Similar frequency of testosterone surge after repeat injections of goserelin (Zoladex) 3.6 mg and 10.8 mg: Results of a randomized open-label trial

Testosterone Recovery for Relugolix Versus Leuprolide in Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Results from the Phase 3 HERO Study

BACKGROUND

In the HERO study, relugolix demonstrated sustained testosterone suppression superior to that of leuprolide acetate (97% vs 89%; difference 7.9% [95% confidence interval, 4.1-12%; p < 0.001]).

OBJECTIVE

To analyze testosterone recovery in a prespecified subset of men from the HERO study not indicated to continue androgen deprivation therapy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Men (N = 934) were randomized (2:1) to receive relugolix 120 mg orally daily or leuprolide acetate injections every 12 wk for 48 wk.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Testosterone recovery was assessed in 184 men who completed 48 wk of treatment. During the 90-d recovery period, assessments included time to testosterone recovery (>280 ng/dl; ≥80% of baseline testosterone), serum levels of prostate-specific antigen and pituitary hormones, and adverse events.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The cumulative incidence rate of testosterone recovery to >280 ng/dl at 90 d following drug discontinuation was significantly higher in the relugolix cohort (n = 137) than in the leuprolide acetate cohort (n = 47; 54% vs 3.2%; nominal p = 0.002). The median time to testosterone recovery was faster following relugolix treatment than with leuprolide acetate treatment (86.0 d vs 112.0 d). Compared with leuprolide acetate, more men treated with relugolix achieved ≥80% of baseline testosterone levels (39% vs 2.1%). Men ≤65 yr and those with baseline testosterone greater than the median had a higher incident rate of testosterone recovery. Adverse events were generally similar between treatment groups. One limitation is the short testosterone recovery follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral relugolix had faster and more complete recovery of testosterone to normal levels after treatment discontinuation than leuprolide acetate in a subset of men from the HERO study. The clinical implications of a faster testosterone recovery with relugolix may be significant for men being treated with androgen deprivation therapy and influence treatment decisions.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The male hormone testosterone is reduced during androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. Reduced testosterone levels cause side effects, impacting patient quality of life. When treatment is stopped, the side effects lessen over time as the levels of testosterone come back to pretreatment range (testosterone recovery). In this study, we found that the time to testosterone recovery was faster with relugolix than with leuprolide acetate.

Profile of Relugolix in the Management of Advanced Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: Design, Development, and Place in Therapy

Androgen deprivation therapy, primarily via a gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor agonist or antagonist together with or without an androgen receptor antagonist, remains the mainstay of medical treatment for advanced prostate cancer. Meanwhile, relugolix has been developed as the first orally active, non-peptide, selective antagonist for the gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor. Previous randomized studies involving patients with prostate cancer have demonstrated comparable efficacy in androgen suppression between relugolix vs other gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists or agonists. This review summarizes available data on the design and development of relugolix and its therapeutic application, and discusses if relugolix represents a promising oral alternative to injectable androgen deprivation therapy. Based on current published evidence, further investigation is likely required to determine the actual clinical benefits of relugolix therapy against prostate cancer.

Testosterone analysis in prostate cancer patients

Testosterone is an essential steroid hormone associated with a wide variety of biological processes in humans. In prostate cancer, androgen signaling is an important driver of tumor cell growth. Depletion of gonadal testosterone, achieved by surgical or chemical castration, prevents androgenic signaling and temporally reduces, stops or reverses tumor growth before inevitable progression to castration-resistant prostate cancer occurs. Additional treatment strategies targeting androgenic signaling have become available, although these are without curative intent. While circulating testosterone is also associated with disease risk and potential clinical utility, the main use in the clinical lab is monitoring adequate castration and subsequent resistance to therapy. Adequate castrate testosterone concentrations are currently based on over 50 year-old double-isotope derivative assays that are disputed in automated immunoassay (IA) analysis. The debate has been further fueled with the introduction of mass spectrometry-based assays for testosterone, offering a substantial increase in sensitivity and specificity. In this review, we discuss testosterone regulation and androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer. We provide an overview of the developments in testosterone analysis for monitoring adequate castration and resistance to therapy. Current clinical practice and future clinical utility will be discussed. Finally, clinical and research recommendations will be presented.

Clinically established biodegradable long acting injectables: An industry perspective

Long acting injectable formulations have been developed to sustain the action of drugs in the body over desired periods of time. These delivery platforms have been utilized for both systemic and local drug delivery applications. This review gives an overview of long acting injectable systems that are currently in clinical use. These products are categorized in three different groups: biodegradable polymeric systems, including microparticles and implants; micro and nanocrystal suspensions and oil-based formulations. Furthermore, the applications of these drug delivery platforms for the management of various chronic diseases are summarized. Finally, this review addresses industrial challenges regarding the development of long acting injectable formulations.

Practical strategies to manage cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: Saudi Oncology Pharmacy Assembly Experts recommendations

Purpose

During COVID-19 pandemic, cancer patients are considered one of the most vulnerable to infection since they tend to have advanced age, multiple comorbidities, and are often immunosuppressed by their cancer or therapy. Hence, the Saudi Oncology Pharmacy Assembly has issued recommendations to reduce the frequency of cancer patients’ visits to oncology centers during the pandemic while maintaining the access to cancer therapy and minimize the risk of exposure to coronavirus disease.

Materials and methods

A qualitative methodological approach was conducted in April 2020 using a virtual panel discussion for collection of recommendations.

