Degarelix versus goserelin (+ antiandrogen flare protection) in the relief of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to prostate cancer: results from a phase IIIb study (NCT00831233)

Assessing the effects of prostate cancer therapies on cardiovascular health

Contemporary advances in prostate cancer treatments have markedly improved patient outcomes, yet concerns persist regarding the increased cardiovascular toxicity of prostate cancer treatments, which is multifaceted. Local therapies entail non-negligible cardiovascular risks. The effects of androgen deprivation therapy, which is pivotal in disease management, on cardiovascular health remains contentious, with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists showing varying cardiovascular outcomes. Despite the ongoing controversy over the cardiovascular risks of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists versus agonists, current evidence does not support favouring one over the other based solely on cardiovascular risk. Combination therapy with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors and androgen deprivation therapy shows additive cardiovascular risks, but robust comparative data are lacking. Chemotherapies such as docetaxel and cabazitaxel, along with emerging targeted therapies and radiopharmaceuticals, are associated with varied cardiovascular risks, necessitating personalized patient assessment. Clinicians should adhere to cardio-oncology guidelines when prescribing therapeutic agents, especially for patients with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions. Optimal monitoring and management strategies are essential to mitigate cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Triptorelin therapy for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in prostate cancer patients: A systematic meta-analysis

Objective

This systematic meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of triptorelin therapy in reducing lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with prostate cancer (PCa).

Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. PubMed, Web of Science and EMBASE databases were searched for studies conducted between 2013 and 2023. Eligible studies included PCa patients undergoing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with triptorelin, with reported baseline and follow-up International Prostate Symptom Scores (IPSS) and quality of life (QoL) data. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias, and a random-effects model was applied for the meta-analysis.

Results

A total of 29 articles were identified, and three studies met the inclusion criteria. Triptorelin therapy showed a clinically significant reduction in IPSS over 48 weeks in PCa patients with moderate to severe LUTS. The meta-analysis revealed a pooled effect size of 1.05 (95% CI: 0.65; 1.45), indicating a statistically significant improvement in LUTS. QoL also improved in patients receiving triptorelin therapy, although heterogeneity among the studies and a moderate to high risk of bias were noted.

Conclusion

Triptorelin therapy demonstrated a positive impact on LUTS in PCa patients. The meta-analysis showed significant reductions in IPSS scores and improved QoL after 48 weeks of triptorelin treatment. However, the results should be interpreted cautiously due to study heterogeneity and potential biases. Further well-designed studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine the optimal use of triptorelin for managing LUTS in men with PCa.

Implications for Practice

Triptorelin therapy may offer an effective treatment option for men with PCa experiencing moderate to severe LUTS. Its positive impact on QoL can lead to improved patient well-being and treatment adherence. Clinicians should consider triptorelin as a potential treatment choice, especially in patients who may be reluctant to undergo surgical interventions for their LUTS. However, careful patient selection and close monitoring are essential due to the observed study heterogeneity and risk of bias. Future research should focus on evaluating triptorelin's cost-effectiveness and comparing its efficacy with other LH-RH agonists in managing LUTS in PCa patients.Video Abstract: URL (Reviewers/Editors to select from) Link 1: https://brighton.cloud.panopto.eu/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=071419c8-1ad5-4502-a222-b04300c2ca5e Link 2: https://brighton.cloud.panopto.eu/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=b6305a8a-b977-4fcd-a69e-b04300bed728.

Cardiovascular Effects of GnRH Antagonists Compared With Agonists in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

Background

Androgen deprivation therapy is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with advanced prostate cancer. Meta-analysis of small, oncology-focused trials suggest gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists may be associated with fewer adverse cardiovascular outcomes compared with GnRH agonists.

Objectives

This study sought to determine whether GnRH antagonists were associated with fewer major adverse cardiovascular events compared with GnRH agonists.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched for all prospective, randomized trials comparing GnRH antagonists with agonists. The primary outcome was a major adverse cardiovascular event as defined by the following standardized Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terms: "myocardial infarction," "central nervous system hemorrhages and cerebrovascular conditions," and all-cause mortality. Bayesian meta-analysis models with random effects were fitted.

Results

A total of 11 eligible studies of a maximum duration of 3 to 36 months (median = 12 months) enrolling 4,248 participants were included. Only 1 trial used a blinded, adjudicated event process, whereas potential bias persisted in all trials given their open-label design. A total of 152 patients with primary outcome events were observed, 76 of 2,655 (2.9%) in GnRH antagonist-treated participants and 76 of 1,593 (4.8%) in agonist-treated individuals. Compared with GnRH agonists, the pooled OR of GnRH antagonists for the primary endpoint was 0.57 (95% credible interval: 0.37-0.86) and 0.58 (95% credible interval: 0.32-1.08) for all-cause death.

Conclusions

Despite the addition of the largest, dedicated cardiovascular outcome trial, the volume and quality of available data to definitively answer this question remain suboptimal. Notwithstanding these limitations, the available data suggest that GnRH antagonists are associated with fewer cardiovascular events, and possibly mortality, compared with GnRH agonists.

