Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  930 1030 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 930 1030 Next Page
Page Background

higher versus lower use of orchiectomy. Primary analyses

demonstrated that the risk of cardiovascular disease was

similar for units with the highest and lowest proportions of

GnRH agonist use (relative risk 1.01, 95% confidence interval

0.93

1.11). The semiecologic study design seeks to limit bias

by assuming that menwere assigned to the treatment based

on the providers that they happened to see at the time they

were diagnosed, rather than by other factors such as disease

status or health status that might confound any association

of treatment with outcome. Thus, the use of orchiectomy is

less driven by selection of older or sicker patients, and

comparisons of treatment are more likely to mimic random

treatment allocation. Nevertheless, such designs are at risk

for bias if there remains within-unit variability in the use of

orchiectomy or if there is within-unit confounding. As

noted, even after assignment to groups based on treatment

unit, men in the orchiectomy group were older and had

higher-risk tumors. Of more concern is the possibility of

residual confounding based on time period, since nearly all

the units with very high rates of orchiectomy occurred in

the first one or two time periods (Fig. 1 in the study). With a

decreasing risk of cardiovascular disease incidence in

Sweden over time

[7]

, a potentially higher risk of

cardiovascular disease associated with more recent treat-

ment, most of which was with GnRH agonist therapy, could

be masked.

Another limitation of the study involves the ascertain-

ment

[6_TD$DIFF]

of cardiovascular disease. It is noteworthy that the

definition of the cardiovascular disease end point includes

hypertension (not included in the definition of cardiovas-

cular disease in other studies). The very low rate of

hypertension at baseline in this cohort of older men (6

7%) raises questions about how well medical conditions are

documented. In addition, the data source lacked informa-

tion about the start date and duration of GnRH agonist

therapy. Although, as the authors note, men with advanced

prostate cancer are likely to start treatment immediately

and may continue GnRH agonist therapy indefinitely, only

about one-third of patients in the study had metastatic

disease, and men receiving adjuvant GnRH therapy may

start later and continue therapy for only 6

36 mo

[8] .

Use of

GnRH agonist therapy also requires regular visits, which

could increase the likelihood of identifying incident

cardiovascular disease. It is difficult to predict the effect

of these potential biases on outcomes, since the shorter

duration of androgen suppression with GnRH agonist

therapy would suggest less time at risk and thus less

cardiovascular disease, but their additional visits could lead

to more cardiovascular diagnoses.

The mechanism for the association of androgen depriva-

tion therapy and risk of cardiovascular disease are uncertain

but may be linked to metabolic effects, including central

adiposity, decreased insulin sensitivity, and changes in

lipoproteins and arterial stiffness

[1]

. Such effects seem to be

related to androgen suppression, and thus there is a reason

to believe that the associations should be similar for

orchiectomy and GnRH agonists, as this study suggests.

The likely harm of androgen deprivation therapy of any type

underscores the need for clinicians toweigh the benefits and

harm of treatment, and engage in shared decision making

with patients. This is of particular importance when

androgen deprivation therapy is considered for clinical

scenarios for which benefits are uncertain, such as primary

treatment of local/regional prostate cancers and biochemical

recurrence

[7_TD$DIFF]

, regardless of the type of androgen deprivation

therapy.

Conflicts of interest:

The author has no potential con

fl

icts of interest to

disclose.

Funding support:

Dr. Keating's effort is supported by K24CA181510 from

the United States National Cancer Institute.

References

[1]

Nguyen PL, Alibhai SM, Basaria S, et al. Adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy and strategies to mitigate them. Eur Urol 2015;67:825 36

.

[2]

Jespersen CG, Norgaard M, Borre M. Androgen-deprivation therapy in treatment of prostate cancer and risk of myocardial infarction and stroke: a nationwide Danish population-based cohort study. Eur Urol 2014;65:704 9

.

[3]

Keating NL, O Malley AJ, Freedland SJ, Smith MR. Diabetes and cardiovascular disease during androgen deprivation therapy: ob- servational study of veterans with prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:39 46

.

[4]

Sun M, Choueiri TK, Hamnvik OP, et al. Comparison of gonadotro- pin-releasing hormone agonists and orchiectomy: effects of andro- gen deprivation therapy. JAMA Oncol 2016;2:500 7

.

[5]

Dignam JJ, Zhang Q, Kocherginsky M. The use and interpretation of competing risks regression models. Clin Cancer Res 2012;18:2301 8

.

[6]

Thomsen FB, Sandin F, Garmo H, et al. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, orchiectomy, and risk of cardiovascular disease: semi-ecologic, nationwide, population-based study. Eur Urol 2017;72:920 8

.

[7]

Modig K, Andersson T, Drefahl S, Ahlbom A. Age-speci fi c trends in morbidity, mortality and case-fatality from cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction and stroke in advanced age: evaluation in the Swedish population. PLoS One 2013;8:e64928

.

[8] National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical practice guide-

lines in oncology. Prostate cancer Version 2 February 212017

https:// www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf.

E U R O P E A N U R O L O GY 7 2 ( 2 0 17 ) 9 2 9

9 3 0

930