OBJECTIVES: This study will compare the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) among men with advanced prostate cancer who are being treated with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist versus a GnRH agonist. BACKGROUND: Treatment of advanced prostate cancer with ADT might increase the risk of subsequent cardiovascular events among men with known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but a recent meta-analysis suggested that this risk might be lower with ADT using a GnRH antagonist versus a GnRH agonist. METHODS: PRONOUNCE is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open, blinded endpoint trial that will enroll approximately 900 patients with advanced prostate cancer and pre-existing ASCVD who will be treated with ADT. Participants will be randomized to receive the GnRH antagonist degarelix or the GnRH agonist leuprolide as ADT for 12 months. The primary endpoint is time from randomization to first confirmed, adjudicated occurrence of a MACE, which is defined as a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke through 12 months of ADT treatment. Baseline cardiovascular biomarkers (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, high-sensitivity troponin T, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide), as well as serial inflammatory and immune biomarkers, will be evaluated in exploratory analyses. RESULTS: As of October 1, 2019, a total of 364 patients have been enrolled. The mean age is 74 years, 90% are white, 80% have hypertension or dyslipidemia, 30% diabetes mellitus, 40% have had a previous myocardial infarction, and 65% have had previous revascularization. Regarding prostate cancer features at randomization, 48% of the patients had localized disease, 23% had locally advanced disease, and 18% had metastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: PRONOUNCE is the first prospective cardiovascular outcomes trial in advanced prostate cancer that will delineate whether the risk of subsequent cardiovascular events associated with ADT is lower with a GnRH antagonist versus a GnRH agonist for men with pre-existing ASCVD. (A Trial Comparing Cardiovascular Safety of Degarelix Versus Leuprolide in Patients With Advanced Prostate Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease [PRONOUNCE]; NCT02663908).

Various conflicting guidelines and recommendations about prostate cancer screening and early detection have left both clinicians and their patients quite confused. At the Prostate Cancer World Congress held in Melbourne in August 2013, a multidisciplinary group of the world's leading experts in this area gathered together and generated this set of consensus statements to bring some clarity to this confusion. The five consensus statements provide clear guidance for clinicians counselling their patients about the early detection of prostate cancer.

Purpose Adjuvant therapy for intermediate-risk and high-risk localized prostate cancer decreases the number of deaths from this disease. Surrogates for overall survival (OS) could expedite the evaluation of new adjuvant therapies. Methods By June 2013, 102 completed or ongoing randomized trials were identified and individual patient data were collected from 28 trials with 28,905 patients. Disease-free survival (DFS) and metastasis-free survival (MFS) were determined for 21,140 patients from 24 trials and 12,712 patients from 19 trials, respectively. We evaluated the surrogacy of DFS and MFS for OS by using a two-stage meta-analytic validation model by determining the correlation of an intermediate clinical end point with OS and the correlation of treatment effects on both the intermediate clinical end point and OS. Results Trials enrolled patients from 1987 to 2011. After a median follow-up of 10 years, 45% of 21,140 men and 45% of 12,712 men experienced a DFS and MFS event, respectively. For DFS and MFS, 61% and 90% of the patients, respectively, were from radiation trials, and 63% and 66%, respectively, had high-risk disease. At the patient level, Kendall's τ correlation with OS was 0.85 and 0.91 for DFS and MFS, respectively. At the trial level, R² was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.78 to 0.90) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.88) from weighted linear regression of 8-year OS rates versus 5-year DFS and MFS rates, respectively. Treatment effects-measured by log hazard ratios-for the surrogates and OS were well correlated ( R², 0.73 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.82] for DFS and 0.92 [95% CI, 0.81 to 0.95] for MFS). Conclusion MFS is a strong surrogate for OS for localized prostate cancer that is associated with a significant risk of death from prostate cancer.

Background

In advanced prostate cancer (APC), successful drug development as well as advances in imaging and molecular characterisation have resulted in multiple areas where there is lack of evidence or low level of evidence. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2017 addressed some of these topics.

Objective

To present the report of APCCC 2017.