The multifaceted role of extracellular vesicles in prostate cancer-a review

Prostate cancer is the second most prominent form of cancer in men and confers the highest mortality after lung cancer. The term "extracellular vesicles" refers to minute endosomal-derived membrane microvesicles and it was demonstrated that extracellular vesicles affect the environment in which tumors originate. Extracellular vesicles' involvement is also established in the development of drug resistance, angiogenesis, stemness, and radioresistance in various cancers including prostate cancer. Extracellular vesicles influence the general environment, processes, and growth of prostate cancer and can be a potential area that offers a significant lead in prostate cancer therapy. In this review, we have elaborated on the multifaceted role of extracellular vesicles in various processes involved in the development of prostate cancer, and their multitude of applications in the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer through the encapsulation of various bioactives.

Adverse cardiovascular effect following gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist versus GnRH agonist for prostate cancer treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Androgen deprivation therapy is the mainstay of medical treatment for prostate cancer (Pca); however, it is associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular (CV) events and death. To date, CV death has been the leading noncancer cause of death in Pca patients. Both GnRH antagonists (an emerging class of drugs) and GnRH agonists (most frequently prescribed) are efficacious against Pca. However, the adverse effects, especially the adverse CV effect between them remain unclear.

Methods

Through a literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, all available studies comparing the safety of CV risk between GnRH antagonists and GnRH agonists in Pca patients were extracted. Comparisons of outcomes of interest between these two classes of drugs were calculated using the risk ratio (RR). Subgroup analyses were performed depending on the study design and preexisting CV disease at baseline.

Results

Nine randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and five real-world observational studies comprising 62160 Pca patients were included in our meta-analysis. Patients receiving GnRH antagonists experienced fewer CV events (RR: 0.66, 95% CI:0.53-0.82, P<0.001), CV death (RR:0.4, 95% CI: 0.24-0.67, P<0.001) and myocardial infarctions (RR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.52-0.96, P=0.03). No difference was found in the incidence of stroke and heart failure. Moreover, GnRH antagonists were associated with fewer CV events in patients with preexisting CV disease but not in those without preexisting CV disease in the RCT series.

Conclusion

GnRH antagonists appear to offer favorable safety in terms of adverse CV events and CV death compared with GnRH agonists among men diagnosed with Pca, especially those who had established CV disease at baseline.

Systematic review registration

https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2023-2-0009/, identifier INPLASY202320009.

Effect of LHRH analogs on lower urinary tract symptoms associated with advanced prostate cancer in real clinical practice: ANALUTS study

AIMS

To estimate the prevalence of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in patients with prostate cancer scheduled to receive LHRH analogs, and to assess the effectiveness of LHRH analogs on LUTS in patients presenting moderate/severe symptoms.

METHODS

Prospective, noninterventional, multicenter study conducted at 28 centers in Spain and Portugal. LUTS were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at baseline, 24 and 48 weeks after initiation of treatment. Subanalyses were performed according to age and concomitant treatment (radiotherapy, alpha-blockers, and antiandrogens).

RESULTS

A total of 354 patients were treated with LHRH analogs for 48 weeks. The percentage of patients with moderate/severe LUTS (IPSS &gt; 7) decreased from 60.2% (n = 213/354) at baseline to 52.8% (n = 187/354) at Week 48. Among patients with moderate/severe LUTS at baseline: 73.7% (n = 157/213) still had moderate/severe LUTS at Week 48; percentage reductions of patients with LUTS at Week 48 were statistically significant (p &lt; 0.05) overall and by age or concomitant treatment, except for alpha-blockers (84.2% patients receiving them still had moderate/severe LUTS at Week 48). All IPSS items, including quality of life for urinary symptoms, improved throughout the study. The only predictor of response to treatment with LHRH analogs that improved IPSS by 3 points after 48 weeks was baseline testosterone levels. Lower baseline testosterone levels were associated with greater improvement in IPSS after treatment with LHRH analogs (odds ratio 0.998, 95% confidence interval 0.996-1.000, p = 0.0277).

CONCLUSION

LHRH analogs have a positive effect in patients with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer presenting moderate/severe LUTS regardless of age or concomitant treatment received (radiotherapy, antiandrogens, or alpha-blockers).

A review of clinical evidence to assess differences in efficacy and safety of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist (goserelin) and LHRH antagonist (degarelix)

Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist (LHRH-A), goserelin, and antagonist, degarelix, are both indicated for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer (PCa); however, large comparative trials evaluating their efficacy and safety are lacking. In this review, we assessed the available evidence for both the drugs. Although degarelix achieves an early rapid decline in testosterone (T) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, median T and PSA levels, in addition to prostate volume and International Prostate Symptom Scores, become comparable with goserelin over the remaining treatment period. Degarelix causes no initial flare, therefore it is recommended in patients with spinal metastases or ureteric obstruction. Goserelin achieves lower PSA, improved time to progression, and better survival outcomes when administered adjunctively to radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone, with significant results even over long-term follow-up. The evidence supporting adjuvant degarelix use is limited. Goserelin has better injection site safety, single-step delivery, and an efficient administration schedule compared with degarelix, which has significantly higher injection site reactions and less efficient administration mechanism. There is conflicting evidence about the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and caution is required when using LHRH-A in patients with preexisting CVD. There is considerable long-term evidence for goserelin in patients with advanced PCa, with degarelix being a more recent option. The available comparative evidence of goserelin versus degarelix has several inherent limitations related to study design, sample size, conduct, and statistical analyses, and hence warrants robust prospective trials and long-term follow-up.

Advances with androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been a treatment of choice for prostate cancer in almost all phases, particularly in the locally advanced, metastatic setting in both hormone-sensitive and castration-resistant diseaseand in those who are unfit for any local therapy. Different ways of administering ADT comes in the form of surgical or chemical castration with the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH-agonists) being the foremost way of delivering ADT.

