Neoadjuvant flutamide monotherapy for locally confined prostate cancer

BACKGROUND: We compared the clinical effects and impact on quality of life (QOL) of patients who received a 3-month course of flutamide monotherapy before radical prostatectomy with those who received a 3-month course of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist monotherapy. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer were enrolled in this study (19, flutamide; 18, LHRH agonist). The rates of change of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and testosterone levels, downsizing of prostate volume, the rate of organ confined disease, adverse effects and perioperative scores measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Prostate Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC-P) and the Sapporo Medical University Sexual Function Questionnaire (SMUF) were analyzed. RESULTS: At radical prostatectomy, pathological variables were not significantly different in the two groups. Serum testosterone level was significantly higher (mean 359.2 compared to 10.5, P < 0.001), complete response rate of PSA (13% compared to 57%, P = 0.028) and rate of downsizing of prostate volume (mean, -17.7% compared to -35.4%, P = 0.038) were significantly lower in the flutamide group than in the LHRH group. After neoadjuvant hormone therapy, the scores on the sexual problem domain of EORTC-P (P = 0.033) and sexual desire score of SMUF (P = 0.021) were significantly higher in the flutamide group than in the LHRH group. At a median follow-up of 34 months after prostatectomy, biochemical failure-free survival rate in the flutamide group did not differ from that in the LHRH group. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that flutamide monotherapy can be an acceptable modality as an option for neoadjuvant hormone therapy.     

Interstitial pneumonitis related to flutamide monotherapy for prostate cancer

A 88-year-old man with prostate cancer was receiving non-steroidal anti-androgen therapy (flutamide, 375 mg/day). Three weeks after starting therapy, the patient developed dyspnea and bilateral pulmonary interstitial infiltrates. The withdrawal of flutamide and the initiation of steroid therapy resulted in clinical improvement.     

Serum concentrations of flutamide and goserelin in a prostate cancer patient with obstructive nephropathy: a case report]

A 72-year-old man presented with pollakiuria and dysuria. His prostate was the size of an apple and hard on digital rectal examination and the serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) level was 73 ng/ml (RIA). Ultrasonography revealed bilateral hydronephrosis and the serum creatinine level was 13.2 mg/dl. CT scanning of the abdomen demonstrated swelling of paraaortic lymph nodes. Transrectal needle biopsy of the prostate gave a diagnosis of moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. Accordingly, the final diagnosis was prostate cancer (cT3N4M1, stage D2). Immediately after bilateral percutaneous nephrostomy, treatment with an LH-RH agonist (goserelin) and flutamide was commenced. Serum creatinine was 6.6 mg/dl at the start of antiandrogen therapy and decreased to 1.8 mg/dl after 27 days. A 125 mg flutamide capsule was administered at 7 a.m., and blood samples were collected 4 hours later on days 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 14, 17, 18 and 27. The OH-flutamide concentration was measured. There was no significant correlation between serum creatinine and the OH-flutamide concentration. After implantation of goserelin (3.6 mg depot), blood samples were obtained at 11 a.m. on days 8, 12, 14, 15 and 25. The serum goserelin level was measured. The serum goserelin level increased to a peak on day 14, as described previously, but the peak value of 9.63 ng/ml was higher than that reported before (mean +/- SD 2.848 +/- 0.199).     

Randomized study comparing zoladex versus zoladex plus flutamide in treatment of advanced cancer of the prostate]

589 patients from 10 countries are recruited into a multicentre randomised trial comparing Zoladex with a combination of Zoladex-Depot + flutamide. Zoladex was administered as a depot injection every 28 days and flutamide was given as 3 x 250 mg tablets daily. Patients with histologically confirmed locally advanced (T3/T4) or metastatic (M1) carcinoma were included. Patients with previous hormonal manipulation and/or chemotherapy were excluded. 65% of patients had metastatic disease. Both treatment groups were balanced (T-category, histology, metastases, performance status). An analysis of subjective and objective response, time to response and time to progression has shown no statistically significant difference. A survival analysis after a median follow-up of 24 months has shown no statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups (p = 0.47).     

