Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Free New Cancer Support Services

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 14, 2011 - The Cancer Support Community (CSC) -- an
international non-profit dedicated to providing support, education and hope
to people impacted by cancer -- today announced a free new service:
CancerSupportSource(tm), an innovative mobile application providing cancer
patients and their caregivers with a unique set of tools addressing their
physical, social and emotional concerns related to living with cancer and
its treatment. The app is available for download
le.com/us/app/cancersupportsource/id402342273?mt=8&ls=1> via the iTunes
Store (category: Medical).

Whole Genome Sequencing for Prostate Cancer

Whole Genome Sequencing for Prostate Cancer
Today’s announcement regarding the sequencing of whole prostate cancer genomes is an historic development in the fight against prostate cancer. The ability to sequence whole genomes will spare some patients from unnecessary treatments and side effects while eliminating an estimated $1.5 billion that is spent each year on overtreatment. The complete research findings will be published in the February 10 issue of Nature. The following Q and A is from content discussed during a teleconference announcing the significance of the findings and of whole genome sequencing to prostate cancer research.

Why is this discovery historic for prostate cancer research, and all cancer research generally?

A great journey begins with a small step. This is PCF’s first “Lewis and Clark” moment exploring the genomic landscape of prostate cancer. For the first time, researchers have uncovered a comprehensive genetic map of seven patients’ prostate tumors. Each of the seven maps offers a macroscopic view of the complete genetic sequence and mutations that might underlie and cause each patient’s disease. The whole genome view also shows us how prostate cancer is complex in a way that is different from other cancers. Instead of having many “spelling errors” or point mutations, prostate cancer has an unprecedented number of large rearrangement segments called “DNA fusions.”

What should patients be asking urologists today that they couldn’t ask yesterday?

Although these findings have not yet been translated into widely employed clinical practices, patients can begin to ask their respective medical teams about participating in studies that use whole genome sequencing in clinical trials. Opportunities for employing genomic scans in research and treatment studies for prostate cancer patients are rapidly expanding.

How much does it cost to sequence a whole prostate cancer genome? How long does it take?

The current estimated cost of sequencing a whole genome is $20,000 or less. Experts predict that the cost of routine sequencing will ultimately be around $5,000 per genome. (This figure compares favorably to the cost of $90,000-$150,000 per patient for a radical prostatectomy followed by several years of androgen deprivation therapy using Lupron.) The process of whole genome sequencing for a single patient currently takes between 2 and 3 weeks.

How will whole genomic sequencing accelerate the development of new medicines and diagnostics for prostate cancer patients?

Knowledge of DNA fusions from leukemia genome sequencing led to breakthrough medicines for chemotherapy-resistant leukemia. PCF believes that prostate cancer genome sequencing could follow suit and lead to a cancer-specific tests or fusion-specific medicines for distinct types of prostate cancer. Additionally, information provided by sequencing a given tumor could facilitate matching up a patient to existing clinical trials targeting DNA fusions and mutations—PCF is currently monitoring 11 trials of this kind.

What does the genome look like to a doctor or a patient?

The DNA code of each of the multiple tumors sequenced contains 3 billion letters. Depicting the sequence of these letters in a linear fashion would make it hard to visualize the important patterns and features of the structural variation with the code. It would also be exceedingly long to read.

Instead of sifting through a 3-billion letter code, a diagram was developed as a short-hand tool for visualizing important relationships within the genome. It was created with Circos software and is called the Circos plot. Designed with the express purpose of aiding in the visualization of genomic data, its circular layout is analogous to a clock face. Just as a clock face displays time through the use of a fixed dial indicating the hours in a 12-hour cycle, the Circos plot displays the 23 chromosome pairs on which the entire human genome is stored.

These chromosomes are numbered clockwise on the outer circumference of a circle plot. The demarcations within the circle relate information about what might be important for a doctor or patient to know about the genome being studied. On the chart below, the green ticks represent losses of coding information and the purple arcs represent gene fusions, how genetic material goes from the “right place” to the “wrong place” in the genome.






Scientists can quickly assess a Circos plot just as patients can easily glance at a clock face and tell time. Essentially, the Circos plot is an individualized, unique portrait of each patient’s prostate cancer, akin to a CT Scan of the entire genome.