Results

A total of 12 expert oncology pharmacy practitioners shared their knowledge and experiences in managing oncology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The participants recognized many fundamental recommendations that were already applied in many cancer centers since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak. On that basis, the panelists developed eight practice-related recommendations for action, with a main focus on cancer treatment modification.

Conclusions

In conclusion, delivering cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic carries significant challenges. This paper addressed suggestions to properly manage cancer patients during difficult times. Implementing changes in practice mandates a national collaborative effort from different sectors to guarantee the quality and continuity of care. The SOPA expert panel developed these recommendations, to ultimately contribute in maintaining access to cancer therapy while minimizing the risk of COVID-19 exposure.

Monitoring urinary testosterone and epitestosterone levels, and their ratio, in Korean chemical castration subjects using liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry

In Europe, chemical castration has been adopted as a treatment for paraphilia since the 1930s. Among the various chemical castration agents, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists are now used widely because of their effectiveness and safety. In South Korea, a legislation of chemical castration to control the sexual impulses of sexual offenders was enforced in July 2011. Most of these subjects are treated with leuprorelin acetate, an LHRH agonist, for chemical castration. Despite this, there are few studies that address the long-term influence of LHRH agonists on testosterone (T) and epitestosterone (E) levels in chemical castration subjects. In order to analyze the urinary levels of T in chemical castration subjects, whose T levels are extremely low, we developed and validated an analytical method for the detection of both T and E in human urine using a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS) system. The urine samples were hydrolyzed, extracted, and analyzed by LC–MS/MS with electrospray ionization in the positive-ion mode. The limits of detection were 0.02 ng/mL and the limits of quantitation were 0.05 ng/mL, which provided great sensitivity. The established method was applied to urine samples from chemical castration subjects and healthy male volunteers. The chemical castration subjects showed significantly lower urinary T levels than the control subjects. In addition, the urinary E levels were also lower in the chemical castration subjects; however, the T/E ratios were constant and did not show a notable decrease because of the simultaneous decrease in both urinary T and E. The urinary T levels and T/E ratio did not exceed the doping control criteria for exogenous T ingestion for any subject. This study shows the trend of urinary T and E levels in long-term treated chemical castration subjects by establishing a highly sensitive LC–MS/MS method, that provides useful information for monitoring chemical castration.

Are all gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists equivalent for the treatment of prostate cancer? A systematic review

To review direct comparative studies of the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists goserelin, triptorelin, and leuprorelin for the treatment of prostate cancer, and identify whether there are meaningful clinical differences between these agents. In June 2017, the following searches were performed independently by two reviewers in PubMed: (i) 'prostate cancer' and 'triptorelin' and 'leuprorelin', (ii) 'prostate cancer' and 'triptorelin' and 'goserelin', and (iii) 'prostate cancer' and 'goserelin' and 'leuprorelin', without time restriction. Duplicates were deleted. Relevant conference abstracts were also screened. A total of 16 direct comparative trials were identified: 12 reported on efficacy outcomes, four on safety/tolerability, and five on the convenience of administration/user perceptions. These studies are restricted in terms of patient numbers, formulations assessed, and endpoints measured; none were adequately powered for survival outcome measures. Studies reporting on efficacy endpoints did not show major differences in the ability of these GnRH agonists to reduce levels of testosterone or prostate-specific antigen. Some studies suggest differences in short- or long-term testosterone control, the rate of injection site adverse events, and patient/healthcare professional perceptions, but definitive conclusions cannot be drawn from the existing evidence. Few direct comparative trials of GnRH agonists have been conducted. Whilst GnRH agonists provide a similar castration effect, there is not enough evidence to show that GnRH agonists are equivalent.

Testosterone Suppression with Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone (LHRH) Agonists in Patients Receiving Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVES

To characterize the probability of testosterone escape during a course of radiotherapy and androgen deprivation (ADT) in patients with prostate cancer, and examine predictors of testosterone escape, the prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels during testosterone escape, and the impact of testosterone escape on outcome.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

To participate in the database review, necessary data included: (i) type of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist (LHRHa) administered, date of initiation, and date of cessation or duration of therapy, (ii) radiotherapy information (start date and dose) with at least 6 months of follow-up after radiotherapy, (iii) radiotherapy to the prostate or prostate bed, and (iv) at least one serum testosterone and PSA measurement.

RESULTS

Five hundred sixty patients in the database were identified as being treated with radiotherapy and ADT. Three hundred seventy-five patients had at least one measurement of testosterone and PSA, and the type of LHRHa used could be determined in 361 patients. Median follow-up of patients still living was 4.7 years. The median number of testosterone measurements per patient was six. The incidence of testosterone escape per patient course of treatment was buserelin, 9.3%; goserelin, 10.5%; intramuscular leuprolide, 11.5%; leuprolide subcutaneous, 23.9%; and triptorelin, 6.7% (p = 0.02). There was no difference in either biochemical failure-free survival or overall survival in patients stratified by testosterone escape. The modal PSA level during a testosterone escape was an undetectable PSA.

CONCLUSIONS

An undetectable PSA does not rule out the presence of higher than desired levels of testosterone during ADT. In this cohort of patients, there appears to be no impact of testosterone escape on either biochemical relapse-free survival or overall survival.