AREAS COVERED

This review encompasses ADT history, use of leuprolide, degarelix, and relugolix, with contextual use of ADT in combination with androgen-signaling inhibitors and potential mechanisms of resistance. Novel approaches with regard to hormone therapy are also discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of GnRH-agonists and GnRH-antagonists yields efficacy that is likely equivalent in resulting in testosterone suppression. While the side-effect profile with ADT are generally equivalent, effects on cardiovascular morbidity may be improved with the use of oral relugolix though this is noted with caution since the cardiovascular side-effects were a result of secondary subgroup analyses. The choice of ADT hinges upon cost, availability, ease of administration, and preference amongst physicians and patients alike.

Degarelix for treating advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Degarelix is a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist that leads to medical castration used to treat men with advanced or metastatic prostate cancer, or both. It is unclear how its effects compare to standard androgen suppression therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of degree compared with standard androgen suppression therapy for men with advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS until September 2020), trial registries (until October 2020), and conference proceedings (until December 2020). We identified other potentially eligible trials by reference checking, citation searching, and contacting study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials comparing degarelix with standard androgen suppression therapy for men with advanced prostate cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies. The primary outcomes were overall survival and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, cancer-specific survival, clinical progression, other adverse events, and biochemical progression. We used a random-effects model for meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of evidence for the main outcomes according to GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies with a follow-up of between three and 14 months. We also identified five ongoing trials. Primary outcomes Data to evaluate overall survival were not available.  Degarelix may result in little to no difference in serious adverse events compared to standard androgen suppression therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 1.05; low-certainty evidence; 2750 participants). Based on 114 serious adverse events in the standard androgen suppression group, this corresponds to 23 fewer serious adverse events per 1000 participants (43 fewer to 6 more). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and imprecision. Secondary outcomes Degarelix likely results in little to no difference in quality of life assessed with a variety of validated questionnaires (standardized mean difference 0.06 higher, 95% CI 0.05 lower to 0.18 higher; moderate-certainty evidence; 2887 participants), with higher scores reflecting better quality of life. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations. Data to evaluate cancer-specific survival were not available. The effects of degarelix on cardiovascular events are very uncertain (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.61; very low-certainty evidence; 80 participants). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations, imprecision, and indirectness as this trial was conducted in a unique group of high-risk participants with pre-existing cardiovascular morbidities. Degarelix likely results in an increase in injection site pain (RR 15.68, 95% CI 7.41 to 33.17; moderate-certainty evidence; 2670 participants). Based on 30 participants per 1000 with injection site pain with standard androgen suppression therapy, this corresponds to 440 more injection site pains per 1000 participants (192 more to 965 more). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations. We did not identify any relevant subgroup differences for different degarelix maintenance doses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find trial evidence for overall survival or cancer-specific survival comparing degarelix to standard androgen suppression, but serious adverse events and quality of life may be similar between groups. The effects of degarelix on cardiovascular events are very uncertain as the only eligible study had limitations, was small with few events, and was conducted in a high-risk population. Degarelix likely results in an increase in injection site pain compared to standard androgen suppression therapy. Maximum follow-up of included studies was 14 months, which is short. There is a need for methodologically better designed and executed studies with long-term follow-up evaluating men with metastatic prostate cancer.

Current and emerging gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists for the treatment of prostate cancer

Introduction:Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is currently the backbone treatment of metastatic prostate cancer and is also used in combination with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). Castration may be achieved either by bilateral orchiectomy or by administration of LHRH agonists or GnRH antagonists.Areas covered: In this article, the authors assess the current and emerging role of GnRH antagonists for the treatment of prostate cancer focusing on oncological results and safety (i.e. cardiovascular risk). In addition, updated data regarding the first orally administered GnRH antagonist, relugolix, is presented.Expert opinion: Studies demonstrate that GnRH antagonists are at least equal with LHRH agonists in terms of testosterone suppression and PSA progression free survival with a major advantage being rapid testosterone suppression. Thus, the optimal group of patients included symptomatic metastatic prostate cancer patients especially if cardiovascular comorbidities or LUTS are also present. Emerging data regarding benefit of the use of GnRH antagonists in patients with concomitant cardiovascular disease are of great interest. Relugolix has emerged as the first orally administered GnRH antagonist able to achieve and maintain testosterone castration levels and it is associated with a profound reduction of major cardiovascular events.

Progress in Clinical Research on Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Receptor Antagonists for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor agonists are still the most commonly used androgen deprivation treatment (ADT) drugs for prostate cancer in clinical practice. Currently, the GnRH receptor antagonists used for endocrine therapy for prostate cancer primarily include degarelix and relugolix (TAK-385). The former is administered by subcutaneous injection, while the latter is an oral drug. Compared to GnRH agonists, GnRH antagonists reduce serum testosterone levels more rapidly without an initial testosterone surge or subsequent microsurges. This review focuses on the mechanism of action of GnRH antagonists and agonists, the developmental history of GnRH antagonists, and emerging data from clinical studies of the two antagonists used as endocrine therapy for prostate cancer.