What kinds of cancers were sequenced? Does this data help us distinguish between aggressive and non-aggressive prostate cancer?

All seven patients had cancers that were Gleason Grade 7, 8, or 9 (aggressive prostate cancers). These patients’ cancers were hand-picked to represent meaningful, advanced cancers (i.e. cancers that, without surgery or treatment, could possibly progress and take the life of the patient). An important question to ask is what do lower grade tumors in patients undergoing proactive surveillance look like by whole genome sequencing on a Circos plot. It may well be that indolent tumors have a much “quieter” genome, missing far less code and showing far less damage—a Circos plot without many lines or ticks. If we broadened this study by sequencing thousands of patients and following them in the clinic, we might be better able to distinguish indolent cancers with the tendency to remain “quiet” from those that require aggressive treatment.

Were these genomes just a snapshot in time for these patients? If you were to sample the same patients again would they have changed already?

Yes. In this study, the sequencing captures a snapshot of the seven patients’ tumors at the time of surgery. Conceivably you could take multiple “snapshots” of the genome at the time of diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, and throughout survivorship.

Now that we have these genomic portraits, what do you expect scientists around the world to do with the information? How will the data be made publically available?

This data will be carefully studied to compare and contrast the prostate cancer genome with other cancer genomes (i.e. breast cancer genomes) where we might find clues for understanding how to design better drugs for both kinds of cancers. Additionally, learning more about how certain genes are mutated or fused gives us insight into the fundamental processes of why cancer is caused, how and why it does or does not spread, and why it does or does not go into remission with certain existing treatments. With regard to the seven tumors sequenced, the patients’ identities have all been protected; however, any scientist around the world who logs into a database and fills out the appropriate consent form can responsibly access the information. Every person who uses the data must identify him or herself.

Do the whole genome maps help us explain the disproportionate burden of prostate cancer incidence and death in African-Americans and other affected populations?

Not yet, but large-scale populations studies are now urgently needed to address this important question. For studies on this scale, it takes several thousand patient samples to compare and contrast the patterns that may exist in the Circos plots in order to assess whether the genome can tell us more about the undue burden.



Listen to the Entire Teleconference



Teleconference Participants:

Dr. Jonathan W. Simons (moderator)
President & CEO, PCF
Dr. Levi Garraway (Co-lead investigator)
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, The Broad Institute

Dr. Michael Berger
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Dr. Mark Rubin (Co-lead investigator)
Weill Cornell Medical College

Dr. Ash Tewari
Weill Cornell Medical College
Dan Zenka
VP of Communications & Patient Advocate, PCF

The FDA Warning on Drugs Treating Enlarged Prostate

By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter

Thursday, June 9 (HealthDay News) --The FDA issued a warning concerning drugs used primarily to treat enlarged prostates, because the medications may raise the risk of developing an aggressive form of prostate cancer.

In a statement released Thursday, the agency said the drugs involved include popular medications sold under the brand names Proscar and Propecia (sold by Merck & Co.) and Avodart and Jalyn (sold by GlaxoSmithKline).

According to the FDA, almost 5 million men were prescribed one of these medications between 2002 and 2009. Of these, nearly 3 million men were between the ages of 50 and 79.

The agency is advising doctors not to start patients on these drugs until prostate cancer -- which can mimic the symptoms of an enlarged prostate -- and other urological conditions have been ruled out.

According to the agency, this new warning is based on the results of two large prostate cancer trials.

Although these trials did not include Propecia, which is prescribed to treat hair loss in men, its label is also being updated. However, the FDA said "the applicability of the Avodart and Proscar studies to Propecia, is currently unknown."

All of these drugs are part of a class of medications called 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARI). According to the FDA, Proscar, Avodart and Jalyn are approved to treat symptoms of enlarged prostate, while Proscar and Avodart are also approved to reduce the risk of urinary retention or surgery related to an enlarged prostate. Propecia is a lower-dose version of Proscar.

Merck issued a statement Thursday on the FDA ruling.