Degarelix versus luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists for the treatment of prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the mainstay for advanced, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, and options include surgical castration, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist, and more recently, gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist therapy. Our understanding of the mechanisms and adverse effects of ADT has increased substantially, including the class-specific adverse effects of ADT. Areas covered: This review will summarize the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of the GnRH antagonist degarelix and its role in the management of advanced prostate cancer, the clinical evidence supporting its regulatory approval, as well as potential benefits and disadvantages over traditional LHRH agonist therapy. Expert opinion: Degarelix represents a newer class of ADT that results in a rapid and reliable decline in serum testosterone, a quality that makes it particularly advantageous in men presenting with symptomatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Due to differences in mechanism of action, there is observational data suggesting a potential cardiovascular and even oncologic benefit over traditional LHRH agonist therapy. Further research is ongoing to more clearly define this potential benefit.

Optimal pharmacotherapeutic management of hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer

The mainstay of initial therapy of metastatic prostate cancer has not changed since 1941 when Huggins and Hodges described the efficacy of castration. The benefit of combining an androgen receptor blocker with medical castration has been debatable despite several large randomized trials and meta-analyses intended to answer the question. Recent phase III trial data with continuous versus intermittent androgen deprivation in newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer have established continuous therapy as the preferred approach at the present time. Novel and more potent inhibitors of androgen signaling have been developed in the past 5 years and have been validated in castration-resistant disease. Their role in management of hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer is under evaluation in ongoing studies. As androgen deprivation therapy carries significant long-term toxicities including fatigue and loss of bone and muscle mass, an important element of clinical management is prevention and amelioration of these toxicities.

Degarelix versus goserelin plus bicalutamide therapy for lower urinary tract symptom relief, prostate volume reduction and quality of life improvement in men with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and tolerability of degarelix for lower urinary tract symptom relief, prostate volume reduction and quality of life improvement in men with prostate cancer (PCa).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature review was performed to identify all of the published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that used degarelix versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists plus antiandrogens therapy for the treatment of PCa. The search included the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register.

RESULTS

Three publications involving a total of 466 patients were used in the analysis, including three RCTs that compared degarelix with goserelin plus bicalutamide therapy for PCa over 12 weeks. For the comparison of degarelix with goserelin plus bicalutamide therapy, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) reduction (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -1.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.97 to -0.72, p = 0.001) and IPSS ≥13 (SMD = -2.68, 95% CI = -4.57 to -0.78, p = 0.006) indicated that decreases in IPSS were greater in degarelix-treated patients than in goserelin plus bicalutamide-treated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis indicates that, compared with goserelin plus bicalutamide, degarelix has significantly more pronounced effects on lower urinary tract symptoms.

Disease control outcomes from analysis of pooled individual patient data from five comparative randomised clinical trials of degarelix versus luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists

BACKGROUND

Studies comparing the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, degarelix, with luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists indicate differences in outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To assess differences in efficacy and safety outcomes in a pooled analysis of trials comparing degarelix with LHRH agonists.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Data were pooled from five prospective, phase 3 or 3b randomised trials (n=1925) of degarelix and leuprolide or goserelin in men requiring androgen deprivation therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer. Patients received either 3 mo (n=467) or 12 mo (n=1458) of treatment.

INTERVENTION

Men were randomised to receive degarelix (n=1266), leuprolide (n=201), or goserelin (n=458).

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier analyses were supported by the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for disease-related baseline factors, to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of efficacy and safety outcomes. The Fisher exact test compared crude incidences of adverse events.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival (PFS) was improved in the degarelix group (HR: 0.71; p=0.017). For patients with baseline PSA levels >20 ng/ml, the HR for PSA PFS was 0.74 (p=0.052). Overall survival (OS) was higher in the degarelix group (HR: 0.47; p=0.023). OS was particularly improved with degarelix in patients with baseline testosterone levels >2 ng/ml (HR: 0.36; p=0.006). In terms of disease-related adverse events, there were, overall, fewer joint-related signs and symptoms, musculoskeletal events, and urinary tract events in the degarelix group.

CONCLUSIONS

These data indicate clinical benefits with degarelix, including a significant improvement in PSA PFS and OS, as well as reduced incidence of joint, musculoskeletal, and urinary tract adverse events, compared with LHRH agonists.

Serum testosterone levels after medical or surgical androgen deprivation: a comprehensive review of the literature

Androgens and the androgen receptor play a role in the progression of prostate cancer. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a mainstay in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. ADT is expected to reduce serum testosterone levels from a normal level of about 500 to 600 ng/dl (17.3-20.8 nmol) down to castration levels. Traditionally, castration was considered to be achieved if testosterone levels were lowered to a threshold of 50 ng/dl (1.73 nmol/l), a definition determined more by measurement methods derived from the use of old assay methods than by evidence. Serum testosterone levels in three-quarter patients after surgical castration drop to less than 20 ng/dl (0.69 nmol/l). Ineffective suppression of testosterone is currently poorly recognized and may possibly have an effect of prostate cancer mortality. Persistent levels of serum testosterone after castration are mainly derived from adrenal androgens. Furthermore, the arrival of new therapies targeting androgen synthesis and androgen receptor activity has renewed interest on serum testosterone. This review discusses the biosynthetic pathway for androgen synthesis in humans and provides a comprehensive review of serum testosterone levels after surgical or medical castration. This review assesses serum testosterone levels after surgical castration and different pharmacologic castration in patients with prostate cancer under ADT, and ineffective testosterone suppression. The author proposes methods to better lower serum testosterone levels during ADT.

