New treatment paradigm for prostate cancer: abarelix initiation therapy for immediate testosterone suppression followed by a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist

Follicle-Stimulating Hormone Provokes Macrophages to Secrete IL-1β Contributing to Atherosclerosis Progression

Abnormally high follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) has been reported to associate with cardiovascular diseases in prostate cancer patients with specific androgen deprivation therapy and in menopausal women. All of the cardiovascular diseases were involved in atherosclerosis. However, the pathogenic mechanism of FSH-associated atherosclerosis remains uncertain. Apolipoprotein E-deficient mice were chosen to develop atherosclerosis, of which the plaques were analyzed with administration of short- and long-term FSH imitating androgen deprivation therapy-induced and menopausal FSH elevation. The study showed that short- and long-term exposure of FSH significantly accelerated atherosclerosis progression in apolipoprotein E-deficient mice, manifested as strikingly increased plaques in the aorta and its roots, increased macrophage content, reduced fibrin, and an enlarged necrotic core, suggesting a decrease in plaque stability. Furthermore, expression profiles from the Gene Expression Omnibus GSE21545 dataset revealed that macrophage inflammation was tightly associated with FSH-induced atherosclerotic progression. The human monocyte cell line THP-1 was induced by PMA and worked as a macrophage model to detect inflammatory factors and cellular functions. FSH remarkably promoted the expression of IL-1β in macrophages and strikingly increased the chemotactic migratory capacity of macrophages toward MCP-1, but the promigratory capacity of FSH was attenuated in foam cells. Overall, we revealed that FSH significantly promoted the inflammatory response and migration of macrophages, thereby provoking atherosclerosis development.

In vivo degradation forms, anti-degradation strategies, and clinical applications of therapeutic peptides in non-infectious chronic diseases

Current medicinal treatments for diseases comprise largely of two categories: small molecular (chemical) (e.g., aspirin) and larger molecular (peptides/proteins, e.g., insulin) drugs. Whilst both types of therapeutics can effectively treat different diseases, ranging from well-understood (in view of pathogenesis and treatment) examples (e.g., flu), to less-understood chronic diseases (e.g., diabetes), classical small molecule drugs often possess significant side-effects (a major cause of drug withdrawal from market) due to their low- or non-specific targeting. By contrast, therapeutic peptides, which comprise short sequences from naturally occurring peptides/proteins, commonly demonstrate high target specificity, well-characterized modes-of-action, and low or non-toxicity in vivo. Unfortunately, due to their small size, linear permutation, and lack of tertiary structure, peptidic drugs are easily subject to rapid degradation or loss in vivo through chemical and physical routines, thus resulting in a short half-life and reduced therapeutic efficacy, a major drawback that can reduce therapeutic efficiency. However, recent studies demonstrate that the short half-life of peptidic drugs can be significantly extended by various means, including use of enantiomeric or non-natural amino acids (AAs) (e.g., L-AAs replacement with D-AAs), chemical conjugation [e.g., with polyethylene glycol], and encapsulation (e.g., in exosomes). In this context, we provide an overview of the major in vivo degradation forms of small therapeutic peptides in the plasma and anti-degradation strategies. We also update on the progress of small peptide therapeutics that are either currently in clinical trials or are being successfully used in clinical therapies for patients with non-infectious diseases, such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis, and cancer.

Targeting signaling pathways in prostate cancer: mechanisms and clinical trials

Prostate cancer (PCa) affects millions of men globally. Due to advances in understanding genomic landscapes and biological functions, the treatment of PCa continues to improve. Recently, various new classes of agents, which include next-generation androgen receptor (AR) signaling inhibitors (abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide), bone-targeting agents (radium-223 chloride, zoledronic acid), and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (olaparib, rucaparib, and talazoparib) have been developed to treat PCa. Agents targeting other signaling pathways, including cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4/6, Ak strain transforming (AKT), wingless-type protein (WNT), and epigenetic marks, have successively entered clinical trials. Furthermore, prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) targeting agents such as ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 are promising theranostics that could improve both diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic efficacy. Advanced clinical studies with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have shown limited benefits in PCa, whereas subgroups of PCa with mismatch repair (MMR) or CDK12 inactivation may benefit from ICIs treatment. In this review, we summarized the targeted agents of PCa in clinical trials and their underlying mechanisms, and further discussed their limitations and future directions.