"Merck stands behind the demonstrated safety and efficacy of Proscar [finasteride, 5mg] and Propecia [finasteride, 1mg]. Both products have been prescribed to millions of men, with Proscar prescribed to those suffering from benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH or enlarged prostate) since 1992, and Propecia prescribed to men with male pattern hair loss since 1997," the company statement said. "Merck's goal is to ensure the product labeling includes all relevant trial information to help health-care professionals and their patients make informed treatment decisions."

Less than a year ago, GlaxoSmithKline asked the FDA to approve the use of Avodart to prevent prostate cancer, although the FDA declined that request in January. The company based its reasoning on the results of one of the trials on which the agency is now basing its new warning.

In addition to this new side effect, recent research has shown that Proscar, Propecia and Avodart are all associated with increasing the risk of erectile dysfunction in men who take the medications.

Commenting on the FDA warning, prostate cancer expert Dr. Anthony D'Amico, chief of genitourinary radiation oncology at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, said, "I think that the warning is appropriate. The risk is very small, but not zero."

"What both studies show conclusively is there is about a 1 percent increase in being diagnosed with high-grade prostate cancer if you got these drugs -- even though you are less likely to get a low-grade cancer."

Why that is is not clear, D'Amico said. "But I think the warning is fair," he added.

The drugs really do work in preventing prostate cancer, D'Amico said. "You have to weigh the 24 percent reduction against the 1 percent increased incidence of high-grade disease," he said.

"These drugs should only be used in men who have an additional indication to take them beyond prostate cancer prevention," D'Amico said.


Copyright © 2011 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Friday, June 17, 2011

Defense Department 2012 Prostate Research Prog

THE "NEW" PROSTATE CANCER INFOLINKEntries RSS | Comments RSS Follow The "New" Prostate Cancer InfoLink news blog on TWITTER or FACEBOOK.

The "New" Prostate Cancer InfoLink has been developed to become a primary source of accurate, current, and topical information about prostate cancer for patients and their families.
This web site is a service of Prostate Cancer International.


Other PCI web sites
El Cáncer de Próstata Latinoamérica
Prostate Cancer Africa

Prostate Cancer Caribbean

Solidarité Prostate InfoLink

The "New" Prostate Cancer InfoLink is intended for informational purposes only. It is not engaged in rendering medical advice or professional services.
News and information provided on this site should not be used for diagnosing or treating any health problem or disease.

The "New" Prostate Cancer InfoLink is not a substitute for professional care. If you have or suspect you may have a health problem, please consult your healthcare provider.



Perspective Confidentiality Disclosure Reliability Courtesy

Copyright © 2008-11 Prostate Cancer International, Inc.Funding for the DoD PCRP in FY 2012
Posted on June 16, 2011 by Sitemaster
iRate This


So here’s a quick status report on the potential funding for the US Department of Defense (DoD) Prostate Cancer Research Program (PCRP) for the fiscal year (FY) that begins on October 1, 2012 and runs through September 30, 2013.

As regular readers of this news blog may remember, funding for FY 2011 was renewed at the same level of $80 million as we had seen in the preceding few fiscal years. Congress has now initiated the process of looking at funding for the Department of Defense in FY 2012, and our current understanding is that there will be cuts to many of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP) initiatives, including the PCRP.

At this time, the House Appropriations Committee has proposed a 20 percent cut to the PCRP, which will mean a reduction in the total budget for PCRP from $80 million to $64 million for FY 2012. This is not good, but it could have been a lot worse. However, this is also just the first step in what may be a long process. We believe that the House of Representatives will vote on this bill some time next week. Hopefully, it will pass without any further fuss, but then we will have to wait and see what the Senate decides to do, and that could take a while.

For new readers, the PCRP is the largest single source of US government funding specifically dedicated to prostate cancer research. At its height, in FY 2001, a total of $100 million was dedicated to this initiative. Securing continuing funding for the PCRP is a critical priority for the Prostate Cancer Roundtable here in the USA. As a group, under the current economic circumstances, it is probably safe to say that the Roundtable members would be willing to live with a 20 percent budget cut of this type — even if we don’t like it! However, …

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Two-Tiered Prostate Cancer Surveillance

null
null
OncologyStat®One Source, Many Resources.® By Elsevier
News
Two-Tiered Prostate Cancer Surveillance Could Curb Overtreatment
Two-Tiered Prostate Cancer Surveillance Could Curb Overtreatment
J Smith
20110418
2011 May 18
Elsevier Global Medical News
Find more items about these cancer types:

ProstateTwo-Tiered Prostate Cancer Surveillance Could Curb Overtreatment
Elsevier Global Medical News. 2011 May 18, J Smith


A two-tiered system of surveillance could reduce prostate cancer deaths by half while also curbing overdiagnosis and overtreatment, according to results from a large Swedish study.