Intermittent versus continuous cyproterone acetate in bone metastatic prostate cancer: results of a randomized trial

Background

To compare intermittent treatment (IT) versus continuous treatment (CT) using cyproterone acetate (CPA) in bone metastatic prostate cancer patients, we conducted an open-label, multicenter randomized trial. Continuous androgen deprivation therapy is the standard treatment in metastatic prostate cancer. Intermittent treatment might maintain efficacy while toxicity and costs are reduced.

Methods

Patients received CPA 100 mg tid in the prephase. Patients with a PSA decline of ≥90 % or PSA <4 ng/ml were randomized. If patients were progressive, LHRH analogues were added. Primary end point was time to PSA progression.

Results

A total of 366 patients were recruited; 258 reached a good response after 3 or 6 months and were randomized. A total of 131 patients randomized to IT and 127 to CT. Patients on IT had an average of 1.7 episodes on CPA, before LHRH analogues were started. The mean time without treatment in IT was 463 days versus 422 days on treatment. There were statistical significant differences between IT and CT in 3 of the 5 functional scales of EORTC QLQ C 30; however, the clinical relevance of this finding appears modest. Symptom and potency scales showed significant advantages for IT. There were no differences in time to PSA progression on CPA, time to PSA and/or clinical progression on LHRH analogues and time to cancer-specific and overall survival.

Conclusions

IT by CPA is associated with less symptoms and modest advantages in QOL domains. There were no differences in time to PSA progression, clinical progression or survival.     

Bicalutamide monotherapy compared with castration in patients with nonmetastatic locally advanced prostate cancer: 6.3 years of followup

PURPOSE: Nonsteroidal antiandrogen monotherapy may be a treatment option for some patients with advanced prostate cancer. We report a survival and safety update from an analysis of 2 studies in which patients with nonmetastatic (M0) locally advanced disease were treated with either 150 mg. bicalutamide monotherapy or castration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 2 open label, multicenter studies of identical design were pooled according to protocol. Patients with stage T3/4 prostate cancer were randomized to receive 150 mg. bicalutamide daily or castration (orchiectomy or 3.6 mg. goserelin acetate every 28 days) in a 2:1 ratio. RESULTS: A total of 480 patients with locally advanced prostate cancer were randomized to treatment. After a median followup of 6.3 years mortality was 56%. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in overall survival (hazard ratio 1.05, upper 1-sided 95% confidence limit 1.31, p = 0.70) or time to progression (1.20, 1.45, p = 0.11). There were statistically significant benefits in the bicalutamide monotherapy group in the 2 quality of life parameters of sexual interest (p = 0.029) and physical capacity (p = 0.046). The highest incidences of adverse events were the pharmacological side effects of hot flashes in the castration group, and breast pain and gynecomastia in the bicalutamide group. The incidences of other types of adverse events were low. Bicalutamide was well tolerated, with few drug related withdrawals from study, and no new safety issues were identified during this longer followup. CONCLUSIONS: Monotherapy with 150 mg. bicalutamide is an attractive alternative to castration in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer for whom immediate hormone therapy is indicated.     

Bicalutamide 80 mg combined with a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist (LHRH-A) versus LHRH-A monotherapy in advanced prostate cancer: findings from a phase III randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial in Japanese patients

To compare combination therapy with bicalutamide 80 mg and a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist (LHRH-A) versus LHRH-A alone in Japanese men with untreated advanced prostate cancer. A total of 205 patients with stage C/D prostate cancer were randomized to either LHRH-A+once-daily oral bicalutamide 80 mg or placebo. Primary study variables have been reported previously. Secondary variables included: time to achieve prostate-specific antigen < or = 4 ng/ml, time-to-treatment failure (TTTF), time-to-disease progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), adverse events and adverse drug reactions. Following combination therapy with bicalutamide 80 mg, there were significant (P<0.001) advantages over LHRH-A alone in terms of TTTF and TTP, but the difference in the interim OS was not statistically significant. First-line combination therapy with bicalutamide 80 mg in Japanese patients with advanced prostate cancer offers significant benefits over LHRH-A alone, with respect to TTTF and TTP. Follow-up for OS continues.     