Advanced delivery of leuprorelin acetate for the treatment of prostatic cancer

INTRODUCTION

Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is the main therapy for patients with advanced and metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) and, in combination with radiotherapy, for patients with localized high-risk PCa. Due to its favorable tolerability among different treatments available for ADT, leuprorelin acetate is well established as the leading luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analog. The development of second-generation leuprorelin acetate (LA) depot formulation (Eligard®, Recordati S.p.A) allowed a consistent and controlled release of leuprorelin between injections and a more efficient reduction of testosterone levels with respect to conventional LHRH agonists.

AREAS COVERED

This work provides a summary of the biological and clinical rationale for using LA to manage PCa and presents the current evidence about the therapeutic activity of the LA gel depot formulation, used as an advanced leuprorelin acetate delivery method.

EXPERT OPINION

Results of the registration studies and post-marketing clinical trials demonstrate that the LA gel depot provides long-term efficacy in the clinical practice and a good degree of tolerability. Overall, collected data suggest that the LA gel depot can represent the ADT reference therapy in advanced PCa.

Definition of Castrate Resistant Prostate Cancer: New Insights

The term castrate resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) was initially proposed by the Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 in 2008 to define the state of clinical and/or biochemical progression of prostate cancer (PCa) in an environment with very low serum testosterone concentration. Clinical progression is based on the radiological imaging proposed by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) adapted to PCa. Biochemical progression is defined as an over 25% increase in serum prostate-specific antigen within two consecutive measurements separated by at least one week, and an absolute value above 2.0 ng/mL. Finally, the castrate environment is usually defined as a serum testosterone concentration maintained below 50 ng/dL or 1.7 nmol/dL. This definition does not incorporate the new and more accurate imaging modalities to assess clinical progression and the capability of the new biochemical measurements to assess the true castration environment. Ga-68-PSMA-11 PET CT/MRI and whole-body MRI are the new imaging modalities that should replace the classic thoracic CT scan, abdomino-pelvic CT scan, and technetium 99-m bone scintigraphy. In addition, Ga-68-PSMA-11 PET is the current basis for the new therapies targeting metastatic sites. Moreover, the current methods for measuring the very low serum testosterone concentrations in clinical laboratories are the widespread chemiluminescent assays, which are inappropriate, while LC-MSMS is the only method recommended to assess the castrate environment. In addition, recent research shows that serum luteinising hormone concentration associates better than serum testosterone with the castration environment, even when it is measured with LC-MSMS. In summary, the current definition of CRPC seems outdated. An extensive update to diagnose true CRPC is also needed to differentiate CRPC men with M0 (non-metastatic) from those with M1 (metastatic) CRPC. WC: 277.

Androgen deprivation therapy and side effects: are GnRH antagonists safer?

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists and antagonists is the mainstay of advanced prostate cancer treatment. Both drug classes decrease levels of luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormones (FSH), thereby lowering testosterone to castrate levels. This is associated with adverse events (AEs), including cardiovascular (CV) disorders, bone fractures, metabolic dysfunction, and impaired cognitive function. This literature review discusses these AEs, with a focus on CV and bone-related events. A hypothesis-generating meta-analysis of six clinical trials showed a potentially increased risk for CV disorders with GnRH agonists versus the GnRH antagonist degarelix. While no study has directly compared GnRH agonists versus antagonists with a primary CV outcome, one hypothesis for this observation is that GnRH agonists lead to initial surges in FSH that may negatively impact CV health, whereas antagonists do not. GnRH agonists are associated with metabolic and cognitive AEs and while data are lacking for GnRH antagonists, no differences in risk are predicted. Other common AEs with ADT include injection site reactions, which are much more common with degarelix than with GnRH agonists, which may reflect differing administration and injection techniques. Future studies are needed to further evaluate and compare the safety profiles of GnRH agonists and antagonists, especially in patients with pre-existing CV disease and other co-morbidities. Physicians should carefully evaluate benefits and risks when prescribing ADT and ensure that side effects are well managed.