The system would allow men who test for high levels of prostate-specific antigen (more than 1.6 ng/mL) in their 40s to undergo close surveillance as they age, while the rest - approximately half of all men - would need to be tested only three times between the ages of 44 and 60 years.

The findings, released May 18 and highlighted during a press briefing at which the American Society of Clinical Oncology offered a preview of studies to be presented at its annual meeting in June, could help lead to a more "rational" screening strategy, according to the study's investigators.

While there is evidence that PSA screening can detect prostate cancer at an early, curable stage, it is viewed as problematic because of the risk of overtreatment. PSA levels are not necessarily indicative of present cancer, and a large number of men must be screened to prevent a single death.

The investigators, led by Dr. Hans Lilja of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, conducted a case-control study nested within a cohort of 12,090 Swedish men who provided blood between 1974 and 1986. A total of 4,999 provided repeat samples 6 years later. The investigators also looked at an independent cohort of 1,167 men who provided blood at age 60 years. Men with evidence of prostate cancer metastasis or death (n = 252) were matched 3:1 with controls.

The study found that 44% of prostate cancer deaths occurred in men who had the top 10% of PSA levels (greater than 1.6 ng/mL) for their age group when they were tested for the first time between the ages of 44 and 50 years.

Men whose PSA levels remained below the median for the population in their age group saw a progressively declining rate of death or metastasis.

The investigators found that 28% of metastases or deaths from prostate cancer over the next 27 years occurred in men aged 44-50 years whose initial screens showed a PSA below the median in the population (0.7 ng/mL).

For men aged 51-55 years with a PSA lower than the median (0.8 ng/mL), the risk of metastatic prostate cancer or death was 18% over 27 years. At age 60 years, only 0.5% of deaths or metastases occurred in men with a PSA less than the median for that age (1.1 ng/mL).

The findings show that PSA levels at the time of initial screening among men aged 44-50 years can accurately predict the risk of death from prostate cancer or metastatic prostate cancer up to 30 years later. Concentrating surveillance in this group of men could allow the rest to undergo only three lifetime tests at the ages of 44, 51-55, and 60 years, the investigators concluded.

Dr. Lilja disclosed owning stock in Arctic Partners, a firm that holds patents for PSA assays.


Copyright © 2010 International Medical News Group

Abiraterone ProlongsOverall Survival

Abiraterone Prolongs Survival in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer
Elsevier Global Medical News. 2011 May 25, MA Moon


Abiraterone acetate, a selective inhibitor of androgen biosynthesis, prolonged overall survival, reduced mortality risk by 35%, and delayed time to disease progression in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had already undergone chemotherapy, according to a report in the May 26 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

"The use of hormonal agents is typically not considered in patients who have received chemotherapy. These results show that continued androgen-receptor signaling contributes to disease progression, and they provide support for the evaluation of other endocrine therapies in this [advanced] stage of the disease," wrote Dr. Johann S. de Bono of the Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton (England), and his associates.

Several previous studies have demonstrated that, despite medical or surgical castration, prostate cancers continue to have sufficient levels of androgens, perhaps from synthesis within the tumor itself, to propel tumor growth. In phase I and phase II trials, abiraterone acetate - which potently blocks cytochrome P450 c17 (CYP17), an enzyme critical to testosterone synthesis - has shown promising antitumor activity even in advanced prostate cancer.

Dr. de Bono and his colleagues performed this international phase III randomized double-blind trial at 147 sites to compare daily oral therapy with four 250-mg abiraterone acetate tablets plus low-dose prednisone against placebo plus low-dose prednisone. They enrolled 1,195 men who had previously received docetaxel and showed disease progression despite ongoing androgen deprivation.

