Men's Health

The Food and Drug Administration has approved testosterone undecanoate (Jatenzo), an oral capsule for the treatment of male hypogonadism caused by certain conditions, such as genetic disorders or tumors that have damaged the pituitary gland.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The approval is based on results from a 4-month clinical trial involving 166 men with hypogonadism. Patients received 237 mg testosterone undecanoate twice a day initially, a dosage that was adjusted downward or upward to a maximum of 396 mg twice a day, based on testosterone levels. At the end of the trial, 87% of men had achieved testosterone levels within the normal range.

The label for testosterone undecanoate contains a warning that the drug can cause an increase in blood pressure, raising the risk of heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death. Other common adverse events associated with testosterone undecanoate include headache, an increase in hematocrit, a decrease in HDL cholesterol, and nausea.

“[The] oral route of administration provides an important addition to current treatment options available for men with certain hypogonadal conditions who, until now, have most commonly been treated with testosterone products that are applied to the skin or injected,” said Hylton V. Joffe, MD, MMSc, director of the division of bone, reproductive, and urologic products at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in the press release.

Testosterone undecanoate is not approved to treat age-related hypogonadism, even in cases in which men have symptoms caused by low testosterone. The drug’s benefits do not outweigh its risks in those cases, the agency noted.

Find the full press release on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved testosterone undecanoate (Jatenzo), an oral capsule for the treatment of male hypogonadism caused by certain conditions, such as genetic disorders or tumors that have damaged the pituitary gland.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The approval is based on results from a 4-month clinical trial involving 166 men with hypogonadism. Patients received 237 mg testosterone undecanoate twice a day initially, a dosage that was adjusted downward or upward to a maximum of 396 mg twice a day, based on testosterone levels. At the end of the trial, 87% of men had achieved testosterone levels within the normal range.

The label for testosterone undecanoate contains a warning that the drug can cause an increase in blood pressure, raising the risk of heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death. Other common adverse events associated with testosterone undecanoate include headache, an increase in hematocrit, a decrease in HDL cholesterol, and nausea.

“[The] oral route of administration provides an important addition to current treatment options available for men with certain hypogonadal conditions who, until now, have most commonly been treated with testosterone products that are applied to the skin or injected,” said Hylton V. Joffe, MD, MMSc, director of the division of bone, reproductive, and urologic products at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in the press release.

Testosterone undecanoate is not approved to treat age-related hypogonadism, even in cases in which men have symptoms caused by low testosterone. The drug’s benefits do not outweigh its risks in those cases, the agency noted.

Find the full press release on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved testosterone undecanoate (Jatenzo), an oral capsule for the treatment of male hypogonadism caused by certain conditions, such as genetic disorders or tumors that have damaged the pituitary gland.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The approval is based on results from a 4-month clinical trial involving 166 men with hypogonadism. Patients received 237 mg testosterone undecanoate twice a day initially, a dosage that was adjusted downward or upward to a maximum of 396 mg twice a day, based on testosterone levels. At the end of the trial, 87% of men had achieved testosterone levels within the normal range.

The label for testosterone undecanoate contains a warning that the drug can cause an increase in blood pressure, raising the risk of heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death. Other common adverse events associated with testosterone undecanoate include headache, an increase in hematocrit, a decrease in HDL cholesterol, and nausea.

“[The] oral route of administration provides an important addition to current treatment options available for men with certain hypogonadal conditions who, until now, have most commonly been treated with testosterone products that are applied to the skin or injected,” said Hylton V. Joffe, MD, MMSc, director of the division of bone, reproductive, and urologic products at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in the press release.

Testosterone undecanoate is not approved to treat age-related hypogonadism, even in cases in which men have symptoms caused by low testosterone. The drug’s benefits do not outweigh its risks in those cases, the agency noted.

Find the full press release on the FDA website.

[email protected]

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old, a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled, and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or ragout.

—Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal¹

Large-scale cancer screening programs have the unintended consequences of false-positive results and overdiagnosis, leading to anxiety and overtreatment. The magnitude of these harms continues to be clarified after decades of screening.

Recognizing the trade-off between benefits and harms, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has changed several of its recommendations in recent years. Breast cancer screening recommendations have gone from yearly mammograms starting at age 40 to biennial mammograms starting at age 50 for women at average risk.² Prostate cancer screening is no longer recommended for men age 70 and older, and even for men between 55 and 69, screening is now an individual decision.³

Newer screening programs are targeting high-risk groups rather than the general population, with the aim of increasing the likelihood of benefits and limiting the harms. For example, lung cancer screening is recommended only for current smokers or smokers who have quit within the past 15 years, are between 55 and 80, and have at least a 30 pack-year smoking history.⁴

The movement toward less-frequent screening and screening in a narrower population has evoked strong reactions from advocates of cancer screening. One professor of radiology writes, “It borders on unethical to suggest that the benefit of having your life saved by screening and living another 40 years can be balanced against the ‘harm’ of being recalled for additional mammographic views for what proves to not be a cancer.”⁵ Another notes, “It does not make any sense to throw away the lives saved by screening to avoid over-treating a small number of cancers.”⁶ Both of these authors defend the position that the goal of screening is to minimize cause-specific mortality, irrespective of overdiagnosis, overtreatment, or false-positive results. In other words, harm should have little to no weight in screening recommendations.

Although the debate on cancer screening is moving toward a more balanced discussion of benefits and harms, many patients are still subjected to screening that is more aggressive than the USPSTF recommends, which may be due to an underlying belief that no harm is greater than the benefit of saving a life.

IS MORE-AGGRESSIVE SCREENING THE ANSWER?

One may wonder if more-aggressive screening could prevent deaths that occur despite standard screening. For example, more-frequent screening or use of additional screening methods such as ultrasonography or magnetic resonance imaging has been suggested for patients at high risk of breast cancer.

A MODEST PROPOSAL

If one holds the view that benefits alone should be considered when writing recommendations about screening, the logical conclusion extends beyond screening. We would therefore like to propose a different approach to reducing cancer deaths in the general population:

Why not just remove everybody’s breasts, prostate gland, and colon before cancer arises?

Currently, we offer prophylactic surgery to patients at high risk of cancer. For example, women with BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations are offered prophylactic mastectomy as one of several options for reducing risk of breast cancer. In 2013, the first case of prophylactic prostatectomy was performed in a man who had a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation. Total colectomy is considered in men and women who have hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer, instead of segmental resection, to prevent future cancer.

If prophylactic surgery were extended to the general population, it would greatly reduce the number of cancer deaths. Assuming that removing an organ almost always precludes development of cancer, we may predict that prophylactic mastectomy, prostatectomy, or colectomy would save the lives of most of the patients who are still dying of cancer of these organs. The effectiveness rates would approach, but not reach 100%; such is the case with prophylactic mastectomy.

Consider prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. Even using the favorable estimate of the impact of PSA screening, arising from the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer trial, 27 men have to be diagnosed, most undergoing local therapy (the trial was conducted before active surveillance became routine), to avert 1 death from prostate cancer over 13 years.⁹

Contrast this “number needed to diagnose” with the number needed to treat for a strategy of routine prostate removal at age 45 or 50. Given that the lifetime risk of death from prostate cancer approaches 3%, and few cases arise before this age, a prophylactic surgical strategy would avert 1 death per 33 operations. If proponents of screening are willing to accept a number needed to diagnose of 27 over a 13-year interval, they may be willing to consider a number needed to treat of 33 over a lifetime.

