Posted: Jul 31, 2017
Tags: cognitive effect xtandi, cognitive effect zytiga, Hormonal Therapy, prostate cancer, prostate cancer information, prostate cancer oncology, prostate cancer research, Uncategorized, Xtandi, Zytiga,
Dr. Alicia Morgans, a medical oncologist, specializes in treating advanced prostate cancer and is particularly interested in addressing treatment side effects.
In July, Prostatepedia spoke with her about her clinical trial that looks at the cognitive effects that Xtandi (enzalutamide) and Zytiga (abiraterone) can have.
Dr. Alicia Morgans: My research focuses on understanding the complications of cancer survivors and, specifically, understanding the complications of hormonal manipulation in men with prostate cancer. I’ve done work investigating osteoporosis and bone complications, cardiovascular complications, and metabolic complications like diabetes. The one area that I had not really explored, and that has been underexplored in the field, is the possibility that there may be cognitive changes associated with the hormonal therapies we use.
A patient who served as an inspiration for the study was a preacher who I met a few years ago, just a few weeks after his urologist started him on Xtandi (enzalutamide). His family was concerned because he developed a profound change in his motivation and planning skills, and he was unable to give sermons since starting the medication.
We were able to stop the medication, and a few weeks later, everyone said that he was back to normal. I just needed to understand why this might be the case. This led to the development of our study.
We are comparing the cognitive function of men starting Zytiga (abiraterone) or Xtandi (enzalutamide) over time to see if there is any difference between drugs that block the androgen receptor like Xtandi (enzalutamide) and drugs that just lower testosterone levels more completely like Zytiga (abiraterone).
Both of these drugs are used in the same patient population and are tremendously effective at controlling the cancer, so this comparison could be done safely.
I was fortunate to have some incredible collaborators with experience in traditional neurocognitive testing help develop the study protocol. In addition to comparing cognitive function between groups, the study validates a computer-based cognitive testing system (Cogstate) against traditional neurocognitive pen-and paper tests in the prostate cancer population. If the measures appear to provide similar assessments, I hope to integrate computer-based cognitive testing into many prospective therapeutic studies just as patient reported outcome measures of pain, fatigue, and depression have been.
Finally, I have to mention that we were very fortunate to pique the interest of the Prostate Cancer Foundation in this work, and they were incredibly generous in conferring an award to fund the study.
Their award allowed us to integrate an assessment of possible genetic predisposition to developing cognitive dysfunction. The award also provides funds to integrate advanced neuroimaging with a noninvasive MRI series into the protocol. This will enable us to look at structural and functional changes that may happen in the brain during treatment.
We are doing this trial now because it is definitely an area of clinical concern in my practice. I don’t think that previous work has been able to nail down which populations are at highest risk for cognitive dysfunction or develop a methodology that is both reliable and reproducible in larger scale settings. Our trial design may validate a computer-based methodology that can be expanded to other sites without requiring that trials include psychologists with neurocognitive expertise to administer cognitive tests. The computer-based method is less resource-intensive and more easily scalable.