Clinical significance of suboptimal hormonal levels in men with prostate cancer treated with LHRH agonists

PURPOSE

We examined the serum levels of testosterone (T) (total and bioavailable) dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in men receiving treatment with luteinizing hormone releasing-hormone (LHRH) agonists for metastatic prostate cancer. In doing this, we want to determine the efficacy of these agents in lowering T levels and whether a possible relationship exists between PSA values, as a surrogate measure of tumour activity, and hormone levels.

METHODS

This was a single centre prospective study of patients on LHRH agonists. Of all the 100 eligible patients, 31 did not qualify (10 were receiving their first injection, 13 were on intermittent hormonal therapy, 7 refused to enter the trial and 1 patient's blood sample was lost). Therefore in total, 69 patients were included in the final analysis. Each patient had their blood sample drawn immediately before the administration of a LHRH agonist. The new proposed criteria of <20 ng/dL (0.69 nmol/L) of total testosterone was used to define optimal levels of the hormone in this population.

RESULTS

Of the 69 patients, 41 were on goserelin injections, 21 on leuprolide, and 7 on buserelin. There was no statistical difference in hormone levels between any of the medications. Overall, 21% of patients failed to reach optimal levels of total testosterone. PSA levels were higher in this group. There was a statistically significant correlation between PSA and testosterone levels, as well as between PSA and FSH. Serum levels of PSA, however, did not correlate with those of bioavailable testosterone.

CONCLUSIONS

Failure to reach optimal levels of testosterone occurs in patients on LHRH agonist therapy. Higher PSA values are more commonly found in patients with suboptimal levels of testosterone receiving LHRH analogs, but the clinical importance of this finding has not been established. There is no significant difference with respect to hormonal levels reached among patients on a variety of LHRH agonists. Total testosterone determinations should be considered in patients on LHRH agonist therapy, particularly when the PSA values begin to rise since it may lead to further beneficial hormonal manipulation.

Experience with degarelix in the treatment of prostate cancer

Degarelix is a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist for the first-line treatment of androgen-dependent advanced prostate cancer. It has a direct mechanism of action that blocks the action of GnRH on the pituitary with no initial surge in gonadotrophin or testosterone levels. Degarelix is the most extensively studied and widely available GnRH antagonist worldwide. Clinical studies have demonstrated similar efficacy to the GnRH agonist leuprolide in achieving testosterone suppression in patients with prostate cancer. However, degarelix produces a faster suppression of testosterone and prostate-specific antigen (PSA), with no testosterone surge or microsurges, thus preventing the risk of clinical flare in advanced disease. Clinical trials have demonstrated that degarelix can offer improved disease control when compared with a GnRH agonist in terms of superior PSA progression-free survival (suggesting that degarelix likely delays progression to castration-resistant disease), and a more significant impact on bone serum alkaline phosphatase and follicle-stimulating hormone. Degarelix is generally well tolerated, with no reports of systemic allergic reactions in any clinical studies. In conclusion, degarelix offers clinicians a rational first-line hormonal monotherapy option for the management of advanced prostate cancer.

New considerations for ADT in advanced prostate cancer and the emerging role of GnRH antagonists

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is first-line treatment for metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists are the most commonly used ADT but have several theoretical physiologic disadvantages (e.g. initial testosterone surge, potential microsurges upon repeat administration). Testosterone surge delays the intended serologic endpoint of testosterone suppression and may exacerbate clinical symptoms. GnRH antagonists were developed with a view toward overcoming these potential adverse physiologic events. This review evaluates GnRH agonists and antagonists, assessing the potential future role of antagonists in PCa and strategies to minimize ADT adverse events (AEs). Evidence was identified via PubMed search (by GnRH agent and other ADT-related terms), from review article bibliographies, and authors' therapy area knowledge, with articles included by author consensus. Degarelix shows similar efficacy to a GnRH agonist in achieving and maintaining castration, with faster onset and without testosterone surge/microsurges. Phase III data showed that, in the first treatment year, degarelix displayed a lower risk of PSA failure or death (composite endpoint), lower levels of the bone marker serum alkaline phosphatase (in baseline metastatic disease), and fewer musculoskeletal AEs than the agonist leuprolide. Also, crossing over from leuprolide to degarelix after 1 year reduced the risk of PSA failure or death. ADT displays an AE spectrum which can impact quality of life as well as causing significant morbidities. Strategies to improve ADT tolerability have become increasingly important including: a holistic management approach, improved diet and exercise, more specific monitoring to detect and prevent testosterone depletion toxicities, and intermittent ADT allowing hormonal recovery between treatment periods. Clinical studies suggest possible benefits of GnRH antagonists over agonists based on different mechanisms of action. GnRH antagonists should now be considered as an alternative first-line ADT option in advanced PCa. Intermittent ADT and a holistic treatment approach are promising strategies to improve ADT tolerability.

Incomplete testosterone suppression with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists: does it happen and does it matter?