There may be harms such as perioperative and postoperative complications. Mastectomy could lead to emotional stress from altered body image. Prostatectomy can have long-term complications such as urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction. Nevertheless, prophylactic organ removal would save far more lives than current screening practices. It also could decrease mental burden, as patients could rest assured that they will never develop cancer, whereas screening often involves ambiguous test results, follow-up tests, and interventions, increasing patient anxiety.

FINDING THE BALANCE BETWEEN BENEFITS AND HARMS

In truth, we do not really advocate universal mastectomy, prostatectomy, and colectomy to prevent cancer, no more than Swift¹ really wanted to eat the children of Ireland to alleviate poverty and famine in that country.  Rather, we use it as an extreme proposal to highlight the scope and depth of harms that inevitably arise from screening.

If proponents of aggressive screening believe that the goal is to reduce cause-specific mortality as much as possible, giving little weight or consideration to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, then they ought to embrace universal prophylactic surgery as well. Recognition of this logical consequence reminds us that we must make screening recommendations that balance benefits and harms.

Considering an extreme perspective can help in recognizing our bias toward saving lives from cancer and discounting the harms. Aggravating this bias, it is impossible to know whether an individual patient has avoided fatal cancer or undergone unnecessary treatment. Moreover, changing practice is more difficult if it involves rolling back interventions that were once the standard.

Balancing benefits and harms is especially difficult when trying to compare the benefit of preventing a single cancer death against a harm that is less serious but more common. Medicine has always involved difficult trade-offs, as seen in cost-benefit analysis of new treatments or balancing quality of life with quantity of life in a single patient. In addition, each individual may place different values on benefits of screening and avoiding possible harms.

There is an undeniable trade-off with screening, and we must make a conscious decision on where to draw the line when harms outweigh the benefits. We must proceed with caution when subjecting large numbers of men and women to the possibility of psychological burden and decreased quality of life.

Given the growing appreciation of the harms of screening, it is likely that future guidance will continue to move toward less- frequent screening or focusing resources on high-risk populations, where the absolute magnitude of benefit is greater. Cancer screening is also likely to become an individual decision based on personal values and informed decisions.

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old, a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled, and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or ragout.

—Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal¹

Large-scale cancer screening programs have the unintended consequences of false-positive results and overdiagnosis, leading to anxiety and overtreatment. The magnitude of these harms continues to be clarified after decades of screening.

Recognizing the trade-off between benefits and harms, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has changed several of its recommendations in recent years. Breast cancer screening recommendations have gone from yearly mammograms starting at age 40 to biennial mammograms starting at age 50 for women at average risk.² Prostate cancer screening is no longer recommended for men age 70 and older, and even for men between 55 and 69, screening is now an individual decision.³

Newer screening programs are targeting high-risk groups rather than the general population, with the aim of increasing the likelihood of benefits and limiting the harms. For example, lung cancer screening is recommended only for current smokers or smokers who have quit within the past 15 years, are between 55 and 80, and have at least a 30 pack-year smoking history.⁴

The movement toward less-frequent screening and screening in a narrower population has evoked strong reactions from advocates of cancer screening. One professor of radiology writes, “It borders on unethical to suggest that the benefit of having your life saved by screening and living another 40 years can be balanced against the ‘harm’ of being recalled for additional mammographic views for what proves to not be a cancer.”⁵ Another notes, “It does not make any sense to throw away the lives saved by screening to avoid over-treating a small number of cancers.”⁶ Both of these authors defend the position that the goal of screening is to minimize cause-specific mortality, irrespective of overdiagnosis, overtreatment, or false-positive results. In other words, harm should have little to no weight in screening recommendations.

Although the debate on cancer screening is moving toward a more balanced discussion of benefits and harms, many patients are still subjected to screening that is more aggressive than the USPSTF recommends, which may be due to an underlying belief that no harm is greater than the benefit of saving a life.

IS MORE-AGGRESSIVE SCREENING THE ANSWER?

One may wonder if more-aggressive screening could prevent deaths that occur despite standard screening. For example, more-frequent screening or use of additional screening methods such as ultrasonography or magnetic resonance imaging has been suggested for patients at high risk of breast cancer.

A MODEST PROPOSAL

If one holds the view that benefits alone should be considered when writing recommendations about screening, the logical conclusion extends beyond screening. We would therefore like to propose a different approach to reducing cancer deaths in the general population:

Why not just remove everybody’s breasts, prostate gland, and colon before cancer arises?

Currently, we offer prophylactic surgery to patients at high risk of cancer. For example, women with BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations are offered prophylactic mastectomy as one of several options for reducing risk of breast cancer. In 2013, the first case of prophylactic prostatectomy was performed in a man who had a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation. Total colectomy is considered in men and women who have hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer, instead of segmental resection, to prevent future cancer.

If prophylactic surgery were extended to the general population, it would greatly reduce the number of cancer deaths. Assuming that removing an organ almost always precludes development of cancer, we may predict that prophylactic mastectomy, prostatectomy, or colectomy would save the lives of most of the patients who are still dying of cancer of these organs. The effectiveness rates would approach, but not reach 100%; such is the case with prophylactic mastectomy.

Consider prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. Even using the favorable estimate of the impact of PSA screening, arising from the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer trial, 27 men have to be diagnosed, most undergoing local therapy (the trial was conducted before active surveillance became routine), to avert 1 death from prostate cancer over 13 years.⁹

Contrast this “number needed to diagnose” with the number needed to treat for a strategy of routine prostate removal at age 45 or 50. Given that the lifetime risk of death from prostate cancer approaches 3%, and few cases arise before this age, a prophylactic surgical strategy would avert 1 death per 33 operations. If proponents of screening are willing to accept a number needed to diagnose of 27 over a 13-year interval, they may be willing to consider a number needed to treat of 33 over a lifetime.

There may be harms such as perioperative and postoperative complications. Mastectomy could lead to emotional stress from altered body image. Prostatectomy can have long-term complications such as urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction. Nevertheless, prophylactic organ removal would save far more lives than current screening practices. It also could decrease mental burden, as patients could rest assured that they will never develop cancer, whereas screening often involves ambiguous test results, follow-up tests, and interventions, increasing patient anxiety.

FINDING THE BALANCE BETWEEN BENEFITS AND HARMS

In truth, we do not really advocate universal mastectomy, prostatectomy, and colectomy to prevent cancer, no more than Swift¹ really wanted to eat the children of Ireland to alleviate poverty and famine in that country.  Rather, we use it as an extreme proposal to highlight the scope and depth of harms that inevitably arise from screening.

If proponents of aggressive screening believe that the goal is to reduce cause-specific mortality as much as possible, giving little weight or consideration to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, then they ought to embrace universal prophylactic surgery as well. Recognition of this logical consequence reminds us that we must make screening recommendations that balance benefits and harms.

Considering an extreme perspective can help in recognizing our bias toward saving lives from cancer and discounting the harms. Aggravating this bias, it is impossible to know whether an individual patient has avoided fatal cancer or undergone unnecessary treatment. Moreover, changing practice is more difficult if it involves rolling back interventions that were once the standard.

Balancing benefits and harms is especially difficult when trying to compare the benefit of preventing a single cancer death against a harm that is less serious but more common. Medicine has always involved difficult trade-offs, as seen in cost-benefit analysis of new treatments or balancing quality of life with quantity of life in a single patient. In addition, each individual may place different values on benefits of screening and avoiding possible harms.

There is an undeniable trade-off with screening, and we must make a conscious decision on where to draw the line when harms outweigh the benefits. We must proceed with caution when subjecting large numbers of men and women to the possibility of psychological burden and decreased quality of life.