Considerations for the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists in patients with prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related deaths in men, representing a major source of morbidity and mortality. Androgen deprivation therapy is the primary treatment for patients with advanced prostate cancer at disease presentation, which can be achieved either with surgical or chemical castration. The development of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists revolutionized the treatment of advanced prostate cancer, replacing the need for surgical castration. Agonists downregulate gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist receptors in the pituitary gland, and thus decrease the release of luteinizing hormone and testosterone. Although agonists are a common therapeutic option to date, their use is associated with testosterone surges, metabolic dysfunction and an increase in the risk of cardiovascular disease; they might contribute to tumor flares and potentially an increase in non-cancer mortality. More recently, gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists have entered the prostate cancer treatment landscape. Unlike agonists, antagonists directly inhibit the androgen receptor in the pituitary gland, and thus do not cause initial testosterone surges. In this article, we provide a concise review of the mechanism of actions, safety and efficacy of the approved agonists and antagonists for prostate cancer treatment.

Differential Impact of Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone Antagonist Versus Agonist on Clinical Safety and Oncologic Outcomes on Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

CONTEXT

Androgen deprivation therapy is the mainstay treatment of metastatic prostate cancer, achieved mainly by gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists or antagonists.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the differential impact of GnRH agonists and antagonists on clinical safety and oncologic outcomes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

This meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A literature search using the electronic databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus) included randomized controlled trials comparing the clinical safety and oncologic outcomes of GnRH agonists and antagonists. The endpoints of interest were the following: (1) treatment-related adverse effects (AEs), (2) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, and (3) overall mortality. The relative risk (RR) was used as the summary statistic, and results were reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Eight clinical trials (20 published studies) comprising 2632 men met our inclusion criteria; of them, 1646 received GnRH antagonist and 986 had GnRH agonist. Treatment-emerging AEs occurred in 73% patients in the GnRH antagonist group and 68% in the GnRH agonist group (RR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.04-1.15). Serious AEs occurred in 9.8% of the GnRH antagonist and 11% of the GnRH agonist group (RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.73-1.17). Antagonists were associated with higher injection site reaction rates (38%) than agonists (4.8%). GnRH antagonist was associated with fewer cardiovascular events (RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.34-0.80). There was no significant difference in PSA progression, but GnRH antagonist was associated with lower overall mortality rates than GnRH agonists (RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.26-0.90, p =  0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Existing data indicate that GnRH antagonist use is associated with significantly lower overall mortality and cardiovascular events as compared with agonists. These findings should be interpreted with caution owing to the short follow-up duration and assessment of cardiovascular events as secondary endpoints in the included trials. Further studies are needed to validate or refute these observations. Injection site reactions were significantly higher in the GnRH antagonist group.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist is associated with lower death rates and cardiovascular events than GnRH agonists, based on the data from trials with short follow-up duration. GnRH agonists are associated with lower adverse events, such as decreased libido, hot flushes, erectile dysfunction, back pain, weight gain, constipation, and injection site reactions. There were no significant differences in prostate-specific antigen progression or fatigue.

FSH suppression and tumour control in patients with prostate cancer during androgen deprivation with a GnRH agonist or antagonist

BACKGROUND

Gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists suppress follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) to lower levels than GnRH agonists. This may partially explain the differences between these agents on prostate cancer outcomes. In this post-hoc analysis, FSH and prostate specific antigen (PSA) responses and the impact of cross-over from leuprolide to degarelix were evaluated from a 1-year comparative study (CS21) and its extension study (CS21A).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Overall, 610 patients were enrolled in CS21, wherein PSA and FSH levels were evaluated monthly. CS21A evaluated 386 patients, including those previously treated with degarelix (n = 251) who continued to receive degarelix, and those previously treated with leuprolide (n = 135) who crossed-over to receive degarelix. PSA and FSH levels were evaluated in CS21A for 3 months after cross-over. The associations between measurements were assessed using Spearman's correlation coefficient. The impact of class variables on FSH suppression were evaluated using Analysis of Variance.

RESULTS

Rapid PSA and FSH suppression was observed and maintained in the degarelix arm (CS21 and CS21A), while patients on leuprolide experienced rising PSA during CS21. Patients crossed-over from leuprolide to degarelix achieved a suppression of FSH and a significant PSA decrease. PSA and FSH levels were significantly (p < .05) correlated at months 1, 3, 6, 12 and 13 in the degarelix arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant FSH suppression with GnRH antagonists may explain its advantage over GnRH agonists in terms of better prostate cancer control. The effect of profound FSH suppression is analogous to the need for profound testosterone suppression for tumor control.