Design, setting, and participants

Ten important areas of controversy in APC management were identified: high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer; "oligometastatic" prostate cancer; castration-naïve and castration-resistant prostate cancer; the role of imaging in APC; osteoclast-targeted therapy; molecular characterisation of blood and tissue; genetic counselling/testing; side effects of systemic treatment(s); global access to prostate cancer drugs. A panel of 60 international prostate cancer experts developed the program and the consensus questions.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 150 predefined questions, which have been developed following a modified Delphi process.

Results and limitations

Voting is based on panellist opinion, and thus is not based on a standard literature review or meta-analysis. The outcomes of the voting had varying degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of this article, as well as in the detailed voting results recorded in Supplementary data.

Conclusions

The presented expert voting results can be used for support in areas of management of men with APC where there is no high-level evidence, but individualised treatment decisions should as always be based on all of the data available, including disease extent and location, prior therapies regardless of type, host factors including comorbidities, as well as patient preferences, current and emerging evidence, and logistical and economic constraints. Inclusion of men with APC in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2017 again identified important areas in need of trials specifically designed to address them.

Patient summary

The second Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017 did provide a forum for discussion and debates on current treatment options for men with advanced prostate cancer. The aim of the conference is to bring the expertise of world experts to care givers around the world who see less patients with prostate cancer. The conference concluded with a discussion and voting of the expert panel on predefined consensus questions, targeting areas of primary clinical relevance. The results of these expert opinion votes are embedded in the clinical context of current treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer and provide a practical guide to clinicians to assist in the discussions with men with prostate cancer as part of a shared and multidisciplinary decision-making process.

Background

Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but there are still many aspects of management that lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 addressed some of these topics to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence.

Objective

To present the results from the APCCC 2019.

Design, setting, and participants

Similar to prior conferences, experts identified 10 important areas of controversy regarding the management of advanced prostate cancer: locally advanced disease, biochemical recurrence after local therapy, treating the primary tumour in the metastatic setting, metastatic hormone-sensitive/naïve prostate cancer, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, bone health and bone metastases, molecular characterisation of tissue and blood, inter- and intrapatient heterogeneity, and adverse effects of hormonal therapy and their management. A panel of 72 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 123 predefined questions, which were developed by both voting and nonvoting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process.

Results and limitations

Panellists voted based on their opinions rather than a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions had varying degrees of support by the panel, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material.

Conclusions

These voting results from a panel of prostate cancer experts can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of advanced prostate management for which high-level evidence is sparse. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient-specific factors, such as disease extent and location, prior lines of therapy, comorbidities, and treatment preferences, together with current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Clinical trial enrolment for men with advanced prostate cancer should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2019 once again identified important questions that merit assessment in specifically designed trials.

Patient summary

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference, which has been held three times since 2015, aims to share the knowledge of world experts in prostate cancer management with health care providers worldwide. At the end of the conference, an expert panel discusses and votes on predefined consensus questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision making.

Background

The relative cardiovascular safety of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists compared with GnRH agonists in men with prostate cancer and known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains controversial.

Methods

In this international, multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label trial, men with prostate cancer and concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive the GnRH antagonist degarelix or the GnRH agonist leuprolide for 12 months. The primary outcome was the time to first adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular event (composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) through 12 months.

Results

Because of slower-than-projected enrollment and fewer-than-projected primary outcome events, enrollment was stopped before the 900 planned participants were accrued. From May 3, 2016, to April 16, 2020, a total of 545 patients from 113 sites across 12 countries were randomly selected. Baseline characteristics were balanced between study groups. The median age was 73 years, 49.8% had localized prostate cancer; 26.3% had locally advanced disease, and 20.4% had metastatic disease. A major adverse cardiovascular event occurred in 15 (5.5%) patients assigned to degarelix and 11 (4.1%) patients assigned to leuprolide (hazard ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 0.59-2.79]; P=0.53).

Conclusions

PRONOUNCE (A Trial Comparing Cardiovascular Safety of Degarelix Versus Leuprolide in Patients With Advanced Prostate Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease) is the first, international, randomized clinical trial to prospectively compare the cardiovascular safety of a GnRH antagonist and a GnRH agonist in patients with prostate cancer. The study was terminated prematurely because of the smaller than planned number of participants and events, and no difference in major adverse cardiovascular events at 1 year between patients assigned to degarelix or leuprolide was observed. The relative cardiovascular safety of GnRH antagonists and agonists remains unresolved. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02663908.