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Previous reports, with small numbers of patients, have described the problem of incomplete testosterone suppression (>1.1 or 1.7 nmol/L) with LHRH agonists. Various predisposing factors have been suggested: different drug agents and patient factors such as age, pretreatment testosterone levels and weight. Such incomplete testosterone suppression has been shown in one small report to be associated with increased PSA failure rates and in another report in those with metastases, with worse survival. This study used testosterone assays that are more accurate at low levels than those used in most previous reports in a large dataset of 2196 men, and confirmed incomplete testosterone suppression (breakthrough) rates >1.7 nmol/L of 3.4% and >1.1 nmol/L of 6.6%. We showed that younger age was strongly associated with the risk of breakthrough, with a minor effect of increasing body mass index. Repeated breakthroughs were more common (16%) in those who had already had one breakthrough. Interim measures of cancer control (PSA kinetics during LHRH therapy) were inferior in those with a breakthrough, and those with breakthroughs between 1.1 and 1.7 nmol/L had worse long-term biochemical control rates.

OBJECTIVES

• To describe breakthrough rates above castrate levels of testosterone, in a population-based series of men undergoing adjuvant luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist therapy with curative radiation therapy. • To explore the predisposing factors for such breakthroughs and their impact on subsequent outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

• All men treated for prostate cancer between 1998 and 2007 with curative radiation in the province of British Columbia, Canada were potentially eligible (n= 11752). Of these, 2196 fulfilled the eligibility criteria. • Serial testosterone measurements were obtained during continuous LHRH therapy. • Breakthrough rates >1.1 nmol/L and >1.7 nmol/L were calculated for each LHRH injection and for each patient course. • Predisposing factors were identified, and early surrogates of oncological outcome (neoadjuvant nadir and post-treatment nadir) were determined.

RESULTS

• The risk of a breakthrough >1.1 nmol/L was 6.6%, and >1.7 nmol/L was 3.4% per patient course and 5.4% and 2.2% per LHRH injection (inclusive ranges). • Repeated breakthroughs occurred in 16% of patients. • Younger men were more liable to breakthroughs (P < 0.001). • Early PSA kinetic surrogates of cancer control were inferior in those with breakthroughs. • Neither overall biochemical non-evidence of disease (bNED) nor survival were compromised, although subgroup analysis showed inferior 5-year bNED in those with breakthroughs of 1.1-1.7 nmol/L vs those without (58% vs 73%, respectively; P= 0.048).

CONCLUSIONS

• Breakthroughs with LHRH agonists occur occasionally per injection, but occur commonly per patient course of treatment, and adversely affect early surrogate measures of outcome. • The monitoring of testosterone levels during therapy is therefore advised.

Testosterone in prostate cancer: the Bethesda consensus

OBJECTIVE

• Androgen stimulation of prostate cancer (PCa) cells has been extensively studied. The increasing trend of using serum testosterone as an absolute surrogate for castration state means that the diagnostic measurement of testosterone and the values potentially influencing prognosis must be better understood. This is especially important when PCa progresses from an endocrine to an intracrine status.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

• We performed a literature review using the MEDLINE database for publications on: (i) hormonal changes with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT); (ii) monitoring hormonal therapy with testosterone measurement; (iii) the efficacy of intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) compared with continuous androgen deprivation; (iv) the underlying mechanisms of castration-resistance; and (v) novel treatments for castration-resistant PCa (CRPCa).

RESULTS

• The optimum serum castration levels to be achieved with ADT are still debated. Recently, the 50 ng/dL threshold has been questioned because of reports indicating worse outcomes when levels between 20 and 50 ng/dL were studied. Instead, a 20 ng/dL threshold for serum testosterone after ADT in patients with advanced prostate cancer was recommended.

CONCLUSION

• Understanding the mechanisms of androgen biosynthesis relating to PCa as well as prognostic implications might achieve a consensus regarding the role of ADT for both the androgen-sensitive and -insensitive disease state.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone blockers and cardiovascular disease risk: analysis of prospective clinical trials of degarelix

PURPOSE

We investigated associations of baseline cardiovascular disease risk profile, dosing regimen and treatment duration with incident cardiovascular disease events during androgen deprivation therapy with degarelix in patients with prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data on 1,704 men who participated in a total of 9 clinical trials were pooled for analysis. Patients received treatment with 1-month (20 to 240 mg) or 3-month (240 to 480 mg) doses of degarelix for an average of 22 months. End points were ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disorders, arterial thrombotic/embolic events and intermittent claudication.

RESULTS

First time cardiovascular disease events were reported in 92 men in the year before study entry and in 168 after degarelix treatment. Event rates were similar before and after degarelix treatment in the total population (5.5 vs 6.1/100 person-years, p = 0.45) and in men without cardiovascular disease (5.6 vs 4.3/100 person-years, p = 0.11). In contrast, event rates appeared higher after degarelix treatment in men with cardiovascular disease at baseline (5.3 to 10.5 events per 100 person-years, p = 0.0013). On multivariate analysis cardiovascular disease at baseline was the strongest independent predictor of events, followed by older age, alcohol abstinence and obesity (each p <0.05). Degarelix dose and schedule were not independently associated with cardiovascular disease events.

CONCLUSIONS

In men with prostate cancer observed rates of cardiovascular disease events were similar before and after degarelix treatment. Events were largely confined to men with preexisting cardiovascular disease and further modulated by age and modifiable risk factors. Randomized, controlled trials and longer followup are key to fully clarify the comparative safety of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists vs agonists.

Androgen suppression strategies for prostate cancer: is there an ideal approach?