Cell-based evidence regarding the role of FSH in prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Conversion of androgen-responsive prostate cancer (CaP) to castration-resistant CaP is associated with an acceleration of the disease that often requires treatment modalities other than androgen deprivation therapy only. Recently, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) has been shown to play a role in CaP growth, and clinical data showed that high serum concentration of FSH in chemically castrated CaP patients was associated with a shorter time of progression to castration-resistant CaP. In this study, we sought to investigate if FSH could have direct effects on CaP cells, possibly through the androgen receptor and androgen receptor regulated genes, such as prostate-specific antigen (PSA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The human CaP cell lines PC-3, LNCaP and C4-2, and nonmalignant PNT1A cells, were utilized to investigate the effects of FSH. qPCR, Western blotting analysis, and 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-5-(3-carboxymetoxyphenyl)-2-(4-sulfophenyl)-2H tetrazolium assays were performed in order to analyze the FSH effects.

RESULTS

The FSH receptor was present in all cell lines except PNT1A. FSH significantly increased PSA mRNA (P < 0.01) and protein (P < 0.03) levels in C4-2 cells in a dose-dependent manner. In LNCaP cells, FSH also increased PSA protein level, although to a lesser extent than in C4-2 cells, and the expression was reduced by the antiandrogen enzalutamide. In PC-3 cells, FSH was shown to increase their proliferation (P < 0.03) and β-catenin expression.

CONCLUSION

These findings demonstrate that FSH may have a direct effect in CaP in an androgen-depleted environment. However, further research is needed to understand the significance of direct FSH action in the maintenance of CaP growth at the different phases of transition from androgen dependence to androgen independence.

Androgen-targeted therapy in men with prostate cancer: evolving practice and future considerations

Background

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is foundational in the management of advanced prostate cancer (PCa) and has benefitted from a recent explosion in scientific advances. These include approval of new therapies that suppress testosterone (T) levels or inactivate its function, improvements in diagnostic and assay technologies, identification of lower therapeutic targets for T, discovery of the relevance of germline genetic mutations and identification of the benefits of sequential and combination therapies.

Methods

This review discusses the clinical profiles of the most up-to-date options for ADT, best practices for managing patients with advanced PCa and future directions in therapy.

Results and conclusions

Modern assay technologies reveal that bilateral orchiectomy results in a serum T level of approximately 15 ng/dL as compared to the historical definition of castration of T < 50 ng/dL. Evidence shows that lowering T levels to <20 ng/dL improves patient survival and delays disease progression. Routine monitoring of T in addition to prostate-specific antigen throughout treatment is important to ensure continuing efficacy of T suppression. New drugs that inhibit androgen signaling in combination with traditional ADT suppress T activity to near zero and have significantly improved patient survival. When personalizing ADT regimens physicians should consider a number of factors including initiation and duration of ADT, monitoring of T levels and PSA, the possibility of switching monotherapies if a patient does not achieve adequate T suppression, and consideration of intermittent vs. continuous ADT according to patients’ lifestyles, comorbidities, risk factors and tolerance to treatment.

Accuracy of serum luteinizing hormone and serum testosterone measurements to assess the efficacy of medical castration in prostate cancer patients

Background

Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LH-RH) agonists are the standard for androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Current guidelines recommend serum testosterone measurement to assess the efficacy of ADT and to define castration resistance. However, serum testosterone does not reflect the exclusive effect of castration due to its extratesticular production. The aim of this study is to analyze if serum LH reflects better than serum testosterone the activity of LH-RH agonists.

Methods

Serum LH and serum testosterone were measured with chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) in a cohort study of 1091 participants: 488 PCa patients “on LH-RH agonists”, 303 “off LH-RH agonist” in whom LH-RH agonists were withdrawn, and 350 men with PCa suspicion “no LH-RH agonist” who never received LH-RH agonists. In a validation cohort of 147 PCa patients, 124 on “LH-RH agonists” and 19 “off LH-RH agonists”, serum testosterone was also measured with liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry (LC MSMS).

Results

The area under the curve (AUC) to distinguish patients “on versus off LH-RH agonists” was 0.997 for serum LH and 0.740 for serum testosterone, P < 0.001. The 97.5 percentile of serum LH in patients “on LH-RH agonists” was 0.97 U/L, been the most efficient threshold 1.1 U/L. The AUCs for serum LH, testosterone measured with CLIA and with LC MSMS, in the validation cohort, were respectively 1.000, 0.646 and 0.814, P < 0.001. The efficacy to distinguish patients “on versus off LH-RH agonists” was 98.6%, 78.3%, and 89.5% respectively, using 1.1 U/L as threshold for serum LH and 50 ng/dL for serum testosterone regardless the method.