比卡鲁胺150 mg单药与单独药物去势治疗局部晚期前列腺癌的随机对照研究

论 比卡鲁胺150 mg单药治疗局部晚期前列腺癌的安全性和耐受性良好,患者PSA下降程度和前列腺体积缩小程度与单独药物去势治疗相似,是一种新的治疗局部晚期、无远处转移前列腺癌安全、有效的方法.     

Bicalutamide 150 mg plus standard care vs standard care alone for early prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, in the ongoing Early Prostate Cancer (EPC) trial programme, the efficacy and tolerability of bicalutamide 150 mg once daily in addition to standard care for localized or locally advanced, nonmetastatic prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The EPC programme comprises three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials designed for combined analysis. Following standard care, 8113 men with localized (T1-2, N0/Nx) or locally advanced (T3-4, any N; or any T, N+) prostate cancer (all M0) received oral bicalutamide 150 mg once daily or oral placebo. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival. RESULTS: The large EPC trial programme is defining men who benefit or do not from early or adjuvant antiandrogen therapy. At a median follow-up of 7.4 years, in localized disease there is no benefit to PFS by adding bicalutamide to standard care, and there is a trend (hazard ratio, HR, 1.16; 95% confidence intervals, CI, 0.99-1.37; P = 0.07) towards decreased survival in patients otherwise undergoing watchful waiting. However, in locally advanced disease, bicalutamide significantly improved PFS irrespective of standard care. Bicalutamide significantly improved overall survival in patients receiving radiotherapy (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.44-0.95; P = 0.03); this was driven by a lower risk of prostate cancer-related deaths. Bicalutamide produced a trend towards improved overall survival in patients with locally advanced disease otherwise undergoing watchful waiting (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.66-1.01; P = 0.06). No survival difference was evident in the prostatectomy subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: This ongoing programme is clarifying the role of early or adjuvant antiandrogen therapy in prostate cancer. Patients with localized disease do not appear to derive clinical benefit from added bicalutamide. However, adding bicalutamide 150 mg to standard care provides significant clinical benefits in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer, irrespective of primary therapy.     

Bicalutamide dosages used in the treatment of prostate cancer

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation is often used for the treatment of patients with prostate cancer. Androgen deprivation can be achieved by surgical castration or medical castration, with or without using an antiandrogen. Each of these treatments may be used alone, or an antiandrogen may be used alongside castration to produce combined androgen blockade therapy. METHODS: The nonsteroidal antiandrogen, bicalutamide (Casodex), has been evaluated as a component in combined androgen blockade and as monotherapy. We review the arguments that indicate why a 50-mg once-daily dose of bicalutamide is appropriate in combined androgen blockade, while ongoing clinical trials evaluate 150-mg once-daily as monotherapy in the treatment of prostate cancer. RESULTS: The choice of the 50-mg dose of bicalutamide when used in combined androgen blockade is supported by four main arguments. First, bicalutamide 50 mg is at least equivalent to, if not better than, flutamide 750 mg in terms of receptor affinity, potency, and favorable plasma concentration profile. Second, the reduction in testosterone concentrations produced by medical or surgical castration decreases the potential competition between bicalutamide and testosterone for androgen receptors in prostate cells, allowing the use of a lower dose of antiandrogen in combined androgen blockade than is necessary in monotherapy. Third, bicalutamide 50 mg has an excellent tolerability profile. Fourth, at the 50-mg dose, bicalutamide plus luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue was equivalent to flutamide plus luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue, although there was a trend towards longer survival with bicalutamide. Furthermore, investigations of higher doses of bicalutamide have justified evaluation of bicalutamide 150 mg as monotherapy. First, pharmacodynamic studies reveal an increasing prostate-specific antigen response with increasing dose, which appears to plateau at a dose of around 150-200 mg. Second, in an analysis with 31% mortality, bicalutamide 150 mg appeared to have equivalent efficacy compared with castration in terms of survival in patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of available data, bicalutamide 50 mg is an appropriate dose to use in combined androgen blockade, while 150 mg is being evaluated in ongoing clinical trials as a suitable dose for monotherapy.     