The primary end point of the study was overall survival.

At a preplanned interim analysis, active treatment was found to reduce the risk of death by 35%, compared with placebo. Mortality was 42% with active treatment, compared with 55% with placebo. Median overall survival was 14.8 months with abiraterone, compared with 10.9 months with placebo, the investigators reported (N. Engl J. Med. 2011;364:1995-2005).

This survival benefit "was consistent across all subgroups, and ... robust after adjustment for stratification factors in a multivariate analysis," they said.

Based on these findings, the trial was unblinded and patients in the placebo group were allowed to switch to active treatment.

"All the secondary end points analyzed provided support for the superiority of abiraterone acetate over placebo," Dr. de Bono and his associates said. Treatment response was greater with abiraterone whether measured by PSA levels (29% response vs. 6%) or Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria (14% vs. 3%). Time to PSA progression was longer (10.2 months vs. 6.6 months), as was median progression-free survival on radiography (5.6 vs. 3.6 months).

Active treatment reduced the risk of disease progression by 42% when assessed by PSA levels and by 33% when assessed by radiographic imaging.

Exploratory end points, including pain palliation and time to 25% of patients having a skeletal event, also consistently favored abiraterone over placebo.

"This study validates the hypothesis that the biosyntehsis of steroid hormones downstream of CYP17 contributes to progression of castration-resistant prostate cancer in a subgroup of men for whom this disease remains driven by steroid ligands and should not be described as 'hormone refractory.' Since these men cannot be identified a priori, continuing to call this disease 'androgen independent' or 'hormone refractory' is imprecise," Dr. de Bono and his associates said.

"As our study shows, blocking androgen synthesis by inhibiting CYP17 can produce tumor responses in patients who no longer have a response to standard hormonal therapies and who had received docetaxel-based chemotherapy," they added.

Compliance with abiraterone acetate therapy was high, "and side effects were easily manageable and reversible, despite the advanced age and level of frailty of the study population," the investigators said.

Toxic effects included hypokalemia, hypertension, and fluid retention, "which were largely abrogated by the use of low-dose prednisone," they wrote.

The rates of drug discontinuation and dose reduction were low, and therapy "did not appear to increase the risk of metabolic changes or symptoms associated with chronic androgen deprivation. Nevertheless, longer follow-up is warranted to evaluate late toxic effects," they noted.

In editorial accompanying the study, Dr. Emmanuel S. Antonarakis and Dr. Mario A. Eisenberger wrote that the findings "provide a proof of principle that metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer remains androgen-driven" (N. Engl. J. Med. 2011;364:2055-8).

The results of this phase III trial led to Food and Drug Administration approval of abiraterone [Zytiga] in late April for patients who had received docetaxel, but they also "provide sufficient evidence of efficacy to justify the use of abiraterone in all patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (i.e., even those with no previous chemotherapy treatment)," said Dr. Antonarakis and Dr. Eisenberger, who are with the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore.

Moreover, "it is clear ... that our knowledge of the biologic mechanisms involved in the progression of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer has reached a level at which the discovery of more effective targeted approaches will probably further improve outcomes," they added.

Johns Hopkins receives funding from Cougar Biotechnology and participated in this clinical trial, but Dr. Antonarakis and Dr. Eisenberger were not involved. They reported ties to Sanofi-Aventis, Millennium, Astellas, and Tokai.

This study was sponsored by Ortho Biotech Oncology Research and Development, a unit of Cougar Biotechnology, with further support provided by the Medical Research Council of the United Kingdom, the Experimental Cancer Medical Centre, the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Dr. de Bono is employed by the Institute of Cancer Research, where abiraterone was designed and synthesized, and which has a commercial interest in the drug. He and his associates reported ties to numerous drug and biotechnology companies.