Given the growing appreciation of the harms of screening, it is likely that future guidance will continue to move toward less- frequent screening or focusing resources on high-risk populations, where the absolute magnitude of benefit is greater. Cancer screening is also likely to become an individual decision based on personal values and informed decisions.

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old, a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled, and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or ragout.

—Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal¹

Large-scale cancer screening programs have the unintended consequences of false-positive results and overdiagnosis, leading to anxiety and overtreatment. The magnitude of these harms continues to be clarified after decades of screening.

Recognizing the trade-off between benefits and harms, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has changed several of its recommendations in recent years. Breast cancer screening recommendations have gone from yearly mammograms starting at age 40 to biennial mammograms starting at age 50 for women at average risk.² Prostate cancer screening is no longer recommended for men age 70 and older, and even for men between 55 and 69, screening is now an individual decision.³

Newer screening programs are targeting high-risk groups rather than the general population, with the aim of increasing the likelihood of benefits and limiting the harms. For example, lung cancer screening is recommended only for current smokers or smokers who have quit within the past 15 years, are between 55 and 80, and have at least a 30 pack-year smoking history.⁴

The movement toward less-frequent screening and screening in a narrower population has evoked strong reactions from advocates of cancer screening. One professor of radiology writes, “It borders on unethical to suggest that the benefit of having your life saved by screening and living another 40 years can be balanced against the ‘harm’ of being recalled for additional mammographic views for what proves to not be a cancer.”⁵ Another notes, “It does not make any sense to throw away the lives saved by screening to avoid over-treating a small number of cancers.”⁶ Both of these authors defend the position that the goal of screening is to minimize cause-specific mortality, irrespective of overdiagnosis, overtreatment, or false-positive results. In other words, harm should have little to no weight in screening recommendations.

Although the debate on cancer screening is moving toward a more balanced discussion of benefits and harms, many patients are still subjected to screening that is more aggressive than the USPSTF recommends, which may be due to an underlying belief that no harm is greater than the benefit of saving a life.

IS MORE-AGGRESSIVE SCREENING THE ANSWER?

One may wonder if more-aggressive screening could prevent deaths that occur despite standard screening. For example, more-frequent screening or use of additional screening methods such as ultrasonography or magnetic resonance imaging has been suggested for patients at high risk of breast cancer.

A MODEST PROPOSAL

If one holds the view that benefits alone should be considered when writing recommendations about screening, the logical conclusion extends beyond screening. We would therefore like to propose a different approach to reducing cancer deaths in the general population:

Why not just remove everybody’s breasts, prostate gland, and colon before cancer arises?

Currently, we offer prophylactic surgery to patients at high risk of cancer. For example, women with BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations are offered prophylactic mastectomy as one of several options for reducing risk of breast cancer. In 2013, the first case of prophylactic prostatectomy was performed in a man who had a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation. Total colectomy is considered in men and women who have hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer, instead of segmental resection, to prevent future cancer.

If prophylactic surgery were extended to the general population, it would greatly reduce the number of cancer deaths. Assuming that removing an organ almost always precludes development of cancer, we may predict that prophylactic mastectomy, prostatectomy, or colectomy would save the lives of most of the patients who are still dying of cancer of these organs. The effectiveness rates would approach, but not reach 100%; such is the case with prophylactic mastectomy.

Consider prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. Even using the favorable estimate of the impact of PSA screening, arising from the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer trial, 27 men have to be diagnosed, most undergoing local therapy (the trial was conducted before active surveillance became routine), to avert 1 death from prostate cancer over 13 years.⁹

Contrast this “number needed to diagnose” with the number needed to treat for a strategy of routine prostate removal at age 45 or 50. Given that the lifetime risk of death from prostate cancer approaches 3%, and few cases arise before this age, a prophylactic surgical strategy would avert 1 death per 33 operations. If proponents of screening are willing to accept a number needed to diagnose of 27 over a 13-year interval, they may be willing to consider a number needed to treat of 33 over a lifetime.

There may be harms such as perioperative and postoperative complications. Mastectomy could lead to emotional stress from altered body image. Prostatectomy can have long-term complications such as urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction. Nevertheless, prophylactic organ removal would save far more lives than current screening practices. It also could decrease mental burden, as patients could rest assured that they will never develop cancer, whereas screening often involves ambiguous test results, follow-up tests, and interventions, increasing patient anxiety.

FINDING THE BALANCE BETWEEN BENEFITS AND HARMS

In truth, we do not really advocate universal mastectomy, prostatectomy, and colectomy to prevent cancer, no more than Swift¹ really wanted to eat the children of Ireland to alleviate poverty and famine in that country.  Rather, we use it as an extreme proposal to highlight the scope and depth of harms that inevitably arise from screening.

If proponents of aggressive screening believe that the goal is to reduce cause-specific mortality as much as possible, giving little weight or consideration to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, then they ought to embrace universal prophylactic surgery as well. Recognition of this logical consequence reminds us that we must make screening recommendations that balance benefits and harms.

Considering an extreme perspective can help in recognizing our bias toward saving lives from cancer and discounting the harms. Aggravating this bias, it is impossible to know whether an individual patient has avoided fatal cancer or undergone unnecessary treatment. Moreover, changing practice is more difficult if it involves rolling back interventions that were once the standard.

Balancing benefits and harms is especially difficult when trying to compare the benefit of preventing a single cancer death against a harm that is less serious but more common. Medicine has always involved difficult trade-offs, as seen in cost-benefit analysis of new treatments or balancing quality of life with quantity of life in a single patient. In addition, each individual may place different values on benefits of screening and avoiding possible harms.

There is an undeniable trade-off with screening, and we must make a conscious decision on where to draw the line when harms outweigh the benefits. We must proceed with caution when subjecting large numbers of men and women to the possibility of psychological burden and decreased quality of life.

Given the growing appreciation of the harms of screening, it is likely that future guidance will continue to move toward less- frequent screening or focusing resources on high-risk populations, where the absolute magnitude of benefit is greater. Cancer screening is also likely to become an individual decision based on personal values and informed decisions.

In Aleyadeh W, Hutt-Centeno E, Ahmed HM, Shah NP. Hypertension guidelines: treat patients, not numbers. Cleve Clin J Med 2019; 86(1):47–56. doi:10.3949/ccjm.86a.18027, on page 50, the following statement was incorrect: “In 2017, the American College of Physicians (ACP) and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) recommended a relaxed systolic blood pressure target, ie, below 150 mm Hg, for adults over age 60, but a tighter goal of less than 130 mm Hg for the same age group if they have transient ischemic attack, stroke, or high cardiovascular risk.9” In fact, the ACP and AAFP recommended a tighter goal of less than 140 mm Hg for this higher-risk group. This has been corrected online.

In Aleyadeh W, Hutt-Centeno E, Ahmed HM, Shah NP. Hypertension guidelines: treat patients, not numbers. Cleve Clin J Med 2019; 86(1):47–56. doi:10.3949/ccjm.86a.18027, on page 50, the following statement was incorrect: “In 2017, the American College of Physicians (ACP) and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) recommended a relaxed systolic blood pressure target, ie, below 150 mm Hg, for adults over age 60, but a tighter goal of less than 130 mm Hg for the same age group if they have transient ischemic attack, stroke, or high cardiovascular risk.9” In fact, the ACP and AAFP recommended a tighter goal of less than 140 mm Hg for this higher-risk group. This has been corrected online.