Androgen suppression therapy (AST) was first described in 1941 as a treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) and remains the mainstay of therapy in patients with hormone-naïve metastatic disease. It also is used in locally advanced or recurrent disease and in combination with radiation therapy in patients with higher-risk features. Several approaches to AST have been developed as a result of increased understanding of the pathways controlling testosterone production. Increased recognition of the side effects has resulted in strategies to minimize complications associated with AST. Attempts to reduce AST adverse effects include intermittent hormonal therapy and methods to reduce amount of intracellular androgens without reducing the circulating testosterone levels.

A phase III extension trial with a 1-arm crossover from leuprolide to degarelix: comparison of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist and antagonist effect on prostate cancer

PURPOSE

We investigated the efficacy and safety of degarelix treatment and the effects of switching from leuprolide to degarelix in an ongoing extension study with a median 27.5-month followup of a pivotal 1-year prostate cancer trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who completed a 1-year pivotal phase III trial continued on the same monthly degarelix maintenance dose (160 or 80 mg in 125 each), or were re-randomized from leuprolide 7.5 mg to degarelix 240/80 mg (69) or 240/160 mg (65). Data are shown on the approved degarelix 240/80 mg dose. The primary end point was safety/tolerability and the secondary end points were testosterone, prostate specific antigen, luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone responses, and prostate specific antigen failure and progression-free survival.

RESULTS

During followup testosterone and prostate specific antigen suppression were similar to those in the 1-year trial in patients who continued on degarelix or switched from leuprolide. The prostate specific antigen progression-free survival hazard rate was decreased significantly after the switch in the leuprolide/degarelix group while the rate in those who continued on degarelix was consistent with the rate in treatment year 1. The same hazard rate change pattern occurred in the group with baseline prostate specific antigen greater than 20 ng/ml. Adverse event frequency was similar between the groups and decreased with time.

CONCLUSIONS

Data support the statistically significant prostate specific antigen progression-free survival benefit for degarelix over leuprolide seen during year 1 and the use of degarelix as first line androgen deprivation therapy as an alternative to a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist.

Hot flushes in prostatic cancer patients during androgen-deprivation therapy with monthly dose of degarelix or leuprolide

The aim of the study was to compare the onset, incidence and frequency/intensity of hot flushes during androgen-deprivation therapy with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH) blocker versus an agonist using data from a randomized Phase 3 clinical trial. In total, 610 prostate cancer patients received monthly degarelix (s.c., 240/80 mg, n=207, or 240/160 mg, n=202) or leuprolide (i.m., 7.5 mg, n=201) for 12 months. Data on hot flushes was collected as self-reported adverse events and in a subgroup of 254 patients with electronic diaries. The onset of hot flushes was faster on degarelix versus leuprolide, and was accompanied by higher median hot flush scores during the first 3 months. However, there were no significant differences in overall incidence rates and median hot flush scores over the entire 12 months. After the third month, incidence rates dropped below 6%, whereas prevalence rates remained constant in all the three treatment arms. In multivariate analysis, body weight and heart rate at baseline were independent predictors of hot flushes (P<0.05). Except for a more rapid onset with the GnRH antagonist, there were no major differences in the overall pattern of hot flushes between treatment options. Weight control may help to minimize the incidence of hot flushes.

Androgen-Deprivation Therapy in Prostate Cancer: Clinical Evidence and Future Perspectives

Androgens are involved in the development and progression of prostate cancer even if the mechanism is not well-recognized. For this reason androgen-deprivation therapy remains a milestone for the treatment of patients with advanced and metastatic disease and, in the last years, in conjunction with radiotherapy and surgery in locally advanced tumors. Alternative options, such as intermittent deprivation suppression, seem to be promising in terms of clinical benefits and toxicity profile. However, current therapies present side effects, such as testosterone surge with consequent clinical flare-up, metabolic syndrome and hormone-resistance, which develops after a variable number of years. Novel therapies such as LH-RH antagonists and prolonged depot LH-RH analogues have been developed in order to avoid clinical flare-up and testosterone microsurges. Novel androgen synthesis inhibitors, such as abiraterone acetate and MDV3100, have been recently discovered and tested as promising hormonal second-line agents in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer. Finally, long-term side effects from androgen deprivation, such as osteoporosis, sarcopenic obesity and cardiovascular morbidity should be carefully monitored and properly treated.

Evaluation of degarelix in the management of prostate cancer

Medical castration using gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor agonists currently provides the mainstay of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. Although effective, these agents only reduce testosterone levels after a delay of 14 to 21 days; they also cause an initial surge in testosterone that can stimulate the cancer and lead to exacerbation of symptoms ("clinical flare") in patients with advanced disease. Phase III trial data for the recently approved GnRH receptor blocker, degarelix, demonstrated that it is as effective and well tolerated as GnRH agonists. However, it has a pharmacological profile more closely matching orchiectomy, with an immediate onset of action and faster testosterone and PSA suppression, without a testosterone surge or microsurges following repeated injections. As a consequence, with this GnRH blocker, there is no risk of clinical flare and no need for concomitant antiandrogen flare protection. Degarelix therefore provides a useful addition to the hormonal armamentarium for prostate cancer and offers a valuable new treatment option for patients with hormone-sensitive advanced disease. Here, we review key preclinical and clinical data for degarelix, and look at patient-focused perspectives in the management of prostate cancer.

Will GnRH antagonists improve prostate cancer treatment?