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Finasteride & Dutasteride Raise Risk Of Hi-Gr PCa

Prostate Cancer News Useful Links Video Library



Finasteride And Dutasteride Raise Risk Of High-Grade Prostate Cancer, FDA Informs
Editor's Choice
Main Category: Prostate / Prostate Cancer
Also Included In: Urology / Nephrology; Regulatory Affairs / Drug Approvals
Article Date: 10 Jun 2011 - 7:00 PDT


email to a friend printer friendly opinions
Current Article Ratings:

Patient / Public: 4.6 (5 votes)

Healthcare Prof: 4.4 (5 votes)

Article Opinions: 1 posts

Although finasteride and dutasteride lower overall risk of developing prostate cancer, they raise the chances of developing high-grade prostate cancer, a more serious form of the disease, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has announced. The Agency adds that the risk is low; but doctors need to be aware of this.

The FDA announced that all 5-alpha reductase inhibitor (5-ARI) medications will now have new safety information about the risk of developing high-grade prostate in their labeling, in the Warnings and Precautions section.

Examples of 5-ARI class medications include finasteride (Proscar, Propecia), dutasteride (Avodart), turosteride, bexlosteride and izonsteride. They are drugs with antiandrogenic activity and are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (prostate gland enlargement) and androgenic alopecia (hair loss, baldness).

The FDA evaluated two randomized controlled trials - PCPT (the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial), which compared finasteride 5mg against placebo for 7 years, and REDUCE (Reduction by Dutasteride of Prostate Cancer Events trial), which compared dutasteride 0.5 mg against placebo for 4 years. Both trials were measuring prostate cancer risk reduction in males aged 50+ years.

Even though both studies demonstrated an overall reduction in prostate cancer risk with both drugs, they also showed a higher risk of high-grade prostate cancer.

High-grade prostate cancer (Gleason score between 8 and 10) is the most deadly form of prostate cancer. It is an aggressive cancer which grows and spreads into surrounding areas rapidly. The cancer cells are large, very difficult to treat, and frequently reappear.

The FDA stresses that patients should talk to their doctors first before deciding on whether to change or stop any prescription medication.

Finasteride is marketed by Merck. Dutasteride is marketed by GlaxoSmithKline.

Written by Christian Nordqvist


View drug information on dutasteride; Propecia; Proscar.

Copyright: Medical News Today

Friday, June 10, 2011

Androgen Ablation &Bone Metastasis

Androgen Ablation
Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is commonly used in the treatment of prostate cancer.53 Survival in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer treated with ADT is long, with a median survival of greater than 7 years.54 Hence, long-term effects on bones are of particular concern. At least one study has also suggested skeletal fractures as an adverse predictor of overall survival in men with prostate cancer.55

Even at baseline, men with prostate cancer who have not received ADT have a higher incidence of osteoporosis than the general age-matched population.56 Effects of hormone treatment most likely compound the problem.21

A Danish case-control registry study compared more than 15,000 men aged older than 50 years who had fractures with 45,000 men who did not. The authors found that a diagnosis of prostate cancer was associated with an increased odds ratio (OR) for fracture of 1.8 (95% CI, 1.6-2.1) and ADT was associated with an increased OR of 1.7 (95% CI, 1.2-2.5). It was noted that the increased risk became apparent soon after diagnosis and persisted even in long-term survivors.57

Retrospective cohort studies of men who have survived prostate cancer for many years have demonstrated that ADT therapy is associated with an increase in fracture risk (Table 2).58-65 Shahinian et al performed a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database study of 50,613 men who were diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1992 and 1997. Five years after starting treatment, 19.4% of survivors who received ADT developed a fracture at any site, whereas only 12.6% of survivors not receiving ADT developed a fracture.58 Dickman et al studied almost 18,000 men who were treated for prostate cancer with bilateral orchiectomy, and compared their fracture risk with that of approximately 360,000 healthy controls. The authors found that those who had undergone orchiectomy had a fracture risk over 10 years of 12% at the femoral neck alone, compared with 5% in the general population.60 Smith et al conducted a claims-based retrospective cohort study of 3887 men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer receiving GnRH agonists compared with 7774 who did not receive these agents. GnRH agonists were associated with an increased clinical fracture risk (7.88 clinical fractures per 100 person-years in the GnRH group vs 6.51 per 100 person-years in controls; relative risk [RR], 1.21; 95% CI, 1.14-1.29 [P < .001]).59 However, these studies are limited in that fractures were not designated as osteoporotic versus pathologic, and no relation with BMD was performed.