In Aleyadeh W, Hutt-Centeno E, Ahmed HM, Shah NP. Hypertension guidelines: treat patients, not numbers. Cleve Clin J Med 2019; 86(1):47–56. doi:10.3949/ccjm.86a.18027, on page 50, the following statement was incorrect: “In 2017, the American College of Physicians (ACP) and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) recommended a relaxed systolic blood pressure target, ie, below 150 mm Hg, for adults over age 60, but a tighter goal of less than 130 mm Hg for the same age group if they have transient ischemic attack, stroke, or high cardiovascular risk.9” In fact, the ACP and AAFP recommended a tighter goal of less than 140 mm Hg for this higher-risk group. This has been corrected online.

Watchful waiting is on the rise for low-risk prostate cancer, the United States now has more than 100 measles cases for the year, e-cigarette use reverses progress in reducing teens’ tobacco use, and consider adopting the MESA 10-year coronary heart disease risk calculator.

Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify

Watchful waiting is on the rise for low-risk prostate cancer, the United States now has more than 100 measles cases for the year, e-cigarette use reverses progress in reducing teens’ tobacco use, and consider adopting the MESA 10-year coronary heart disease risk calculator.

Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify

Watchful waiting is on the rise for low-risk prostate cancer, the United States now has more than 100 measles cases for the year, e-cigarette use reverses progress in reducing teens’ tobacco use, and consider adopting the MESA 10-year coronary heart disease risk calculator.

Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify

Conservative management for low-risk localized prostate cancer is up recently, in line with clinical practice guideline changes, while in high-risk disease, use of radical prostatectomy has increased despite a lack of new high-level evidence supporting the approach, according to researchers.

Active surveillance or watchful waiting surpassed both radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy to become the most common management strategy in low-risk disease over the 2010-2015 time period, according to their analysis of a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.

Meanwhile, radical prostatectomy use declined in low-risk patients, but increased in those with higher-risk disease at the expense of radiotherapy, said authors of the analysis, led by Brandon A. Mahal, MD, and Paul L. Nguyen, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

“Although increasing use of active surveillance or watchful waiting for low-risk disease has been supported by high-level evidence and guidelines since 2010, shifting management patterns toward more radical prostatectomy in higher-risk disease and away from radiotherapy does not coincide with any new level 1 evidence or guideline changes,” Dr. Mahal, Dr. Nguyen, and coauthors said in JAMA.

The analysis included 164,760 men with a diagnosis of localized prostate cancer between 2010 and 2015 in the SEER Prostate Active Surveillance/Watchful Waiting database. Of that group, 12.7% were managed by active surveillance or watchful waiting, while 41.5% underwent radiotherapy and 45.8% had a radical prostatectomy.

For men with low-risk disease, active surveillance or watchful waiting increased from just 14.5% in 2010 to 42.1% in 2015, investigators found. Radical prostatectomy decreased from 47.4% to 31.3% over that 5-year period, while radiotherapy likewise decreased from 38.0% to 26.6% (P less than .001 for all three trends).

By contrast, in men with high-risk disease, use of radical prostatectomy increased from 38.0% to 42.8%, while radiotherapy decreased from 60.1% to 55.0% (P less than .001 for both trends), and use of active surveillance remained low and steady at 1.9% in 2010 to 2.2% in 2015.

Intermediate-risk disease saw a significant increase in active surveillance, from 5.8% to 9.6% over the time period, with commensurate decreases in both radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy, according to the report.

While low-risk prostate cancer was traditionally managed with radical prostatectomy, national clinical practice guidelines starting in 2010 began recommending conservative management with active surveillance or watchful waiting, researchers noted in their report.

These epidemiologic data don’t provide any insights on clinical outcomes related to the management changes, investigators acknowledged. They said further study is needed to determine the “downstream effects” of increased active surveillance or watchful waiting in low-risk prostate cancer.

Dr. Mahal reported no conflicts of interest, while Dr. Nguyen provided disclosures related to Ferring, Augmenix, Bayer, Janssen, Astellas, Dendreon, Genome DX, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Cota, Nanobiotix, Janssen, and Astellas. Coauthors had disclosures relate to Janssen, Blue Earth, and the National Institutes of Health.

SOURCE: Mahal BA et al. JAMA. 2019 Feb 11. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.19941.

Conservative management for low-risk localized prostate cancer is up recently, in line with clinical practice guideline changes, while in high-risk disease, use of radical prostatectomy has increased despite a lack of new high-level evidence supporting the approach, according to researchers.

Active surveillance or watchful waiting surpassed both radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy to become the most common management strategy in low-risk disease over the 2010-2015 time period, according to their analysis of a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.

Meanwhile, radical prostatectomy use declined in low-risk patients, but increased in those with higher-risk disease at the expense of radiotherapy, said authors of the analysis, led by Brandon A. Mahal, MD, and Paul L. Nguyen, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

“Although increasing use of active surveillance or watchful waiting for low-risk disease has been supported by high-level evidence and guidelines since 2010, shifting management patterns toward more radical prostatectomy in higher-risk disease and away from radiotherapy does not coincide with any new level 1 evidence or guideline changes,” Dr. Mahal, Dr. Nguyen, and coauthors said in JAMA.

The analysis included 164,760 men with a diagnosis of localized prostate cancer between 2010 and 2015 in the SEER Prostate Active Surveillance/Watchful Waiting database. Of that group, 12.7% were managed by active surveillance or watchful waiting, while 41.5% underwent radiotherapy and 45.8% had a radical prostatectomy.

For men with low-risk disease, active surveillance or watchful waiting increased from just 14.5% in 2010 to 42.1% in 2015, investigators found. Radical prostatectomy decreased from 47.4% to 31.3% over that 5-year period, while radiotherapy likewise decreased from 38.0% to 26.6% (P less than .001 for all three trends).

By contrast, in men with high-risk disease, use of radical prostatectomy increased from 38.0% to 42.8%, while radiotherapy decreased from 60.1% to 55.0% (P less than .001 for both trends), and use of active surveillance remained low and steady at 1.9% in 2010 to 2.2% in 2015.

Intermediate-risk disease saw a significant increase in active surveillance, from 5.8% to 9.6% over the time period, with commensurate decreases in both radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy, according to the report.

While low-risk prostate cancer was traditionally managed with radical prostatectomy, national clinical practice guidelines starting in 2010 began recommending conservative management with active surveillance or watchful waiting, researchers noted in their report.

These epidemiologic data don’t provide any insights on clinical outcomes related to the management changes, investigators acknowledged. They said further study is needed to determine the “downstream effects” of increased active surveillance or watchful waiting in low-risk prostate cancer.

Dr. Mahal reported no conflicts of interest, while Dr. Nguyen provided disclosures related to Ferring, Augmenix, Bayer, Janssen, Astellas, Dendreon, Genome DX, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Cota, Nanobiotix, Janssen, and Astellas. Coauthors had disclosures relate to Janssen, Blue Earth, and the National Institutes of Health.

SOURCE: Mahal BA et al. JAMA. 2019 Feb 11. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.19941.

Conservative management for low-risk localized prostate cancer is up recently, in line with clinical practice guideline changes, while in high-risk disease, use of radical prostatectomy has increased despite a lack of new high-level evidence supporting the approach, according to researchers.

Active surveillance or watchful waiting surpassed both radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy to become the most common management strategy in low-risk disease over the 2010-2015 time period, according to their analysis of a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.

Meanwhile, radical prostatectomy use declined in low-risk patients, but increased in those with higher-risk disease at the expense of radiotherapy, said authors of the analysis, led by Brandon A. Mahal, MD, and Paul L. Nguyen, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

“Although increasing use of active surveillance or watchful waiting for low-risk disease has been supported by high-level evidence and guidelines since 2010, shifting management patterns toward more radical prostatectomy in higher-risk disease and away from radiotherapy does not coincide with any new level 1 evidence or guideline changes,” Dr. Mahal, Dr. Nguyen, and coauthors said in JAMA.