Combined low‐dose flutamide plus finasteride vs low‐dose flutamide monotherapy for recurrent prostate cancer: a comparative analysis of two phase II trials with a long‐term follow‐up

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of peripheral androgen blockade using combined low‐dose flutamide plus finasteride vs low‐dose flutamide monotherapy for treating biochemical relapse after the definitive management of prostate adenocarcinoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty‐six men treated for biochemical relapse of prostate cancer were enrolled prospectively in a phase II trial at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center from 1997 to 2001. Thirty‐six men were treated with flutamide (125 mg twice daily) and finasteride (5 mg twice daily), and 20 men received low‐dose flutamide only after biochemical recurrence (prostate‐specific antigen, PSA, level ≥0.4 ng/mL). Cox proportional hazards analyses were used to compare the risk of progression between the groups.

RESULTS

Patients on combined and monotherapy had a median follow‐up of 54 and 43.5 months, respectively. Seven men (19%) in the combined arm remain in the study with no progression, while five (25%) on monotherapy continue and are progression‐free. Men on combined therapy had a greater decrease in their PSA level (P = 0.002). Multivariate analysis showed that men on combined therapy had significantly less risk of progression than men on monotherapy (hazard ratio 0.21, 95% confidence interval 0.07–0.63, P = 0.005). There was no significant difference in the frequency of side‐effects between the groups. Toxicities were reported to be mild.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests the therapeutic value of low‐dose flutamide alone or combined with finasteride as first‐line agents in a possible graduated approach for treating PSA‐only recurrent prostate cancer. Due to unwanted metabolic effects associated with traditional hormonal agents, phase III trials comparing both regimens with current therapies are warranted.     

药物去势联合雄激素受体阻断剂治疗晚期前列腺癌(附5年临床观察)

目的 观察药物去势联合雄激素受体阻断剂(氟硝丁酰胺，Flutamide)治疗晚期前列腺癌的疗效及药物去势的稳定性。方法 回顾性分析35例药物去势加雄激素阻断剂治疗晚期前列腺癌的I临床资料。结果 所有病人应用LHRH-A 1个月后血睾酮降至去势水平，持续给药可维持稳定的去势水平。34例有治疗效果，有效率97．1％。经平均38．4月随访，复发率为11．8％。7例出现肝功能异常，15例出现食欲减退，35例出现性欲减退和勃起障碍，2例出现血像异常，16例出现潮热、盗汗。结论 药物去势联合雄激素阻断剂治疗初发的晚期前列腺癌疗效肯定，去势稳定。     

Bicalutamide (Casodex) 150 mg plus standard care in early non-metastatic prostate cancer: results from Early Prostate Cancer Trial 24 at a median 7 years' follow-up

Trial 24, one of three ongoing trials in the Early Prostate Cancer programme, is evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of bicalutamide (Casodex) 150 mg following standard care (radiotherapy, radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting) in patients with early, non-metastatic prostate cancer. At 7 years' median follow-up, addition of bicalutamide significantly improved objective progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with locally advanced disease, reducing the risk of progression by 34% versus standard care alone (hazard ratio 0.66; 95% confidence interval 0.55, 0.79; P<0.001). In localized disease, a significant difference in objective PFS was not found. There was no significant difference in overall survival.     