Conclusions

Serum LH is more accurate than serum testosterone regardless the method, to distinguish patients “on versus off LH-RH agonists”. The castrate level of serum LH is 1.1 U/l. These findings suggest that assessment of LH-RH agonist efficacy and castration resistance definition should be reviewed.

The potential role of follicle-stimulating hormone in the cardiovascular, metabolic, skeletal, and cognitive effects associated with androgen deprivation therapy

PURPOSE

To explore how follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) may contribute to cardiovascular, metabolic, skeletal, and cognitive events in men treated for prostate cancer, with various forms of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A colloquium of prostate cancer experts was convened in May 2015, to discuss the role of FSH in the development of unwanted effects associated with ADT. Subsequently, a literature review (Medline, PubMed, and relevant congress abstract databases) was performed to further explore and evaluate the collected evidence.

RESULTS

It has become evident that, in the setting of ADT, FSH can promote the development of atherosclerotic plaque formation, metabolic syndrome, and insulin resistance. Data also suggest that FSH is an important mediator of bone remodeling, particularly bone resorption, and thereby increases the risk for bone fracture. Additional evidence implicates a role for FSH in bone metastasis as well. The influence of FSH on ADT-induced cognitive deficits awaits further elucidation; however, the possibility that FSH may be involved therein cannot be ruled out.

CONCLUSIONS

The widespread molecular and physiological consequences of FSH system activation in normal and pathological conditions are becoming better understood. Progress in this area has been achieved by the development of additional investigative and clinical measures to better evaluate specific adverse effects. More research is needed on FSH function in the development of cancer as well as its association with cardiovascular, metabolic, musculoskeletal, and cognitive effects in ADT.

Elucidation of the mechanism of suppressed steroidogenesis during androgen deprivation therapy of prostate cancer patients using a mouse model

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the standard medical approach to the management of prostate cancer. Patients switched from a GnRH antagonist to a GnRH agonist, did not experience a testosterone surge in spite of the occurrence of luteinizing hormone (LH) surge in our protocol of clinical study. To clarify this observation, male mice pre-treated with two different doses of the GnRH antagonist degarelix for 28 days were further administered the GnRH agonist leuprolide or chorionic gonadotropin, and testosterone production of the mice was studied. Serum LH and testosterone levels, the size of Leydig cells, and expression level of steroidogenesis-related genes in the testis were analyzed. Treatment of mice with a high dose of degarelix (0.1 μg/mouse; HDG), but not a low dose (0.05 μg/mouse; LDG), for 28 days reproduced declined steroidogenesis observed in prostate cancer patients during ADT switched from a GnRH antagonist to a GnRH agonist. The size of the Leydig cells in the HDG mice was not significantly different from that in naive mice. Although expression levels of StAR, P450scc, and 17β HSD increased significantly in the LDH testis, those in the HDG testis did not change. Treatment of mice with a high dose of degarelix for 28 days reproduced the decline in steroidogenesis observed in prostate cancer patients during ADT. In this animal model, we demonstrated that initial ADT may inhibit the ability of Leydig cells to produce testosterone by suppressing the expression of genes involved in steroidogenesis, such as StAR, P450scc, and 17βHSD.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists versus standard androgen suppression therapy for advanced prostate cancer A systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate efficacy and safety of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists compared to standard androgen suppression therapy for advanced prostate cancer.

SETTING

The international review team included methodologists of the German Cochrane Centre and clinical experts.

PARTICIPANTS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, trial registries and conference books for randomised controlled trials (RCT) for effectiveness data analysis, and randomised or non-randomised controlled studies (non-RCT) for safety data analysis (March 2015). Two authors independently screened identified articles, extracted data, evaluated risk of bias and rated quality of evidence according to GRADE.