The analysis included 164,760 men with a diagnosis of localized prostate cancer between 2010 and 2015 in the SEER Prostate Active Surveillance/Watchful Waiting database. Of that group, 12.7% were managed by active surveillance or watchful waiting, while 41.5% underwent radiotherapy and 45.8% had a radical prostatectomy.

For men with low-risk disease, active surveillance or watchful waiting increased from just 14.5% in 2010 to 42.1% in 2015, investigators found. Radical prostatectomy decreased from 47.4% to 31.3% over that 5-year period, while radiotherapy likewise decreased from 38.0% to 26.6% (P less than .001 for all three trends).

By contrast, in men with high-risk disease, use of radical prostatectomy increased from 38.0% to 42.8%, while radiotherapy decreased from 60.1% to 55.0% (P less than .001 for both trends), and use of active surveillance remained low and steady at 1.9% in 2010 to 2.2% in 2015.

Intermediate-risk disease saw a significant increase in active surveillance, from 5.8% to 9.6% over the time period, with commensurate decreases in both radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy, according to the report.

While low-risk prostate cancer was traditionally managed with radical prostatectomy, national clinical practice guidelines starting in 2010 began recommending conservative management with active surveillance or watchful waiting, researchers noted in their report.

These epidemiologic data don’t provide any insights on clinical outcomes related to the management changes, investigators acknowledged. They said further study is needed to determine the “downstream effects” of increased active surveillance or watchful waiting in low-risk prostate cancer.

Dr. Mahal reported no conflicts of interest, while Dr. Nguyen provided disclosures related to Ferring, Augmenix, Bayer, Janssen, Astellas, Dendreon, Genome DX, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Cota, Nanobiotix, Janssen, and Astellas. Coauthors had disclosures relate to Janssen, Blue Earth, and the National Institutes of Health.

SOURCE: Mahal BA et al. JAMA. 2019 Feb 11. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.19941.

WASHINGTON – The cardiovascular effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for men with advanced prostate cancer are less severe than once feared, but there is evidence to suggest that men with preexisting heart failure or a history of myocardial infarction could be at excess risk for death from cardiovascular causes when they receive ADT, according to a leading prostate cancer expert.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“I think there are concerns about potential cardiovascular harm of ADT, and I think this has reduced ADT use, despite the fact that we know for most men it improves overall survival,” said Paul Nguyen, MD, a radiation oncologist at the Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center in Boston.

“In fact, when we looked recently at men with high-risk prostate cancer, this is a group where overall survival is improved by 50% if they get ADT – so it cuts the risk of death in half – but it turns out that nearly a quarter of those patients are not receiving ADT. I think that the concern about cardiovascular harm and the confusion as to where that data stands is a lot of what’s driving that right now,” he said at the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient meeting.
 

Randomized trial data

Dr. Nguyen noted that the evidence suggesting that ADT can increase the risk of death from cardiovascular causes came largely from three major studies:

• A 2006 study of 73,196 Medicare enrollees aged 66 or older, which found that ADT with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist was possibly associated with increased risk of incident diabetes and cardiovascular disease (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Sep 20;24[27]:4448-56.).
• A 2007 analysis of data from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CAPSURE) database on 3,262 men treated with radical prostatectomy and 1,630 men treated with radiation or cryotherapy for localized prostate cancer, which found that among those 65 and older the 5-year cumulative incidence of cardiovascular death was 5.5% for patients who received ADT, vs. 2% for those who did not (J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Oct 17;99[20]:1516-24).
• A 2007 study of 1,372 men in three randomized trials of radiation therapy with or without androgen suppression therapy up to 8 months in duration, which found that men 65 and older who received 6 months of androgen suppression had significantly shorter times to fatal MIs than did men who did not receive the therapy (J Clin Oncol. 2007;25[17]:2420-5).

These studies, combined with observational data, led to a 2010 consensus statement from the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, and American Urological Association, with endorsement from the American Society for Radiation Oncology, which stated that “there may be a relation between ADT and cardiovascular events and death.”

Also in 2010, the Food and Drug Administration required new labeling on GnRH agonists warning of “increased risk of diabetes and certain cardiovascular diseases (heart attack, sudden cardiac death, stroke).”
 

Not unanimous

Two other large randomized studies (J Clin Oncol. 2008 Feb 1;26[4]:585-91 and J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jan 1;27[1]:92-9) and two retrospective studies (J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jul 20;27[21]:3452-8 and J Clin Oncol. 2011 Sep 10;29[26]3510-16) found no excess risk of cardiovascular disease from ADT, Dr. Nguyen said, prompting him and his colleagues to see whether they could get a better estimate of the actual risk.

They did so through a 2011 meta-analysis (JAMA. 2011;306[21]:2359-66) of data on 4,141 patients from eight randomized trials. They found that among patients with unfavorable-risk prostate cancer, ADT was not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular death, but was associated with lower risks for both prostate-specific and all-cause mortality.
 

Subpopulations may still be at risk

Dr. Nguyen said that the principal finding of the meta-analysis, while reassuring, “doesn’t let ADT off the hook for metabolic events, diabetes which we know happens, and the possibility of nonfatal cardiac events.”

He noted that while ADT was not associated with cardiovascular disease in clinical trials, observational studies showed significantly increased risk for fatal or non-fatal MI.

One possible explanation for the difference is that observational studies included nonfatal MI, while randomized trials looked only at cardiovascular deaths. It’s also possible that ADT causes harm primarily in men with preexisting comorbidities, who are often excluded from or underrepresented in clinical trials.

Evidence from a 2009 study (JAMA. 2009 Aug 26;302[8]:866-73) showed that among men with clinical stage T1 to T3 noninvasive, nonmetastatic prostate cancer, neoadjuvant hormonal therapy with both a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist and a nonsteroidal antiandrogen was associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality for those with a history of coronary artery disease–induced heart failure, but not for men with either no comorbidities or only a single comorbidity such as hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, or diabetes.
 

Clinical considerations

The decision to treat men with prostate cancer with ADT is therefore a balancing act, Dr. Nguyen said.

“As the risk of prostate cancer death goes up, the benefit of ADT goes up. However, as the comorbidity level goes up, the potential cardiovascular harm of ADT goes up,” he said.

For patients at the extreme ends of each continuum, such as a patient with high-risk prostate cancer and no cardiovascular comorbidities or a patient with low-risk cancer but multiple CV risk factors, the decision to give or withhold ADT is relatively simple, he said.

But for patients in between, such as a man with intermediate-risk cancer and one risk factor or a man with high risk disease with multiple comorbidities, the decision is far more complex.

“This where I think the dialogue with the cardiologist really needs to come into this decision,” he said.

Evidence to support the decision comes from retrospective studies suggesting that even men with high-risk prostate cancer have poorer overall survival with ADT if they have a history of heart failure or MI.

For patients with low-risk cancer and diabetes, ADT is associated with worse overall survival, but ADT does not cause additional harm to men with intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer who have concomitant diabetes, Dr. Nguyen said.

“My view is that ADT has not been shown to increase cardiovascular death in randomized trials, so I think that for the vast majority of patients it probably does not increase cardiovascular deaths. But I think there could very well be a vulnerable 5% of patients who might have an excess risk of cardiovascular death, and I think we have to be careful, but we still have to balance it out against their risks for prostate cancer death,” he said.

Dr. Nguyen reported consulting fees/honoraria from Astellas, Augmenix, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Cota, Dendreon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, GenomeDx, Janssen, and Nanobiotix.