THE CARDIOVASCULAR EFFECTS OF GNRH ANTAGONISTS IN MEN WITH PROSTATE CANCER

AIMS

The aim of this study was to determine whether gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists (an emerging class of drugs to suppress testosterone synthesis in the treatment of prostate cancer) cause less adverse cardiovascular events than the more commonly use GnRH agonists.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a systematic review to identify all randomised, controlled trials in which a GnRH antagonist was compared with a GnRH agonist in men with prostate cancer. We identified ten eligible studies including two different GnRH antagonists, degarelix (n = 1681) and relugolix (n = 734), which were compared with the GnRH agonists, leuprolide (n = 714) and goserelin (n = 600). The pooled risk ratios (95% confidence intervals) among GnRH antagonist recipients for adverse cardiovascular events, cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality were 0.57 (0.39-0.81); 0.49 (0.25-0.96); and 0.48 (0.28-0.83) respectively. Important limitations of the included trials were their short duration of follow-up, unblinded study design and (in most of the studies) the identification of adverse cardiovascular events through safety reporting mechanisms rather than as a pre-specified outcome. There was no evidence of heterogeneity of findings among the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There is consistent but methodologically limited data to suggest that GnRH antagonists - a relatively new class of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer - cause significantly less cardiovascular adverse effects than the more frequently used GnRH agonists.

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.

The current status of hormone treatment for prostate cancer patients in Korean real-world practice: a multi-institutional observational study

We aimed to evaluate the current nationwide trend, efficacy, safety, and quality of life (QoL) profiles of hormone treatment in real-world practice settings for prostate cancer (PCa) patients in Korea. A total of 292 men with any biopsy-proven PCa (TanyNanyMany) from 12 institutions in Korea were included in this multi-institutional, observational study of prospectively collected data. All luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists were allowed to be investigational drugs. Efficacy was defined as (1) the rate of castration (serum testosterone ≤50 ng dl-1) at 4-week visit and (2) breakthrough (serum testosterone >50 ng dl-1 after castration). Safety assessments included routine examinations for potential adverse events, laboratory tests, blood pressure, body weight, and bone mineral density (BMD, at baseline and at the last follow-up visit). QoL was assessed using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC-26). The most common initial therapeutic regimen was LHRH agonist with anti-androgen (78.0%), and the most commonly used LHRH agonist for combination and monotherapy was leuprolide (64.0% for combination and 58.0% for monotherapy). The castration and breakthrough rates were 78.4% and 6.6%, respectively. The laboratory results related to dyslipidemia worsened after 4 weeks of hormone treatment. In addition, the mean BMD T-score was significantly lower at the last follow-up (mean: -1.950) compared to baseline (mean: -0.195). The mean total EPIC-26 score decreased from 84.8 (standard deviation [s.d.]: 12.2) to 78.3 (s.d.: 8.1), with significant deterioration only in the urinary domain (mean: 23.5 at baseline and 21.9 at the 4-week visit). These findings demonstrate the nationwide trend of current practice settings in hormone treatment for PCa in Korea.

Degarelix for Treating Advanced Hormone-Dependent Prostate Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal Process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of degarelix (Ferring Pharmaceuticals) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of degarelix for the treatment of advanced hormone-dependent prostate cancer. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence contained within the company's submission to NICE. The evidence, which included a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of degarelix versus leuprorelin, found that degarelix was non-inferior to leuprorelin for reduction of testosterone levels and that degarelix achieved a more rapid suppression of prostate-specific antigen levels and subsequently decreased incidences of testosterone flare associated with luteinising hormone releasing-hormone (LHRH) agonists. However, protection against testosterone flare for the comparators in the clinical trials was not employed in line with UK clinical practice. Further claims surrounding overall survival, cardiovascular adverse events and clinical equivalence of the comparator drugs from six RCTs of degarelix should be regarded with caution because of flaws and inconsistencies in the pooling of trial data to draw conclusions. The cost-effectiveness evidence included a de novo economic model. Based on the ERG's preferred base case, the deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness analysis (ICER) for degarelix versus 3-monthly triptorelin was £14,798 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Additional scenario analyses undertaken by the ERG resulted in ICERs for degarelix versus 3-monthly triptorelin ranging from £17,067 to £35,589 per QALY gained. Subgroup analyses undertaken using the Appraisal Committee's preferred assumptions suggested that degarelix was not cost effective for the subgroup with metastatic disease but could be cost effective for the subgroup with spinal metastases. The company submitted further evidence to NICE following an initial negative Appraisal Committee decision. Further analyses from the Decision Support Unit found that that, whilst some evidence indicated that degarelix could be cost effective for a small subgroup of people with spinal cord compression (SCC), data on the potential size of this subgroup and the rate of SCC were insufficient to estimate an ICER based on the evidence submitted by the company and a separately commissioned systematic review. NICE recommended degarelix as an option for treating advanced hormone-dependent prostate cancer in people with spinal metastases, only if the commissioner can achieve at least the same discounted drug cost as that available to the UK NHS in June 2016.

Triptorelin for the relief of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with advanced prostate cancer: results of a prospective, observational, grouped-analysis study

BACKGROUND

Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTSs) may develop in men with prostate cancer (PCa) and can impact quality of life (QoL). Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists as androgen deprivation therapy are standard treatment for PCa, however, data are limited on their effects on LUTSs. A grouped analysis of national observational, non-interventional studies initiated in clinical practice was performed to assess the effectiveness of triptorelin in reducing moderate or severe LUTSs, measured using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) in men with advanced or metastatic PCa.