Androgen ablation forms a basis for treating prostate cancer and is achieved either by surgical castration, or pharmacologically using oestrogens, anti-androgens and/or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues. GnRH antagonists (or blockers) offer a new means of treatment by directly blocking GnRH receptors. Advantages of GnRH antagonists include lack of the initial stimulation of gonadotropin and testosterone production, lack of gonadotropin microsurges and sustained follicle-stimulating hormone suppression; disadvantages include increased histamine release. This review discusses advantages and disadvantages of the GnRH antagonists currently in development, in light of receptor physiology and pre-clinical and clinical data. Comparative clinical trials will ultimately establish their efficacy in comparison to other pharmacotherapies. Therefore, continuing development and refinement is needed to improve prostate cancer treatment.

The efficacy and safety of degarelix: a 12-month, comparative, randomized, open-label, parallel-group phase III study in patients with prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of degarelix, a new gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist (blocker), vs leuprolide for achieving and maintaining testosterone suppression in a 1-year phase III trial involving patients with prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 610 patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate (any stage; median age 72 years; median testosterone 3.93 ng/mL, median prostate-specific antigen, PSA, level 19.0 ng/mL) were randomized and received study treatment. Androgen-deprivation therapy was indicated (neoadjuvant hormonal treatment was excluded) according to the investigator's assessment. Three dosing regimens were evaluated: a starting dose of 240 mg of degarelix subcutaneous (s.c.) for 1 month, followed by s.c. maintenance doses of 80 mg or 160 mg monthly, or intramuscular (i.m.) leuprolide doses of 7.5 mg monthly. Therapy was maintained for the 12-month study. Both the intent-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol populations were analysed.

RESULTS

The primary endpoint of the trial was suppression of testosterone to <or=0.5 ng/mL at all monthly measurements from day 28 to day 364, thus defining the treatment response. This was achieved by 97.2%, 98.3% and 96.4% of patients in the degarelix 240/80 mg, degarelix 240/160 mg and leuprolide groups, respectively (ITT population). At 3 days after starting treatment, testosterone levels were <or=0.5 ng/mL in 96.1% and 95.5% of patients in the degarelix 240/80 mg and 240/160 mg groups, respectively, and in none in the leuprolide group. The median PSA levels at 14 and 28 days were significantly lower in the degarelix groups than in the leuprolide group (P < 0.001). The hormonal side-effect profiles of the three treatment groups were similar to previously reported effects for androgen-deprivation therapy. The s.c. degarelix injection was associated with a higher rate of injection-site reactions than with the i.m. leuprolide injection (40% vs <1%; P < 0.001, respectively). There were additional differences between the degarelix and leuprolide groups for urinary tract infections (3% vs 9%. P < 0.01, respectively), arthralgia (4% vs 9%, P < 0.05, respectively) and chills (4% vs 0%, P < 0.01, respectively). There were no systemic allergic reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Degarelix was not inferior to leuprolide at maintaining low testosterone levels over a 1-year treatment period. Degarelix induced testosterone and PSA suppression significantly faster than leuprolide; PSA suppression was also maintained throughout the study. Degarelix represents an effective therapy for inducing and maintaining androgen deprivation for up to 1 year in patients with prostate cancer, and has a different mechanism of action from traditional GnRH agonists. Its immediate onset of action achieves a more rapid suppression of testosterone and PSA than leuprolide. Furthermore, there is no need for antiandrogen supplements to prevent the possibility of clinical 'flare'.

Patient rationale in selecting androgen deprivation (PRISAD): do we give patients what they want?

To assess patient rationale in selecting androgen deprivation, structured telephone interviews were conducted on consecutive patients on androgen deprivation over a 17-year period. The majority of these patients have stable disease that require long-term follow-up with 6-monthly PSA estimations. Synchronous PSA check with depot injections are preferred by majority of patients and longer intervals between the depot administrations are preferable due to perceived less needle pain. This study highlights for the first time patients' preferences for synchronous PSA check with their depot injections and a longer interval between the depot administrations due to perceived less needle pain.

A 1-year, open label, randomized phase II dose finding study of degarelix for the treatment of prostate cancer in North America

PURPOSE

Degarelix is a gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor antagonist (blocker) with rapid onset of action suppressing gonadotropins, testosterone and prostate specific antigen in prostate cancer. In the present open label, randomized study in North America we evaluated the efficacy and safety of a starting dose of 200 mg degarelix followed by monthly injections of 60 or 80 mg during 1 year of prostate cancer treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 127 patients (median age 76 years, range 47 to 93) with histologically confirmed prostate cancer were enrolled in the study. Efficacy was assessed by measuring serum testosterone and prostate specific antigen.

RESULTS

Median baseline testosterone and prostate specific antigen levels were 4.13 ng/ml (P25-P75 3.03-5.11) and 13.4 ng/ml (P25-P75 6.80-25.7), respectively. The starting dose induced a rapid suppression of testosterone in that 88% of the patients had testosterone levels of 0.5 ng/ml or less 1 month after the injection. For patients who had testosterone levels of 0.5 ng/ml or less after 1 month, 93% and 98% of those receiving maintenance doses of 60 and 80 mg, respectively, had testosterone levels that were consistently 0.5 ng/ml or less at all monthly measurements from 1 month to 1 year. No evidence of testosterone surge was detected. In both groups prostate specific antigen decreased by 96% after 1 year and median time to 90% reduction in prostate specific antigen was 56 days. Six patients (5%) withdrew from the study due to adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Degarelix treatment for 1 year resulted in a fast, profound and sustained suppression of testosterone and prostate specific antigen with no evidence of testosterone surge. Degarelix was well tolerated.