WASHINGTON – The cardiovascular effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for men with advanced prostate cancer are less severe than once feared, but there is evidence to suggest that men with preexisting heart failure or a history of myocardial infarction could be at excess risk for death from cardiovascular causes when they receive ADT, according to a leading prostate cancer expert.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“I think there are concerns about potential cardiovascular harm of ADT, and I think this has reduced ADT use, despite the fact that we know for most men it improves overall survival,” said Paul Nguyen, MD, a radiation oncologist at the Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center in Boston.

“In fact, when we looked recently at men with high-risk prostate cancer, this is a group where overall survival is improved by 50% if they get ADT – so it cuts the risk of death in half – but it turns out that nearly a quarter of those patients are not receiving ADT. I think that the concern about cardiovascular harm and the confusion as to where that data stands is a lot of what’s driving that right now,” he said at the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient meeting.
 

Randomized trial data

Dr. Nguyen noted that the evidence suggesting that ADT can increase the risk of death from cardiovascular causes came largely from three major studies:

• A 2006 study of 73,196 Medicare enrollees aged 66 or older, which found that ADT with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist was possibly associated with increased risk of incident diabetes and cardiovascular disease (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Sep 20;24[27]:4448-56.).
• A 2007 analysis of data from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CAPSURE) database on 3,262 men treated with radical prostatectomy and 1,630 men treated with radiation or cryotherapy for localized prostate cancer, which found that among those 65 and older the 5-year cumulative incidence of cardiovascular death was 5.5% for patients who received ADT, vs. 2% for those who did not (J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Oct 17;99[20]:1516-24).
• A 2007 study of 1,372 men in three randomized trials of radiation therapy with or without androgen suppression therapy up to 8 months in duration, which found that men 65 and older who received 6 months of androgen suppression had significantly shorter times to fatal MIs than did men who did not receive the therapy (J Clin Oncol. 2007;25[17]:2420-5).

These studies, combined with observational data, led to a 2010 consensus statement from the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, and American Urological Association, with endorsement from the American Society for Radiation Oncology, which stated that “there may be a relation between ADT and cardiovascular events and death.”

Also in 2010, the Food and Drug Administration required new labeling on GnRH agonists warning of “increased risk of diabetes and certain cardiovascular diseases (heart attack, sudden cardiac death, stroke).”
 

Not unanimous

Two other large randomized studies (J Clin Oncol. 2008 Feb 1;26[4]:585-91 and J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jan 1;27[1]:92-9) and two retrospective studies (J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jul 20;27[21]:3452-8 and J Clin Oncol. 2011 Sep 10;29[26]3510-16) found no excess risk of cardiovascular disease from ADT, Dr. Nguyen said, prompting him and his colleagues to see whether they could get a better estimate of the actual risk.

They did so through a 2011 meta-analysis (JAMA. 2011;306[21]:2359-66) of data on 4,141 patients from eight randomized trials. They found that among patients with unfavorable-risk prostate cancer, ADT was not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular death, but was associated with lower risks for both prostate-specific and all-cause mortality.
 

Subpopulations may still be at risk

Dr. Nguyen said that the principal finding of the meta-analysis, while reassuring, “doesn’t let ADT off the hook for metabolic events, diabetes which we know happens, and the possibility of nonfatal cardiac events.”

He noted that while ADT was not associated with cardiovascular disease in clinical trials, observational studies showed significantly increased risk for fatal or non-fatal MI.

One possible explanation for the difference is that observational studies included nonfatal MI, while randomized trials looked only at cardiovascular deaths. It’s also possible that ADT causes harm primarily in men with preexisting comorbidities, who are often excluded from or underrepresented in clinical trials.

Evidence from a 2009 study (JAMA. 2009 Aug 26;302[8]:866-73) showed that among men with clinical stage T1 to T3 noninvasive, nonmetastatic prostate cancer, neoadjuvant hormonal therapy with both a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist and a nonsteroidal antiandrogen was associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality for those with a history of coronary artery disease–induced heart failure, but not for men with either no comorbidities or only a single comorbidity such as hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, or diabetes.
 

Clinical considerations

The decision to treat men with prostate cancer with ADT is therefore a balancing act, Dr. Nguyen said.

“As the risk of prostate cancer death goes up, the benefit of ADT goes up. However, as the comorbidity level goes up, the potential cardiovascular harm of ADT goes up,” he said.

For patients at the extreme ends of each continuum, such as a patient with high-risk prostate cancer and no cardiovascular comorbidities or a patient with low-risk cancer but multiple CV risk factors, the decision to give or withhold ADT is relatively simple, he said.

But for patients in between, such as a man with intermediate-risk cancer and one risk factor or a man with high risk disease with multiple comorbidities, the decision is far more complex.

“This where I think the dialogue with the cardiologist really needs to come into this decision,” he said.

Evidence to support the decision comes from retrospective studies suggesting that even men with high-risk prostate cancer have poorer overall survival with ADT if they have a history of heart failure or MI.

For patients with low-risk cancer and diabetes, ADT is associated with worse overall survival, but ADT does not cause additional harm to men with intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer who have concomitant diabetes, Dr. Nguyen said.

“My view is that ADT has not been shown to increase cardiovascular death in randomized trials, so I think that for the vast majority of patients it probably does not increase cardiovascular deaths. But I think there could very well be a vulnerable 5% of patients who might have an excess risk of cardiovascular death, and I think we have to be careful, but we still have to balance it out against their risks for prostate cancer death,” he said.

Dr. Nguyen reported consulting fees/honoraria from Astellas, Augmenix, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Cota, Dendreon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, GenomeDx, Janssen, and Nanobiotix.

WASHINGTON – The cardiovascular effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for men with advanced prostate cancer are less severe than once feared, but there is evidence to suggest that men with preexisting heart failure or a history of myocardial infarction could be at excess risk for death from cardiovascular causes when they receive ADT, according to a leading prostate cancer expert.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“I think there are concerns about potential cardiovascular harm of ADT, and I think this has reduced ADT use, despite the fact that we know for most men it improves overall survival,” said Paul Nguyen, MD, a radiation oncologist at the Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center in Boston.

“In fact, when we looked recently at men with high-risk prostate cancer, this is a group where overall survival is improved by 50% if they get ADT – so it cuts the risk of death in half – but it turns out that nearly a quarter of those patients are not receiving ADT. I think that the concern about cardiovascular harm and the confusion as to where that data stands is a lot of what’s driving that right now,” he said at the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient meeting.
 

Randomized trial data

Dr. Nguyen noted that the evidence suggesting that ADT can increase the risk of death from cardiovascular causes came largely from three major studies:

• A 2006 study of 73,196 Medicare enrollees aged 66 or older, which found that ADT with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist was possibly associated with increased risk of incident diabetes and cardiovascular disease (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Sep 20;24[27]:4448-56.).
• A 2007 analysis of data from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CAPSURE) database on 3,262 men treated with radical prostatectomy and 1,630 men treated with radiation or cryotherapy for localized prostate cancer, which found that among those 65 and older the 5-year cumulative incidence of cardiovascular death was 5.5% for patients who received ADT, vs. 2% for those who did not (J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Oct 17;99[20]:1516-24).
• A 2007 study of 1,372 men in three randomized trials of radiation therapy with or without androgen suppression therapy up to 8 months in duration, which found that men 65 and older who received 6 months of androgen suppression had significantly shorter times to fatal MIs than did men who did not receive the therapy (J Clin Oncol. 2007;25[17]:2420-5).

These studies, combined with observational data, led to a 2010 consensus statement from the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, and American Urological Association, with endorsement from the American Society for Radiation Oncology, which stated that “there may be a relation between ADT and cardiovascular events and death.”