IPOM plus versus IPOM standard in incisional hernia repair: results of a prospective multicenter trial

Hernia - Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair is a well-established technique with satisfying outcomes even at long term for the treatment of incisional and ventral hernia. However, the literature...     

Chemohormonal therapy as primary treatment for metastatic prostate cancer: A randomized study of estramustine phosphate plus luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist versus flutamide plus luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist

BACKGROUND: The present study was undertaken mainly to investigate whether chemohormonal therapy with estramustine phosphate plus luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist has a more beneficial effect than the hormonal therapy with flutamide plus LHRH agonist for newly diagnosed patients with metastatic prostate cancer. METHODS: A total of 57 patients with metastatic prostate cancer aged 59-80 years (median 74 years) were entered in the study and were randomized to the treatment of estramustine phosphate (560 mg/day) plus LHRH agonist (estramustine group) or flutamide (375 mg/day) plus LHRH agonist (flutamide group) with stratification for the degree of performance status, histological differentiation and bone metastasis. RESULTS: Both of the treatment regimens were well tolerated with similar incidences of adverse drug reactions. The overall response rates (complete response plus partial response) at 12 weeks after treatment in the estramustine and flutamide groups were 76 and 55%, respectively. The median time to objective progression for the estramustine group (25.4 months) was longer than that of the flutamide group (14.6 months). The serum levels of follicle stimulating hormone and testosterone were significantly lower in the estramustine group. CONCLUSIONS: Chemohormonal therapy with estramustine phosphate plus LHRH agonist showed longer clinical progression-free survival than the hormonal therapy with flutamide plus LHRH agonist (P = 0.03), although there was no significant difference in the overall survival. A larger-scaled trial with more statistical power is required to clarify that the former regimen is more beneficial than the latter for newly diagnosed patients with advanced prostate cancer.     

Bicalutamide ('Casodex') 150 mg in addition to standard care in patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer: updated results from a randomised double-blind phase III study (median follow-up 5.1 y) in the early prostate cancer programme

Trial 24 is one of three placebo-controlled trials within the ongoing bicalutamide ('Casodex') Early Prostate Cancer (EPC) programme evaluating bicalutamide 150 mg/day in addition to radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy or watchful waiting for T1b-4, any N, M0 prostate cancer. In Trial 24, at 5.1 y median follow-up, the addition of bicalutamide significantly (P < 0.0001) improved objective progression-free survival (PFS) and prostate-specific antigen PFS compared with standard care alone. There was no significant difference in overall survival (P = 0.746). In the context of the whole EPC programme, long-term bicalutamide is not appropriate for localised disease, yet provides advantages in delaying disease progression in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer.     

Prospective randomised trial comparing diethylstilboestrol and flutamide in the treatment of hormone relapsed prostate cancer

BACKGROUND: Patients with hormone relapsed prostate cancer (HRPC) are often treated with flutamide or diethylstilboestrol. However, which of these two options is the best treatment for HRPC remains unclear. METHODS: We carried out a prospective study to determine and compare the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response and survival in patients with hormone relapsed prostate cancer (HRPC), all of whom had previously shown a good response to medical or surgical castration. The patients were randomised to treatment with diethylstilboestrol (DES) and aspirin, or the antiandrogen flutamide. In addition, quality of life was determined by interview and questionnaire. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were randomised for treatment options.There was a significantly greater fall in the PSA (65% vs 35%; P = 0.034) after treatment with diethylstilboestrol compared to treatment with flutamide. Median survival also rose after treatment with diethylstilboestrol (18 months) compared to flutamide (11 months), but this difference did not reach statistical significance. There was no difference in the quality of life parameters between the two groups. There were no cardiovascular complications in the stilboestrol group. CONCLUSIONS: In HRPC, treatment with stilboestrol is associated with a greater PSA fall and an increase in median survival when compared to flutamide treatment.