RESULTS

13 studies (10 RCTs, 3 non-RCTs) were included. No study reported cancer-specific survival or clinical progression. There were no differences in overall mortality (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.93), treatment failure (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.17) or prostate-specific antigen progression (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.06). While there was no difference in quality of life related to urinary symptoms, improved quality of life regarding prostate symptoms, measured with the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), with the use of GnRH antagonists compared with the use of standard androgen suppression therapy (mean score difference -0.40, 95% CI -0.94 to 0.14, and -1.84, 95% CI -3.00 to -0.69, respectively) was found. Quality of evidence for all assessed outcomes was rated low according to GRADE. The risk for injection-site events was increased, but cardiovascular events may occur less often by using GnRH antagonist. Available evidence is hampered by risk of bias, selective reporting and limited follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

There is currently insufficient evidence to make firm conclusive statements on the efficacy of GnRH antagonist compared to standard androgen suppression therapy for advanced prostate cancer. There is need for further high-quality research on GnRH antagonists with long-term follow-up.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42012002751.

Clinical endocrinological evaluation of the gonadal axis (testosterone, LH and FSH) in prostate cancer patients switched from a GnRH antagonist to a LHRH agonist

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the levels of testosterone, luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in prostate cancer patients before and after the switch from degarelix to leuprolide treatments.

METHODS

We enrolled 40 treatment-naïve prostate cancer patients who were treated initially with degarelix and were later switched to leuprolide. The subjects were divided into three groups depending on when they were switched to leuprolide: the 3-month group (3m; switched after 84 days, n=10), the 2-month group (2m; 56 days, n=10), and the 1-month group (1m; 28 days, n=20). Patient symptoms and hormone levels were measured after switching therapy. The castration level was defined as a serum testosterone level ≤50 ng/dl.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine subjects (97.5%) achieved castration levels of testosterone (11±5.8 ng/dl) 2 weeks after degarelix was first administered, and the characteristics of these patients were investigated. Testosterone levels increased and exceeded the castration level in one subject each of the 3m (142 ng/dl), 2m (72 ng/dl), and 1m groups (63 ng/dl). All subjects achieved the castration level by day 5. In contrast to testosterone levels, the LH and FSH surge on day 2 was significantly higher in the 1m group than in the other groups. The clinical symptoms were not exacerbated before or after switching in any patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A testosterone surge was observed in 8.3 % of the study patients; however, it was very short-lived and mild. LH and FSH levels were significantly higher 1 month after administration compared with 2 or 3 months after degarelix administration.

Androgen receptor antagonists for prostate cancer therapy

Androgen deprivation is the mainstay therapy for metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). Another way of suppressing androgen receptor (AR) signaling is via AR antagonists or antiandrogens. Despite being frequently prescribed in clinical practice, there is conflicting evidence concerning the role of AR antagonists in the management of PCa. In the castration-resistant settings of PCa, docetaxel has been the only treatment option for decades. With recent evidence that castration-resistant PCa is far from AR-independent, there has been an increasing interest in developing new AR antagonists. This review gives a concise overview of the clinically available antiandrogens and the experimental AR antagonists that tackle androgen action with a different approach.

Prospective evaluation of testosterone fluctuations during a transition of therapy from degarelix to leuprolide in patients on androgen deprivation therapy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate for a possible testosterone surge during transition of therapy from degarelix to leuprolide.

METHODS

We conducted an investigator-initiated, prospective, single-arm, open-label trial for evaluation of a potential testosterone surge during a transition of therapy from degarelix to leuprolide. Study patients were administered 3 monthly depot injections of degarelix, followed by one 3-month depot injection of leuprolide. A rise in serum testosterone was considered clinically relevant in previously castrate patients whose testosterone rose above 50 ng/dL.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients aged 59-86 years were included in the final analysis after completing the entire 6-month study. Nineteen percent of patients had received prior androgen deprivation therapy, and 10% had metastatic disease. Mean serum testosterone was reduced from a baseline of 374.6 ± 155.7 ng/dL to 16.5 ± 8.1 ng/dL, and prostate-specific antigen reduced from 23.8 ± 55.8 ng/mL to 1.6 ± 3.7 ng/mL after 3 months of treatment with degarelix. On transition from degarelix to leuprolide (day 90), there was a rise in testosterone from the nadir of 16.5 ng/dL to a peak of 25.8 ng/dL (P = .0005), occurring at day 93. Four patients (8.9%) experienced a testosterone surge with a mean peak serum testosterone of 80.7 ng/dL; all 4 returned to castrate levels within 7 days, and all remained asymptomatic throughout the testosterone fluctuation.

CONCLUSION

Fluctuations in serum testosterone after this transition of therapy were mild and short-lived with only 8.9% of men experiencing testosterone elevations to noncastrate levels.

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.

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.