METHODS

Men with PCa and LUTSs scheduled to receive triptorelin (3-month or 1-month extended release formulation) were recruited into prospective, non-interventional studies at centres in Algeria, Australia, Belgium, China, Hungary, Romania and South Korea. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the proportion of patients with moderate or severe LUTSs, assessed by IPSS, after 48 weeks. Secondary endpoints included: total IPSS, QoL due to urinary symptoms (IPSS Question 8) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels at 24 and 48 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 2701 patients were recruited; 1851 patients with moderate or severe LUTSs at baseline (IPSS > 7), received triptorelin and had follow-up IPSS (efficacy population). The proportion of patients with moderate or severe LUTSs was reduced to 67.2% from baseline at week 48, following a reduction to 75.9% at week 24: the overall time effect was significant (p < 0.001). QoL due to urinary symptoms significantly improved from a mean score of 3.7 at baseline, to adjusted means of 2.5 and 2.1, at weeks 24 and 48, respectively (p < 0.001 versus baseline). Mean PSA levels were reduced from 158.8 ng/ml at baseline to 11.5 and 16.0 ng/ml at weeks 24 and 48, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of these observational studies, improvements in LUTSs and QoL observed after 24 weeks and maintained at 48 weeks indicate that triptorelin-induced effects improve LUTSs in patients with advanced PCa.

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.

Approach to Androgen Deprivation in the Prostate Cancer Patient with Pre-existing Cardiovascular Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a mainstay of treatment for advanced prostate cancer. Several studies have reported an association between ADT and an increase in cardiovascular events, especially in those receiving gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists compared to GnRH antagonists. We review the body of literature reporting the association of ADT and cardiovascular morbidity, and discuss the proposed mechanism of cardiovascular disease due to ADT including metabolic changes that may promote atherosclerosis and local hormonal effects that may increase plaque rupture and thrombosis.

RECENT FINDINGS

GnRH agonists appear to increase the risk of cardiovascular morbidity by 20-25% in men on these agents compared those who do not receive ADT. GnRH antagonists may appear to have halve this risk while improving PSA progression-free survival. GnRH antagonists may be superior to GnRH agonists for patients with significant cardiovascular disease, significant metastatic disease burden, or severe lower urinary tract symptoms.

The Influence of Androgen Deprivation Therapy on Prostate Size and Voiding Symptoms in Prostate Cancer Patients in Korea

Purpose

The goal of this study is to investigate the effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) on total prostate volume and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS).

Methods

Between January 2007 and June 2014, 110 patients who received androgen deprivation treatment were enrolled in this retrospective study. Clinical parameters and urodynamic parameters along with changes at follow-up were analyzed. Factors such as reduction in prostate volume, changes in LUTS, and prostate volume tertiles were compared 1 year after ADT.

Results

After ADT, the total International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) score decreased from 17.45 to 12.21 and the IPSS voiding subscore decreased from 9.16 to 6.24. Maximal uroflow rate increased from 8.62 to 11.50 mL/sec and residual urine also reduced significantly by 29.34 mL. Change in prostate size was more prominent (–51.14%) in the patients with less than 1 year of ADT (n=21) than those who had more than 1 year of treatment (n=89, –44.12%). The decrease in the IPSS voiding subscore was greater within 1 year of ADT than after 1 year of treatment (–4.10 vs. –2.65). The differences were more significant in the 30–50 g group (n=59) and >50 g group (n=11) than the <30 g group (n=40) of the IPSS voiding subscore improvement (–3.76 , –4.91 vs. –2.10), and maximal uroflow rate improvement (2.78, 2.90 vs 1.49).

Conclusion

ADT resulted in statistically significant clinical improvement in terms of prostate volume, urodynamic parameters, and LUTS for patients with prostate cancer when analyzed by ADT duration and prostate volume.

GNRH-agonist or antagonist in the treatment of prostate cancer: a comparision based on oncological results

On the basis of the trials available, are we ready to consider GnRH antagonists better than agonists? Is there a population of patients who may benefit from antagonists more than agonists?We specifically focused our analysis on the significance of oncological results obtained in phase III trials directly comparing Degarelix with GnRH agonists. Oncological results were evaluated only in 1 trial (CS21) with some subanalysis and they were not the primary endpoints of the study. The follow-up duration was 364 days, and therefore, the number of events (all causes deaths and prostate cancer (PC), Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA), Hazard ratio (HR)-related deaths) was very low in both groups and this aspect strongly reduces the significance of overall survival evaluation. In our opinion, the CS21A open-label extension does not consent to obtain useful clinical data and the design of the study loses the possibility to have a longer randomized comparison between degarelix and agonist. Moreover, the fact that the crossover from leuprolide to degarelix was pre-defined at 12 months and not at agonist failure does not allow to gather data also on the effect of sequential treatment.The answer to the question whether we are ready to consider antagonists better than agonists, based on oncological results, is probably no. We have data in terms of testosterone suppression and PSA control rather than overall survival or clinical progression free survival. A PSA progression-free survival is a secondary endpoint that in our opinion is not sufficient. Large prospective comparative trials with long-term follow-up are needed to clarify this critical clinical question.

