Affordable Access

deepdyve-link
Publisher Website

Cardiovascular Morbidity in a Randomized Trial Comparing GnRH Agonist and GnRH Antagonist among Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer and Preexisting Cardiovascular Disease.

Authors
  • Margel, David1, 2
  • Peer, Avivit3
  • Ber, Yaara1
  • Shavit-Grievink, Liat1, 4
  • Tabachnik, Tzlil1
  • Sela, Sivan1
  • Witberg, Guy5
  • Baniel, Jack1, 2
  • Kedar, Daniel1, 2
  • Duivenvoorden, Wilhelmina C M6
  • Rosenbaum, Eli4
  • Pinthus, Jehonathan H6
  • 1 Division of Urology, Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva, Israel. , (Israel)
  • 2 Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. , (Israel)
  • 3 Department of Oncology, Rambam Health Care Campus and Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. , (Israel)
  • 4 Davidoff Cancer Centre, Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva, Israel. , (Israel)
  • 5 Department of Cardiology, Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva, Israel. , (Israel)
  • 6 Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. , (Canada)
Type
Published Article
Journal
The Journal of urology
Publication Date
Dec 01, 2019
Volume
202
Issue
6
Pages
1199–1208
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000384
PMID: 31188734
Source
Medline
Keywords
Language
English
License
Unknown

Abstract

Androgen deprivation therapy may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. Limited data suggest that GnRH (gonadotropin-releasing hormone) antagonist may be associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease than GnRH agonist. We performed a phase II, randomized, open label study in men with prostate cancer and preexisting cardiovascular disease who were randomized to receive GnRH agonists or antagonists for 1 year. The primary outcome was endothelial function measured by the EndoPAT 2000 device (Itamar Medical, Caesarea, Israel). The predefined secondary outcome was a new cardiovascular event. Patients were followed for the development of cardiovascular disease, defined as death, myocardial infarction, a cerebrovascular event, percutaneous angioplasty with coronary stent insertion or hospitalizations due to cardiac events. A total of 80 patients were enrolled in study, including 41 and 39 who received GnRH antagonist and agonist, respectively. Patients in each arm had similar baseline characteristics. We did not detect a difference in the primary end point (endothelial function) between the groups (mean ± SD reactive hyperemia index 2.07 ± 0.15 vs 1.92 ± 0.11, p=0.42). However, during the trial period a new cardiovascular event (the secondary end point) developed in 15 patients. Of cases new major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events developed in 9, including death in 2, myocardial infarction in 1, a cerebrovascular event in 2 and percutaneous angioplasty with coronary stent insertion in 4. Of the patients 20% randomized to GnRH agonist experienced a major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event compared to 3% of those on GnRH antagonist (p=0.013). The absolute risk reduction in major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events at 12 months using GnRH antagonist was 18.1% (95% CI 4.6-31.2, p=0.032). To our knowledge this is the first prospective study to test cardiovascular outcomes among patients with prostate cancer who received androgen deprivation therapy. No differences in the primary end point were noted between the study arms. However, the secondary end point revealed that patients treated with GnRH agonist experienced significantly more major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events than those treated with GnRH antagonist. These phase II results suggest that in patients with prostate cancer who have preexisting cardiovascular disease selecting the androgen deprivation therapy modality may differentially affect cardiac outcomes.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times