Also in 2010, the Food and Drug Administration required new labeling on GnRH agonists warning of “increased risk of diabetes and certain cardiovascular diseases (heart attack, sudden cardiac death, stroke).”
 

Not unanimous

Two other large randomized studies (J Clin Oncol. 2008 Feb 1;26[4]:585-91 and J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jan 1;27[1]:92-9) and two retrospective studies (J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jul 20;27[21]:3452-8 and J Clin Oncol. 2011 Sep 10;29[26]3510-16) found no excess risk of cardiovascular disease from ADT, Dr. Nguyen said, prompting him and his colleagues to see whether they could get a better estimate of the actual risk.

They did so through a 2011 meta-analysis (JAMA. 2011;306[21]:2359-66) of data on 4,141 patients from eight randomized trials. They found that among patients with unfavorable-risk prostate cancer, ADT was not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular death, but was associated with lower risks for both prostate-specific and all-cause mortality.
 

Subpopulations may still be at risk

Dr. Nguyen said that the principal finding of the meta-analysis, while reassuring, “doesn’t let ADT off the hook for metabolic events, diabetes which we know happens, and the possibility of nonfatal cardiac events.”

He noted that while ADT was not associated with cardiovascular disease in clinical trials, observational studies showed significantly increased risk for fatal or non-fatal MI.

One possible explanation for the difference is that observational studies included nonfatal MI, while randomized trials looked only at cardiovascular deaths. It’s also possible that ADT causes harm primarily in men with preexisting comorbidities, who are often excluded from or underrepresented in clinical trials.

Evidence from a 2009 study (JAMA. 2009 Aug 26;302[8]:866-73) showed that among men with clinical stage T1 to T3 noninvasive, nonmetastatic prostate cancer, neoadjuvant hormonal therapy with both a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist and a nonsteroidal antiandrogen was associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality for those with a history of coronary artery disease–induced heart failure, but not for men with either no comorbidities or only a single comorbidity such as hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, or diabetes.
 

Clinical considerations

The decision to treat men with prostate cancer with ADT is therefore a balancing act, Dr. Nguyen said.

“As the risk of prostate cancer death goes up, the benefit of ADT goes up. However, as the comorbidity level goes up, the potential cardiovascular harm of ADT goes up,” he said.

For patients at the extreme ends of each continuum, such as a patient with high-risk prostate cancer and no cardiovascular comorbidities or a patient with low-risk cancer but multiple CV risk factors, the decision to give or withhold ADT is relatively simple, he said.

But for patients in between, such as a man with intermediate-risk cancer and one risk factor or a man with high risk disease with multiple comorbidities, the decision is far more complex.

“This where I think the dialogue with the cardiologist really needs to come into this decision,” he said.

Evidence to support the decision comes from retrospective studies suggesting that even men with high-risk prostate cancer have poorer overall survival with ADT if they have a history of heart failure or MI.

For patients with low-risk cancer and diabetes, ADT is associated with worse overall survival, but ADT does not cause additional harm to men with intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer who have concomitant diabetes, Dr. Nguyen said.

“My view is that ADT has not been shown to increase cardiovascular death in randomized trials, so I think that for the vast majority of patients it probably does not increase cardiovascular deaths. But I think there could very well be a vulnerable 5% of patients who might have an excess risk of cardiovascular death, and I think we have to be careful, but we still have to balance it out against their risks for prostate cancer death,” he said.

Dr. Nguyen reported consulting fees/honoraria from Astellas, Augmenix, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Cota, Dendreon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, GenomeDx, Janssen, and Nanobiotix.

The Food and Drug Administration has permitted marketing of the Aptima Mycoplasma genitalium assay, the first test for the diagnoses of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) caused by the M. genitalium bacterium, the agency reported in a press release.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

M. genitalium is associated with nongonococcal urethritis in men and cervicitis in women, causing 15%-30% of persistent or recurring urethritis cases and 10%-30% of cervicitis cases, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It also can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in women. The assay is a nucleic acid amplification test, which can detect the bacterium in urine, as well as urethral, penile meatal, endocervical, or vaginal swab samples.

In a clinical study of 11,774 samples, the Aptima assay correctly identified M. genitalium in about 90% of vaginal, male urethral, male urine, and penile samples. It also correctly identified the bacterium in female urine and endocervical samples 78% and 82% of the time, respectively. The test was even more accurate in identifying samples that did not have M. genitalium present, according to an FDA press release

“In the past, it has been hard to diagnose this organism. By being able to detect it more reliably, doctors may be able to more carefully tailor treatment and use medicines most likely to be effective,” FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said in the press release. “Having accurate and reliable tests to identify the specific bacteria that’s causing an infection can assist doctors in choosing the right treatment for the right infection, which can reduce overuse of antibiotics and help in the fight against antimicrobial resistance.”

Find the full press release on the FDA website.

The Food and Drug Administration has permitted marketing of the Aptima Mycoplasma genitalium assay, the first test for the diagnoses of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) caused by the M. genitalium bacterium, the agency reported in a press release.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

M. genitalium is associated with nongonococcal urethritis in men and cervicitis in women, causing 15%-30% of persistent or recurring urethritis cases and 10%-30% of cervicitis cases, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It also can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in women. The assay is a nucleic acid amplification test, which can detect the bacterium in urine, as well as urethral, penile meatal, endocervical, or vaginal swab samples.

In a clinical study of 11,774 samples, the Aptima assay correctly identified M. genitalium in about 90% of vaginal, male urethral, male urine, and penile samples. It also correctly identified the bacterium in female urine and endocervical samples 78% and 82% of the time, respectively. The test was even more accurate in identifying samples that did not have M. genitalium present, according to an FDA press release

“In the past, it has been hard to diagnose this organism. By being able to detect it more reliably, doctors may be able to more carefully tailor treatment and use medicines most likely to be effective,” FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said in the press release. “Having accurate and reliable tests to identify the specific bacteria that’s causing an infection can assist doctors in choosing the right treatment for the right infection, which can reduce overuse of antibiotics and help in the fight against antimicrobial resistance.”

Find the full press release on the FDA website.

The Food and Drug Administration has permitted marketing of the Aptima Mycoplasma genitalium assay, the first test for the diagnoses of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) caused by the M. genitalium bacterium, the agency reported in a press release.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

M. genitalium is associated with nongonococcal urethritis in men and cervicitis in women, causing 15%-30% of persistent or recurring urethritis cases and 10%-30% of cervicitis cases, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It also can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in women. The assay is a nucleic acid amplification test, which can detect the bacterium in urine, as well as urethral, penile meatal, endocervical, or vaginal swab samples.

In a clinical study of 11,774 samples, the Aptima assay correctly identified M. genitalium in about 90% of vaginal, male urethral, male urine, and penile samples. It also correctly identified the bacterium in female urine and endocervical samples 78% and 82% of the time, respectively. The test was even more accurate in identifying samples that did not have M. genitalium present, according to an FDA press release

“In the past, it has been hard to diagnose this organism. By being able to detect it more reliably, doctors may be able to more carefully tailor treatment and use medicines most likely to be effective,” FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said in the press release. “Having accurate and reliable tests to identify the specific bacteria that’s causing an infection can assist doctors in choosing the right treatment for the right infection, which can reduce overuse of antibiotics and help in the fight against antimicrobial resistance.”

Find the full press release on the FDA website.

Gay men who become fathers still commonly experience barriers and stigma, but those living in states that offer legal protections experienced less stigma and fewer barriers, according to Ellen C. Perrin, MD, of Tufts Medical Center in Boston and her associates.