An Update on Triptorelin: Current Thinking on Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the mainstay palliative treatment for men with locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer, and aims to reduce testosterone to levels obtained by surgical castration. Use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists predominates among the ADT options. The GnRH agonist, triptorelin is a first-line hormonal therapy that has demonstrated efficacy and safety in clinical trials of patients with locally advanced non-metastatic or metastatic disease. Sustained-release 1-, 3- and 6-month formulations of triptorelin, administered intramuscularly or subcutaneously, have been developed to provide improved flexibility and convenience for the patient. Head-to-head studies of GnRH agonists are lacking in the field of prostate cancer. Despite the inevitable progression to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) in most patients receiving ADT, monitoring of testosterone levels needs to improve in routine practice and physicians should not overlook the benefits of continued ADT in their patients when introducing one of the various new treatment options for CRPC. For improved survival outcomes, there remains a need to tailor ADT treatment regimens, novel hormonal agents and chemotherapy according to the individual patient with advanced prostate cancer.

A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials with degarelix versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists for advanced prostate cancer

Our aim was to systematically evaluate the benefits of degarelix as antagonist versus agonists of gonadotropin-releasing hormones (GnRH) for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer (PC). This comparison was performed either in terms of biochemical or oncological or safety profiles. To this end we, carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.We selected only studies directly and prospectively analyzing the two treatments in the same population (randomized phase III studies). We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-analyses process for reporting studies.After we eliminated studies according to the exclusion criteria, 9 publications were considered relevant to this review. These articles described 5 clinical trials that were eligible for inclusion. The follow-up duration in all trials did not exceed 364 days. This meta-analysis and review comprised a total of 1719 men, 1061 randomized to degarelix versus 658 to GnRH agonists treatment for advanced PC. Oncological results were evaluated only in 1 trial (CS21:408 cases) and they were not the primary endpoints of the study. Treatment emerging adverse events were reported in 61.4% and 58.8% of patients in the degarelix and GnRH agonists group, respectively (odds ratio, OR = 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI: 0.78-1.77, P > 0.1). Treatment related severe cardiovascular side effects were reported (trial CS21-30-35) in 1.6% and 3.6% of patients in the degarelix and GnRH agonists group, respectively (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.26-1.14, P > 0.1).Our analysis evidences relevant limitations in particular for the comparative evaluation of the efficacy and the oncological results related to degarelix.

Efficacy, safety, and dose comparison of degarelix for the treatment of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis into the efficacy, safety, and dosage regimens of degarelix for treating prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing degarelix (240/80 mg vs 240/160 mg) to the gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, goserelin and leuprolide, for the treatment of PCa. Two independent reviewers screened putative studies, assessed the risk of bias, and then extracted pertinent data. Analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.2.

RESULTS: Seven papers from six RCTs, involving 1204 patients, were identified. The present meta-analysis showed that treatment with 240/160 mg degarelix is more effective and has fewer adverse events (AEs) relative to conventional 240/80 mg regimen. Degarelix significantly decreased International Prostate Symptom Scores [standardized mean differences (SMD) = -0.32, 95%CI: -0.51 to -0.12, P = 0.02] and caused fewer AEs (SMD = -0.28, 95%CI: -0.48 to -0.07, P = 0.008) than goserelin. Degarelix suppressed testosterone and prostate-specific antigen significantly faster than leuprolide.

CONCLUSION: Degarelix is a useful option in the treatment of advanced PCa. Degarelix 240/160 mg regimen was superior to a 240/80 mg regimen. More rigorously designed RCTs are urgently needed to confirm the efficacy of degarelix.

Evidence-based recommendations on androgen deprivation therapy for localized and advanced prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

The management of prostate cancer (PC) is still evolving. Although, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is an established treatment option, particularly in patients with disseminated disease, important data regarding hormonal manipulation have recently emerged. The aim of this paper is to review the evidence on ADT, make recommendations and address areas of controversy associated with its use in men with PC.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An expert panel was convened. Areas related to the hormonal management of patients with PC requiring evidence review were identified and questions to be addressed by the panel were determined. Appropriate literature review was performed and included a search of online databases, bibliographic reviews and consultation with experts.

RESULTS

The panel was able to provide recommendations on: 1) which patients with localised PC should receive androgen deprivation in conjunction with radiotherapy (RT); 2) what standard initial treatment should be used in metastatic hormone-naïve PC (MHNPC); 3) efficacy of androgen deprivation agents; 4) whether ADT should be continued in patients with castration resistant PC (CRPC). However, no recommendations could be made for combined ADT and very high-dose RT in patients with an intermediate-risk disease.

CONCLUSIONS

ADT remains the cornerstone of treatment for both metastatic hormone-naïve and castration-resistant PC. According to the expert panel's opinion, based on the ERG report, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists might not be equivalent but this needs to be confirmed in long-term data. The combined use of ADT and RT improves outcome and survival in men with high-risk localised disease. The benefits in patients with intermediate-risk disease, particularly those subject to escalated dose RT are controversial.

Degarelix therapy for prostate cancer in a real-world setting: experience from the German IQUO (Association for Uro-Oncological Quality Assurance) Firmagon® registry

Background

We investigated the use of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist degarelix in everyday clinical practice using registry data from uro-oncology practices in Germany.

Methods

Data were analysed retrospectively from the IQUO (Association for uro-oncological quality assurance) patient registry. Data were prospectively collected from all consecutive PCa patients treated with degarelix (n = 1010) in 138 uro-oncology practices in Germany between May 2009 and December 2013.

Results

Median overall survival had not yet been reached in the all-patient group or in subgroups who had or had not received prior hormonal therapy (HT). Cox regression analysis showed that patients who had received prior HT (n = 542) had a 58 % increased mortality risk (hazard ratio 1.58, 95 % CI 1.20–2.09) versus patients who had not (n = 468) (p = 0.001). Also, in patients who had received prior luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogue therapy (LHRH agonists or GnRH antagonists), median time to PSA progression was shorter (209 weeks) than in those who had not received prior LHRH analogues (n = 555; median PSA progression-free survival not yet reached). Degarelix was generally well tolerated.

Conclusions

Degarelix was effective and well tolerated in everyday clinical practice, confirming observations from clinical studies. Patients who received prior HT appeared to have a significantly higher mortality risk.

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.

Integrative review on the non-invasive management of lower urinary tract symptoms in men following treatments for pelvic malignancies

AIM

To develop a non-invasive management strategy for men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) after treatment for pelvic cancer, that is suitable for use in a primary healthcare context.

METHODS

PubMed literature searches of LUTS management in this patient group were carried out, together with obtaining a consensus of management strategies from a panel of authors for the management of LUTS from across the UK.

RESULTS

Data from 41 articles were investigated and collated. Clinical experience was sought from authors where there was no clinical evidence. The findings discussed in this paper confirm that LUTS after the cancer treatment can significantly impair men's quality of life. While many men recover from LUTS spontaneously over time, a significant proportion require long-term management. Despite the prevalence of LUTS, there is a lack of consensus on best management. This article offers a comprehensive treatment algorithm to manage patients with LUTS following pelvic cancer treatment.

CONCLUSION

Based on published research literature and clinical experience, recommendations are proposed for the standardisation of management strategies employed for men with LUTS after the pelvic cancer treatment. In addition to implementing the algorithm, understanding the rationale for the type and timing of LUTS management strategies is crucial for clinicians and patients.

A prospective, observational grouped analysis to evaluate the effect of triptorelin on lower urinary tract symptoms in patients with advanced prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

Few studies have assessed the effect of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, such as triptorelin, on lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in patients with advanced prostate cancer. Therefore, multiple, national observational, noninterventional studies were initiated to assess the effectiveness of triptorelin in reducing moderate or severe LUTS [International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) >7] in men with prostate cancer starting triptorelin therapy in clinical practice.

METHODS

Prospective, noninterventional, multicentre studies of LUTS located in Algeria, Belgium, China, Hungary, Romania and South Korea, in patients who were scheduled to receive triptorelin (3-month extended release or 1-month formulation) in clinical practice. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the proportion of patients with moderate or severe LUTS after 48 weeks as assessed by IPSS. Secondary endpoints included the distribution of IPSS categories, total IPSS and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels at baseline, 24 and 48 weeks.

RESULTS

In total, 2461 patients were recruited in the studies; 1282 patients had moderate or severe LUTS at baseline (IPSS > 7), received triptorelin and had follow-up IPSS. Mean total IPSS was reduced from 18.2 [95% confidence interval (CI) 17.8-18.5] at baseline to 11.9 (95% CI 11.5-12.3; p < 0.001) and 10.6 (95% CI 10.2-11.0; p < 0.001) at weeks 24 and 48, respectively. Mean PSA levels were reduced from 117.9 ng/ml (95% CI 93.8-141.9) at baseline to 8.5 ng/ml (95% CI 5.2-11.7) and 16.6 ng/ml (95% CI 7.4-25.8) at weeks 24 and 48, respectively. There was a significant correlation between total IPSS change from baseline and PSA change from baseline at weeks 24 and 48 (ρ = 0.3 and 0.2, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The improvement in LUTS in men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer after 24-48 weeks suggests that triptorelin is effective in improving LUTS in this subgroup of patients.

In search of the molecular mechanisms mediating the inhibitory effect of the GnRH antagonist degarelix on human prostate cell growth

Degarelix is a gonadrotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor (GnRHR) antagonist used in patients with prostate cancer who need androgen deprivation therapy. GnRHRs have been found in extra-pituitary tissues, including prostate, which may be affected by the GnRH and GnRH analogues used in therapy. The direct effect of degarelix on human prostate cell growth was evaluated. Normal prostate myofibroblast WPMY-1 and epithelial WPE1-NA22 cells, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)-1 cells, androgen-independent PC-3 and androgen-dependent LNCaP prostate cancer cells, as well as VCaP cells derived from a patient with castration-resistant prostate cancer were used. Discriminatory protein and lipid fingerprints of normal, hyperplastic, and cancer cells were generated by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization (MALDI) mass spectrometry (MS). The investigated cell lines express GNRHR1 and GNRHR2 and their endogenous ligands. Degarelix treatment reduced cell viability in all prostate cell lines tested, with the exception of the PC-3 cells; this can be attributed to increased apoptosis, as indicated by increased caspase 3/7, 8 and 9 levels. WPE1-NA22, BPH-1, LNCaP, and VCaP cell viability was not affected by treatment with the GnRH agonists leuprolide and goserelin. Using MALDI MS, we detected changes in m/z signals that were robust enough to create a complete discriminatory profile induced by degarelix. Transcriptomic analysis of BPH-1 cells provided a global map of genes affected by degarelix and indicated that the biological processes affected were related to cell growth, G-coupled receptors, the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway, angiogenesis and cell adhesion. Taken together, these data demonstrate that (i) the GnRH antagonist degarelix exerts a direct effect on prostate cell growth through apoptosis; (ii) MALDI MS analysis provided a basis to fingerprint degarelix-treated prostate cells; and (iii) the clusters of genes affected by degarelix suggest that this compound, in addition to its known use in the treatment of prostate cancer, may be efficacious in BPH.