Degarelix: a novel gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor blocker--results from a 1-yr, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 dosage-finding study in the treatment of prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Degarelix is a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH receptor blocker) with immediate onset of action, suppressing gonadotropins, testosterone, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of initial doses of 200 mg or 240 mg of degarelix and thereafter monthly subcutaneous maintenance doses of 80 mg, 120 mg, or 160 mg of degarelix for the treatment of prostate cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The 1-yr study was of open-label, randomised design and involved 187 patients (range: 52-93 yr, median: 72 yr) with histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate and a baseline PSA >2 ng/ml.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

At baseline, median serum testosterone was 4.13 ng/ml (range: P25-P75, 3.37-5.19 ng/ml) and PSA was 27.6 ng/ml (range: P25-P75, 11.9-55.0 ng/ml). On day 3, 88% and 92% of patients in the groups to whom 200-mg and 240-mg initial doses of degarelix were administered, respectively, had testosterone levels < or =0.5 ng/ml. For patients with testosterone levels < or =0.5 ng/ml at 1 mo, the testosterone levels remained < or =0.5 ng/ml until the end of the study in 100% of the patients treated with a monthly maintenance dosage of 160 mg of degarelix. No evidence of testosterone surge was detected. PSA decreased by 97-98% after 1 yr and the median time to 90% reduction in PSA was 8 wk in all but one patient (from the 80-mg dosage treatment group at the initial 200-mg dose of degarelix). Thirteen patients (6%) withdrew from the study due to adverse events, largely related to androgen deprivation.

CONCLUSIONS

Degarelix treatment for 1 yr resulted in a fast, profound, and sustained suppression of testosterone and PSA, with no evidence of testosterone surge. Degarelix was well tolerated.

Testosterone surge: rationale for gonadotropin-releasing hormone blockers?

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists currently form the mainstay of management of advanced prostate cancer. They effectively suppress serum testosterone levels, which in turn inhibits tumor growth. However, the initial response to GnRH agonists is a transient increase in the serum testosterone levels. Known as a testosterone surge, this can lead to a worsening of symptoms and can adversely affect survival. Therefore, much interest exists in the development of a new class of drugs-GnRH antagonists-which produce immediate suppression of luteinizing hormone and testosterone without a testosterone surge. The most promising GnRH antagonist to date is degarelix.

Management of advanced prostate cancer: can we improve on androgen deprivation therapy?

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists are currently the mainstay in the management of advanced prostate cancer. Used either as monotherapy or combined with antiandrogens, GnRH agonists suppress serum testosterone levels and thus slow the growth of the tumour cells that depend on testosterone for growth. GnRH agonists have largely replaced orchidectomy in the management of advanced prostate cancer, because patients are reluctant to undergo surgical castration. However, can we do better in androgen-deprivation therapy? There is some evidence to suggest that GnRH agonists do not achieve the level of testosterone suppression attained with orchidectomy, or as rapidly, factors which could be expected to affect overall survival. Together, these observations highlight the need to develop newer agents that can achieve rapid, profound and sustained testosterone suppression, equivalent to that with orchidectomy. Preliminary data for the GnRH blocker, degarelix, suggest that this new agent might overcome the shortcomings associated with GnRH agonists. Further clinical data are therefore awaited with much interest.

Pharmacotherapy for prostate cancer, with emphasis on hormonal treatments

For more than half a century, hormonal therapy has been one of the cornerstones of prostate cancer therapy. However, the position and timing of androgen deprivation therapy is continuously challenged. Nowadays, it is often combined with other types of treatment in a multi-modal approach, especially with radiation therapy. Besides the well-known luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists, several developments have been introduced (e.g., luteinising hormone-releasing hormone antagonists or improved depot formulations achieving a better pharmacokinetic slope and lower testosterone levels). Research developments include a better understanding of the different gonadotropin-releasing hormone isoforms, the ligand-independent transformation of the androgen receptor and androgen receptor overexpression in hormone-insensitive disease. Prostate cancer, previously thought to be chemotherapy insensitive, is now treated at the metastatic stage by taxane-based chemotherapies. The combination of hormonal therapy and chemotherapy is currently studied at various stages of the disease, as early as localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. It is very likely that, in the future, pharmacological treatment for prostate cancer will include combination therapies rather than monotherapies. The authors suggest an in-depth re-evaluation of the place of androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer.

Synthesis of 3-Hydroxy-6-oxo[1,2,4]triazin-1-yl Alaninamides, a New Class of Cyclic Dipeptidyl Ureas

Cyclohexyl or benzyl isocyanide, benzoyl-, or 4-methoxybenzoylformic acid and semicarbazones underwent Ugi reactions in methanol for 3 days to give the Ugi adducts, which were then stirred with sodium ethoxide in ethanol for 12 h to give 3-hydroxy-6-oxo[1,2,4]triazin-1-yl alaninamides. The X-ray diffraction structure of the first example showed the tautomer having the proton in the O2 atom that was fixed in the crystal by packing in dimers with a H-bond distance of 1.9 A. Selected [1,2,4]triazines were treated with diazomethane for 12 h to get the O-methyl derivatives. Both hydroxy and O-methyl derivatives obtained by this method constitute a new class of pseudopeptidic [1,2,4]triazines composed of two different amino acids, arylglycine and alanine derivatives, in which the N-terminal arylglycine and the peptidic amide nitrogen atoms are bonded through a urea moiety.