuss the rationale for early treatment of patients with nmCRPC to delay metastatic progression and prolong survival, as well as the factors influencing this treatment decision. We will focus on oral pharmacotherapy with the second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors, apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide, and the importance of balancing the clinical benefit they offer with potential adverse events and the consequential impact on quality of life, physical capacity, and cognitive function.Results and conclusionsWhile the definition of nmCRPC is well established, the advent of next-generation imaging techniques capable of detecting hitherto undetectable oligometastatic disease in patients with nmCRPC has fostered debate on the criteria that inform the management of these patients. However, despite these developments, published consensus statements have maintained that the absence of metastases on conventional imaging suffices to guide such therapeutic decisions. In addition, the prolonged metastasis-free survival and recently reported positive overall survival outcomes of the three second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors have provided further evidence for the early use of these agents in patients with nmCRPC in order to delay metastases and prolong survival. Here, we discuss the benefit-risk profiles of apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide based on the data available from their pivotal clinical trials in patients with nmCRPC.

Project description:BackgroundTamoxifen has emerged as a potential management option for gynecomastia and breast pain due to non-steroidal antiandrogens, and it is considered an alternative to surgery or radiotherapy. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the benefits and harms of tamoxifen, in comparison to other treatment options, for either the prophylaxis or treatment of breast events induced by non-steroidal antiandrogens in prostate cancer patients.MethodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, reference lists, the abstracts of three major conferences and three trial registers to identify ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two authors independently screened the articles identified, assessed the trial quality and extracted data. The protocol was prospectively registered (CRD42011001320; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).ResultsFour studies were identified. Tamoxifen significantly reduced the risk of suffering from gynecomastia (risk ratio 9RR0 0.10, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.22) or breast pain (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.17) at six months compared to untreated controls. Tamoxifen also showed a significant benefit for the prevention of gynecomastia (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.58) and breast pain (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.64) when compared to anastrozole after a median of 12 months. One study showed a significant benefit of tamoxifen for the prevention of gynecomastia (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.65) and breast pain (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.65) when compared with radiotherapy at six months. Radiotherapy increased the risk of suffering from nipple erythema and skin irritation, but there were no significant differences for any other adverse events (all P>0.05).ConclusionsThe currently available evidence suggests good efficacy of tamoxifen for the prevention and treatment of breast events induced by non-steroidal antiandrogens. The impact of tamoxifen therapy on long-term adverse events, disease progression and survival remains unclear. Further large, well-designed RCTs, including long-term follow-ups, are warranted. Also, the optimal dose needs to be clarified.