Juanmonino/iStock/Getty Images

A total of 732 fathers living in 47 states, with 1,316 children (average age, 13 years), responded to a survey, they wrote in Pediatrics. More than 80% had a male partner, 64% had earned a bachelor degree or higher, and 81% were white and non-Hispanic.

In 35% of cases, children entered a family through adoption and/or foster care, 14% through the assistance of a pregnancy carrier or surrogate, and 39% through a heterosexual relationship. Families in states with fewer legal protections were more likely to have been formed through heterosexual relationships (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.81), while families in states with a greater equality rating were more likely to have been formed through a pregnancy surrogate (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.84). A total of 41% of fathers reported facing barriers to adoption, and 33% reported having difficulty arranging custody of children born in a heterosexual relationship.

Nearly two-thirds of fathers reported having experienced stigma, and just over half had actively avoided a situation for fear of stigma in the past year. Active stigma experienced by the fathers was most commonly experienced in a religious setting, reported by 35%, with other common sources including neighbors (28%), service providers (26%), family members (24%), gay friends (24%), the child’s school (18%), the workplace (16%), and in health care (11%). Children most often experienced active stigma by their friends (33%), followed by a religious setting (17%), school (16%), neighbors (15%), family (11%), and in health care settings (4%).

Active and avoidant stigma was more likely in states with a low equality rating, especially in religious settings and among family members and neighbors, the investigators noted.

“Given their important role as leaders in the community’s support for all families, pediatricians caring for children and their gay fathers should recognize the likelihood that stigma may be a part of the family’s experience and help both families and communities to counteract it. Pediatricians also have the opportunity to be leaders in opposing discrimination in religious and other community institutions,” Dr. Perrin and her associates wrote.

The study received funding from the Gil Foundation, the Arcus Foundation, and private donations. The study authors reported no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Perrin EC et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Jan 14. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-0683.

Gay men who become fathers still commonly experience barriers and stigma, but those living in states that offer legal protections experienced less stigma and fewer barriers, according to Ellen C. Perrin, MD, of Tufts Medical Center in Boston and her associates.

Juanmonino/iStock/Getty Images

A total of 732 fathers living in 47 states, with 1,316 children (average age, 13 years), responded to a survey, they wrote in Pediatrics. More than 80% had a male partner, 64% had earned a bachelor degree or higher, and 81% were white and non-Hispanic.

In 35% of cases, children entered a family through adoption and/or foster care, 14% through the assistance of a pregnancy carrier or surrogate, and 39% through a heterosexual relationship. Families in states with fewer legal protections were more likely to have been formed through heterosexual relationships (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.81), while families in states with a greater equality rating were more likely to have been formed through a pregnancy surrogate (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.84). A total of 41% of fathers reported facing barriers to adoption, and 33% reported having difficulty arranging custody of children born in a heterosexual relationship.

Nearly two-thirds of fathers reported having experienced stigma, and just over half had actively avoided a situation for fear of stigma in the past year. Active stigma experienced by the fathers was most commonly experienced in a religious setting, reported by 35%, with other common sources including neighbors (28%), service providers (26%), family members (24%), gay friends (24%), the child’s school (18%), the workplace (16%), and in health care (11%). Children most often experienced active stigma by their friends (33%), followed by a religious setting (17%), school (16%), neighbors (15%), family (11%), and in health care settings (4%).

Active and avoidant stigma was more likely in states with a low equality rating, especially in religious settings and among family members and neighbors, the investigators noted.

“Given their important role as leaders in the community’s support for all families, pediatricians caring for children and their gay fathers should recognize the likelihood that stigma may be a part of the family’s experience and help both families and communities to counteract it. Pediatricians also have the opportunity to be leaders in opposing discrimination in religious and other community institutions,” Dr. Perrin and her associates wrote.

The study received funding from the Gil Foundation, the Arcus Foundation, and private donations. The study authors reported no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Perrin EC et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Jan 14. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-0683.

Gay men who become fathers still commonly experience barriers and stigma, but those living in states that offer legal protections experienced less stigma and fewer barriers, according to Ellen C. Perrin, MD, of Tufts Medical Center in Boston and her associates.

Juanmonino/iStock/Getty Images

A total of 732 fathers living in 47 states, with 1,316 children (average age, 13 years), responded to a survey, they wrote in Pediatrics. More than 80% had a male partner, 64% had earned a bachelor degree or higher, and 81% were white and non-Hispanic.

In 35% of cases, children entered a family through adoption and/or foster care, 14% through the assistance of a pregnancy carrier or surrogate, and 39% through a heterosexual relationship. Families in states with fewer legal protections were more likely to have been formed through heterosexual relationships (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.81), while families in states with a greater equality rating were more likely to have been formed through a pregnancy surrogate (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.84). A total of 41% of fathers reported facing barriers to adoption, and 33% reported having difficulty arranging custody of children born in a heterosexual relationship.

Nearly two-thirds of fathers reported having experienced stigma, and just over half had actively avoided a situation for fear of stigma in the past year. Active stigma experienced by the fathers was most commonly experienced in a religious setting, reported by 35%, with other common sources including neighbors (28%), service providers (26%), family members (24%), gay friends (24%), the child’s school (18%), the workplace (16%), and in health care (11%). Children most often experienced active stigma by their friends (33%), followed by a religious setting (17%), school (16%), neighbors (15%), family (11%), and in health care settings (4%).

Active and avoidant stigma was more likely in states with a low equality rating, especially in religious settings and among family members and neighbors, the investigators noted.

“Given their important role as leaders in the community’s support for all families, pediatricians caring for children and their gay fathers should recognize the likelihood that stigma may be a part of the family’s experience and help both families and communities to counteract it. Pediatricians also have the opportunity to be leaders in opposing discrimination in religious and other community institutions,” Dr. Perrin and her associates wrote.

The study received funding from the Gil Foundation, the Arcus Foundation, and private donations. The study authors reported no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Perrin EC et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Jan 14. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-0683.

Federal judges have blocked the Trump administration from weakening the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. Too much sleep and too little sleep are linked to atherosclerosis, there is no drop in gout prevalence, but there isn’t an increase either, and back pain persists in one in five patients.

Amazon Alexa

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify
 

Federal judges have blocked the Trump administration from weakening the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. Too much sleep and too little sleep are linked to atherosclerosis, there is no drop in gout prevalence, but there isn’t an increase either, and back pain persists in one in five patients.

Amazon Alexa

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify
 

Federal judges have blocked the Trump administration from weakening the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. Too much sleep and too little sleep are linked to atherosclerosis, there is no drop in gout prevalence, but there isn’t an increase either, and back pain persists in one in five patients.

Amazon Alexa

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify
 

Decreased time in deep, dreamless sleep is associated with increasing Alzheimer’s disease pathology. Also today, physician groups are pushing back on Part B of the drug reimbursement proposal, dabigatran matches aspirin for second stroke prevention, and reassurance for pregnancy in atopic dermatitis.

Amazon Alexa

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify
 

Decreased time in deep, dreamless sleep is associated with increasing Alzheimer’s disease pathology. Also today, physician groups are pushing back on Part B of the drug reimbursement proposal, dabigatran matches aspirin for second stroke prevention, and reassurance for pregnancy in atopic dermatitis.

Amazon Alexa

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify
 

Decreased time in deep, dreamless sleep is associated with increasing Alzheimer’s disease pathology. Also today, physician groups are pushing back on Part B of the drug reimbursement proposal, dabigatran matches aspirin for second stroke prevention, and reassurance for pregnancy in atopic dermatitis.

Amazon Alexa

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify