Hormonal therapy for prostate cancer: past, present and future

Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists versus orchiectomy in the treatment of prostate cancer: A systematic review

Background

Orchiectomy has been replaced by medication represented by luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist as the first-line therapy for androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). After the wide application of LHRH agonist, the side-effects of long-term ADT were noticed. It is time to reconsider the role of medication and surgeries in the treatment of prostate cancer.

Methods

Embase, Pubmed, Web of science and Cochrane library were searched for relevant trials. Quality of the studies and risk of bias were assessed by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Therapeutic and adverse effects, as well as long-term metabolic adverse effects were extracted from the selected studies. The data synthesized in meta-analyses were performed with R software (4.2.1). Risk ratio (RR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated by combining outcome data including complete and partial response rate, progression rate, death rate and adverse effects such as hot flash and increase in pain. Descriptive analysis was performed among the prostate specific antigen (PSA), testosterone and metabolic adverse effects due to a lack of homogeneity of frailty measures.

Results

1,711 participants from 11 studies were included in our systematic review. 1,258 patients from six studies were included in the meta-analysis. Based on the meta-analysis, the therapeutic and adverse outcomes included overall response rate, complete response rate, partial response rate, stable rate, progression rate, death rate and hot flashes. No statistical significance was observed between LHRH agonists and orchiectomy. Compared with surgery, LHRH agonist elevated the risk of the increase in pain. In descriptive analysis, it was shown that the therapeutic effects between PSA and testosterone also showed no significant difference. Both groups had lipid and glucose metabolic disorders, and a few studies reported worse lipid metabolic performance in orchiectomy group and worse insulin resistance in LHRH agonist group.

Conclusion

We found that the therapeutic outcomes were similar between the two options. The results of lipid and glucose metabolic abnormality were controversial in existing studies. The direct comparison studies on metabolic adverse effects should be performed in the future. The therapeutic, metabolic, psychological and economical effects should be considered before applying ADT methods.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022365891.

Previous, Current, and Future Pharmacotherapy and Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer-A Comprehensive Review

Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common cancers in men that usually develops slowly. Since diagnostic methods improved in the last decade and are highly precise, more cancers are diagnosed at an early stage. Active surveillance or watchful waiting are appealing approaches for men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer, and they are an antidote to the overtreatment problem and unnecessary biopsies. However, treatment depends on individual circumstances of a patient. Older hormonal therapies based on first generation antiandrogens and steroids were widely used in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients prior to the implementation of docetaxel. Nowadays, accordingly to randomized clinical trials, abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide. and docetaxel became first line agents administrated in the treatment of mCRPC. Furthermore, radium-223 is an optional therapy for bone-only metastasis patients. Sipuleucel-T demonstrated an overall survival benefit. However, other novel immunotherapeutics showed limitations in monotherapy. Possible combinations of new vaccines or immune checkpoint blockers with enzalutamide, abiraterone, radium-223, or docetaxel are the subject of ongoing rivalry regarding optimal therapy of prostate cancer.

Estrogens down-regulate the stem cell factor (SCF)/c-KIT system in prostate cells: Evidence of antiproliferative and proapoptotic effects

The development of prostate cancer (PCa) is intimately associated with the hormonal environment, and the sex steroids estrogens have been implicated in prostate malignancy. However, if some studies identified estrogens as causative agents of PCa, others indicated that these steroids have a protective role counteracting prostate overgrowth. The tyrosine kinase receptor c-KIT and its ligand, the stem cell factor (SCF), have been associated with the control of cell proliferation/apoptosis and prostate carcinogenesis, and studies show that estrogens regulate their expression in different tissues, though, in the case of prostate this remains unknown. The present study aims to evaluate the role of 17β-estradiol (E2) in regulating the expression of SCF/c-KIT in human prostate cell lines and rat prostate, and to investigate the consequent effects on prostate cell proliferation and apoptosis. qPCR, Western Blot, and immuno(cito)histochemistry analysis showed that E2-treatment decreased the expression of SCF and c-KIT both in human prostate cells and rat prostate. Furthermore, the diminished expression of SCF/c-KIT was underpinned by the diminished prostate weight and reduced proliferation index. On the other hand, the results of TUNEL labelling, the increased activity of caspase-3, and the augmented expression of caspase-8 and Fas system in the prostate of E2-treated animals indicated augmented apoptosis in response to E2. The obtained results demonstrated that E2 down-regulated the expression of SCF/c-KIT system in prostate cells, which was associated with antiproliferative and proapoptotic effects. Moreover, these findings support the protective role of estrogens in PCa and open new perspectives on the application of estrogen-based therapies.

Diethylstilboestrol for the treatment of prostate cancer: past, present and future

The aim of this review was to discuss the most recent data from current trials of diethylstilboestrol (DES) to identify its present role in advanced prostate cancer treatment as new hormonal therapies emerge. The most relevant clinical studies using DES in castration-refractory prostate cancer (CRPC) were identified from the literature. The safety, efficacy, outcomes and mechanisms of action are summarized. In the age of chemotherapy this review highlights the efficacy of oestrogen therapy in CRPC. The optimal point in the therapeutic pathway at which DES should be prescribed remains to be established.

Estrogens and prostate cancer: etiology, mediators, prevention, and management

The mainstay targets for hormonal prostate cancer (PCa) therapies are based on negating androgen action. Recent epidemiologic and experimental data have pinpointed the key roles of estrogens in PCa development and progression. Racial and geographic differences, as well as age-associated changes, in estrogen synthesis and metabolism contribute significantly to the etiology. This article summarizes how different estrogens/antiestrogens/estrogen mimics contribute to prostate carcinogenesis, the roles of the different mediators of estrogen in the process, and the potentials of new estrogenic/antiestrogenic compounds for prevention and treatment of PCa.

The mechanism of action of estrogen in castration-resistant prostate cancer: clues from hormone levels

BACKGROUND

Estrogen therapy plays a role in the management of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), although the mechanism of action is not fully known. This current analysis reports the relationship of change in adrenal androgen levels and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response in patients with CRPC treated with estrogen therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Hormone levels were measured for patients with CRPC treated in a multicenter phase II trial of 2 estrogen-containing compounds, the herbal supplement PC-SPES and diethylstilbestrol (DES), with known efficacy in CRPC. Patients with castrate levels of testosterone were randomized to initially receive either PC-SPES 960 mg t.i.d. or DES 3 mg/day. Levels of testosterone, dihydrotestosterone (DHT), estradiol, estrone, sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), DHEA-sulfate (DHEA-S), and androstenedione were obtained at baseline and at 12-week intervals until disease progression. Hormone levels were obtained for 38 patients, 20 treated with PC-SPES and 18 treated with DES.

RESULTS

Significant declines between baseline and 12 weeks of treatment were observed in levels of serum testosterone (P < .001), estrone (P = .02), and DHEA (P < .001). The percent changes at 12 weeks in these hormone levels were inversely proportional to baseline values as measured by Spearman's rank correlation (testosterone: -0.41, P = .01; estrone: -0.64, P = .0001; DHEA: -0.39, P = .02). Levels of SHBG increased in almost all of the patients (97%), with a median percent increase of > 5-fold (P < .0001). Of the 38 evaluable patients, 15 (39% [95% CI, 24%-57%]) experienced a > 50% decline in PSA level. There was no significant difference between treatment groups or between responders and nonresponders in baseline distributions for any of the hormones. At follow-up, 73% of the responders had a decline in the level of DHEA-S compared with 41% of the nonresponders, resulting in a difference in the distribution of the percent change between the subsets (Mann-Whitney test: P = .03). Conversely, 64% of the responders compared with 30% of the nonresponders experienced an increase in DHT, with differing distributions of percent change (P = .02).

CONCLUSION

Androgens decline in response to estrogen therapy. A decline in DHEA-S and a rise in DHT are both associated with a decline in PSA while patients receive estrogen therapy.

Potential benefits of intermittent androgen suppression therapy in the treatment of prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature

CONTEXT

The well-known side-effect profile of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) has significant quality-of-life (QoL) implications. Intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) alternates androgen blockade with treatment cessation to allow hormonal recovery between treatment cycles, thus potentially improving tolerability and QoL.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate available evidence regarding the efficacy and tolerability of IAD and assess its value in the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Key phase 2/3 clinical trials of IAD in PCa published within the last 10 yr were identified on Medline using the terms prostatic neoplasms [MeSH], intermittent androgen suppression, intermittent hormonal deprivation, intermittent androgen deprivation, and intermittent hormonal therapy. Abstracts from trials reported at 2008-2009 conferences were also included.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Data from 19 phase 2 studies are discussed with respect to prostate-specific antigen values for treatment suspension/reinitiation, treatment regimens, cycle lengths, testosterone normalisation, and tolerability. Outcome data were promising: Most trials reported an improvement in QoL during the off-therapy periods. Interim data from eight phase 3 trials comparing IAD and continuous androgen deprivation (CAD) support the phase 2 results. IAD generally showed comparable efficacy to CAD with respect to various outcomes, including biochemical progression, progression-free survival, and overall survival. However, IAD was significantly better than CAD with respect to 3-yr risk of progression in one study, and it demonstrated tolerability benefits, particularly with respect to sexual function. Patients most likely to benefit from IAD and factors predictive of poor response are also discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

IAD seems to be as effective as CAD while showing tolerability and QoL advantages, especially recovery of sexual potency; however, there are as yet insufficient data to determine whether IAD has the potential to prevent or reverse the long-term complications associated with ADT.

Quantitative RT-PCR analysis of estrogen receptor gene expression in laser microdissected prostate cancer tissue

BACKGROUND

Real-time quantitative RT-PCR analysis of laser microdissected tissue is considered the most accurate technique for determining tissue gene expression. The discovery of estrogen receptor beta (ERbeta) has focussed renewed interest on the role of estrogen receptors in prostate cancer, yet few studies have utilized the technique to analyze estrogen receptor gene expression in prostate cancer.

METHODS

Fresh tissue was obtained from 11 radical prostatectomy specimens and from 6 patients with benign prostate hyperplasia. Pure populations of benign and malignant prostate epithelium were laser microdissected, followed by RNA isolation and electrophoresis. Quantitative RT-PCR was performed using primers for androgen receptor (AR), estrogen receptor beta (ERbeta), estrogen receptor alpha (ERalpha), progesterone receptor (PGR) and prostate specific antigen (PSA), with normalization to two housekeeping genes. Differences in gene expression were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Correlation coefficients were analyzed using Spearman's test.

RESULTS

Significant positive correlations were seen when AR and AR-dependent PSA, and ERalpha and ERalpha-dependent PGR were compared, indicating a representative population of RNA transcripts. ERbeta gene expression was significantly over-expressed in the cancer group compared with benign controls (P < 0.01). In contrast, PGR expression was significantly down-regulated in the cancer group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in AR, ERalpha or PSA expression between the groups. This study represents the first to show an upregulation of ERbeta gene expression in laser microdissected prostate cancer specimens.

CONCLUSIONS

In concert with recent studies the findings suggest differential production of ERbeta splice variants, which may play important roles in the genesis of prostate cancer.

Estrogens and Antiestrogens as Etiological Factors and Therapeutics for Prostate Cancer

Mounting evidence supports a key role played by estrogen or estrogen in synergy with an androgen, in the pathogenesis of prostate cancer (PCa). New experimental data suggest that this process could begin as early as prenatal life. During adulthood, estrogen carcinogenicity is believed to be mediated by the combined effects of hormone-induced, unscheduled cell proliferation and bioactivation of estrogens to genotoxic carcinogens. Increased bioavailability of estrogen through age-dependent increases in conversion from androgen could also be a contributing factor. Individual variations and race-/ethnic-based differences in circulating or locally formed estrogens or in tissue estrogen responsiveness may explain differential PCa risk among individuals or different populations. Estrogen receptor (ER)-alpha and ER-beta are the main mediators of estrogen action in the prostate. However, ER-beta is the first ER subtype expressed in the fetal prostate. During cancer development, ER-beta expression is first lost as tumors progress into high grade in the primary site. Yet, its reexpression occurs in all metastatic cases of PCa. A change in cytosine methylation in a regulatory CpG island located in the proximal promoter of ER-beta may constitute an "on/off" switch for reversible regulation of ER-beta expression. A variety of estrogenic/antiestrogenic/selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM)-like compounds have been shown to use non-ERE pathways, such as tethering of ER-beta to NF-kappaB binding proteins, Sp2, or Ap1 for gene transactivation. These findings open new avenues for drug design that now focuses on developing a new generation of estrogen-based PCa therapies with maximal proapoptotic action but few or no side effects.