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.

Degarelix as an intermittent androgen deprivation therapy for one or more treatment cycles in patients with prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for prostate cancer treatment suggest that intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) can be considered for certain patients.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of degarelix as IAD for one or more treatment cycle(s) in prostate cancer patients requiring androgen deprivation.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This open-label uncontrolled multicenter study included patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >4 to 50 ng/ml or PSA doubling time <24 mo. Induction included 7-mo treatment. Off-treatment period started when PSA was ≤4 ng/ml and lasted up to 24 mo based on PSA and testosterone levels. Treatment was reinitiated when PSA was >4 ng/ml.

INTERVENTION

Each induction period included a starting dose of degarelix 240mg, and thereafter 80mg once a month for 6 mo, followed by off-treatment periods.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary end point was time to PSA >4 ng/ml. Secondary end points were subgroup analysis of the primary end point, time to testosterone >0.5 and >2.2 ng/ml, quality of life (QoL), and sexual function during the first off-treatment period.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Of 213 patients in the first induction period, 191 entered the first off-treatment period, 35 patients entered the second induction, and 30 entered the second off-treatment period. Only two patients entered the third cycle. Median time to PSA >4 ng/ml and duration of first off-treatment period was 392 d each. Significant differences in time to PSA >4 ng/ml were observed between subgroups stratified by prognostic factors (previous curative treatment, cancer stage, PSA levels, and Gleason scores). Time to testosterone >0.5 and >2.2 ng/ml was 112 and 168 d, respectively. Change in QoL remained nonsignificant, and sexual function gradually improved during the off-treatment period. Adverse events were fewer during the off-treatment period and subsequent treatment cycles.

CONCLUSIONS

IAD with degarelix resulted in an improvement in sexual function commensurate with increased testosterone levels while PSA remained suppressed. The treatment for one treatment cycle or more was well tolerated.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Guidelines for prostate cancer treatment suggest that intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) can be considered for certain patients. IAD with degarelix resulted in improved sexual function commensurate with increased testosterone levels while prostate-specific antigen remained suppressed. The treatment for one treatment cycle or more was well tolerated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00801242.

Clinical pharmacology and regulatory consequences of GnRH analogues in prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

GnRH (gonadotropin-releasing hormone) analogues are long-term known to be safe and effective in the clinical management of hormone-dependent advanced prostate cancer. However, their unusual mechanism of action of de-sensitizing pituitary receptors makes generic market entry challenging. In addition, safety aspects like initial flare-up, breakthrough escape, and miniflares render planning and organization of clinical registration trials a complex project.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS THERAPEUTIC EQUIVALENCE

Regulatory requirements are high as these medicines are compared to bilateral surgical castration with a 100% success rate. GnRH analogues will be used probably even wider in the near future due to demographic development and extension of indications. However, they are challenged by their antagonistic counterparts, which are avoiding flare-up phenomena. The following article deals with regulatory requirements of GnRH analogues in regard to their clinical characteristics.

Current trends for the use of androgen deprivation therapy in conjunction with radiotherapy for patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, localized, and locally advanced prostate cancer

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is now a well-established standard of care in combination with definitive radiotherapy for patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk to high-risk locally advanced prostate cancer. It is also well established that combination modality treatment with ADT and radiotherapy is superior to either of these modalities alone for the treatment of patients with high-risk locally advanced disease. Current treatment guidelines for prostate cancer in the United States are based on the estimated risk of recurrence and death. This review examines the clinical evidence underpinning the use of ADT and radiotherapy among patients with high-risk localized and locally advanced disease in the United States. This review also considers the rationale for moving from traditional luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists to more recently developed gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists.

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.

An update on the use of degarelix in the treatment of advanced hormone-dependent prostate cancer

Androgen deprivation therapy remains the mainstay of medical treatment for advanced prostate cancer. Commonly, this is achieved with medical androgen deprivation rather than surgical intervention as the permanence and psychological effects of the latter are unacceptable for most patients. Degarelix is a third generation antagonist of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH, also termed gonadotropin-releasing hormone) for the first-line treatment of androgen-dependent advanced prostate cancer. Degarelix acts directly on the pituitary receptors for LHRH, blocking the action of endogenous LHRH. The use of degarelix eliminates the initial undesirable surge in gonadotropin and testosterone levels, which is produced by agonists of LHRH. Degarelix is the most comprehensively studied and widely available LHRH antagonist worldwide. Clinical trials have demonstrated that degarelix has a long-term efficacy similar to the LHRH agonist leuprolide in achieving testosterone suppression in patients with prostate cancer. Degarelix, however, produces a faster suppression of testosterone and prostate-specific antigen (PSA), with no testosterone surges or microsurges, and thus prevents the risk of clinical flare in advanced disease. Recent clinical trials demonstrated that treatment with degarelix results in improved disease control when compared with an LHRH agonist in terms of superior PSA progression-free survival, suggesting that degarelix likely delays progression to castration-resistant disease and has a more significant impact on bone serum alkaline phosphatase and follicle-stimulating hormone. Degarelix is usually well tolerated, with limited toxicity and no evidence of systemic allergic reactions in clinical studies. Degarelix thus represents an important addition to the hormonal armamentarium for therapy of advanced androgen-dependent prostate cancer.