Identification of a lead pharmacophore for the development of potent nuclear receptor modulators as anticancer and X syndrome disease therapeutic agents

A series of tetrahydroisoquinoline-N-phenylamide derivatives were designed, synthesized, and tested for their relative binding affinity and antagonistic activity against androgen receptor (AR). Compound 1b (relative binding affinity, RBA = 6.4) and 1h (RBA = 12.6) showed higher binding affinity than flutamide (RBA = 1), a potent AR antagonist. These two compounds also exerted optimal antagonistic activity against AR in reporter assays. The derivatives were also tested for their activities against another nuclear receptor, farnesoid x receptor (FXR), with most compounds acting as weak antagonists, however, compound 1h behaved as a FXR agonist with activity slightly less than that of chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA), a natural FXR agonist.

The novel estrogen 17α-20Z-21-[(4-amino)phenyl]-19-norpregna-1,3,5(10),20-tetraene-3,17β-diol induces apoptosis in prostate cancer cell lines at nanomolar concentrations in vitro

Prostate cancer remains the number one cause of noncutaneous cancer, with 220,900 new cases predicted for the year 2003 alone. Of the more promising classes of compounds studied thus far for the treatment of prostate cancer, estrogens of various types have consistently exhibited antitumor activities both in vitro and in vivo. For this reason, we have synthesized and screened a library of unique 17α/11β modified 17β-estradiol (E2) analogues designed for estrogen receptor β (ER-β) specificity and a potential for cytotoxic activity directed toward prostate cancer cells. From this library, the novel compound 17α-20Z-21-[(4-amino)phenyl]-19-norpregna-1,3,5(10),20-tetraene-3,17β-diol (APVE2) was identified as the primary lead, found to induce a high level (&gt;90%) of cell death through an apoptotic mechanism, with an EC50 of 1.4, 2.7, and 16 nm in the LNCaP, PC3, and DU145 cell lines, respectively. APVE2 was found to bind to ER-β, albeit weakly, with an EC50 of 250 nm and a binding activity of 6.2% relative to E2, nearly two orders of magnitude less than the concentration required to induce apoptosis. APVE2 bound preferentially to ER-β by 7-fold over ER-α, and did not induce growth in the MCF-7 cell line, thus indicating that it is not a classical ER agonist. Furthermore, the cytotoxic actions of APVE2 were not reversed by co-treatment with a 50-fold excess E2. In summary, a novel 17 modified estrogen APVE2 was identified as a lead compound, capable of inducing apoptosis in three prostate cancer cell lines at low nanomolar concentrations, through a mechanism inconsistent with an ER-mediated mechanism.

Estrogens and anti-estrogens: Key mediators of prostate carcinogenesis and new therapeutic candidates

Despite the historical use of estrogens in the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) little is known about their direct biological effects on the prostate, their role in carcinogenesis, and what mechanisms mediate their therapeutic effects on PCa. It is now known that estrogens alone, or in synergism with an androgen, are potent inducers of aberrant growth and neoplastic transformation in the prostate. The mechanisms of estrogen carcinogenicity could be mediated via induction of unscheduled cell proliferation or through metabolic activation of estrogens to genotoxic metabolites. Age-related changes and race-/ethnic-based differences in circulating or locally formed estrogens may explain differential PCa risk among different populations. Loss of expression of estrogen receptor (ER)-beta expression during prostate carcinogenesis and prevention of estrogen-mediated oxidative damage could be exploited in future PCa prevention strategies. Re-expression of ER-beta in metastatic PCa cells raises the possibility of using ER-beta-specific ligands in triggering cell death in these malignant cells. A variety of new estrogenic/anti-estrogenic/selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM)-like compounds, including 2-methoxyestradiol, genistein, resveratrol, licochalcone, Raloxifene, ICI 182,780, and estramustine are being evaluated for their potential in the next generation of PCa therapies. Increasing numbers of patients self-medicate with herbal formulations such as PC-SPES. Some of these compounds are selective ER-beta ligands, while most of them have minimal interaction with ER-alpha. Although many may inhibit testosterone production by blockade of the hypothalamal-pituitary-testis axis, the most effective agents also exhibit direct cytostatic, cytotoxic, or apoptotic action on PCa cells. Some of them are potent in interfering with tubulin polymerization, blocking angiogenesis and cell motility, suppressing DNA synthesis, and inhibiting specific kinase activities. Further discovery of other compounds with potent apoptotic activities but minimal estrogen action should promote development of a new generation of effective PCa preventive or treatment regimens with few or no side-effects due to estrogenicity. Further advancement of our knowledge of the role of estrogens in prostate carcinogenesis through metabolic activation of estrogens and/or ER-mediated pathways will certainly result in better preventive or therapeutic modalities for PCa.