Abarelix for injectable suspension: first-in-class gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist for prostate cancer

Evaluation the injectability of injectable microparticle delivery systems on the basis of injection force and discharged rate

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous injection of biopharmaceutical agents or microparticles is challenging due to issues with low injection efficiency and high residual amounts.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the important factors affecting the injectability of microparticle delivery systems, establish a suitable injection system with lower injection force and higher discharge rate, and eventually develop a reliable injectability evaluation system for injectable microparticle delivery systems in vitro and in vivo.

METHODS

The effects of various parameters, including particle size, injection speed, concentration of microspheres suspension, vehicle viscosity, needle length and gauge were evaluated by measuring the injection force and discharge rate. The characteristics of microparticles and rheological measurement of the suspension systems were studied. A design of experiment approach was utilized to evaluate the interaction between the microsphere suspension, vehicle viscosity and needle gauges. Both in vitro sieve tests and in vivo tests in rats were conducted to evaluate injectability.

RESULTS

The in vitro test results showed that the vehicle viscosity and injection speed have varying effects on discharge rate and injection force, respectively. Particle size and needle gauge have substantial influence on injectability, larger particle size and smaller needle gauges resulting in poor injectability, while the needle gauge was found to have the greatest influence on injectability. Levonorgestrel (LNG) microsphere and glass bead were relatively uniform spherical, the glass bead had extremely smooth surface; while mesoporous silica had irregular shape. The settling rate of glass bead was the fastest, which was about 18 times faster than the LNG microsphere. The CMC-Na had a poor interaction with the LNG microspheres, glass bead and mesoporous silica and showed basically Newtonian behavior in the shear rate range of 0.1 s-1-100 s-1. When shear rate increased to more than 100 s-1, no obvious shear thinning behavior was observed. CMC-Na formed a nodule structure with whether LNG microspheres or the glass beads, which were much lower than that with the mesoporous silica in static state, among which the glass beads were the weakest. The viscosity of the suspension increased with the rising of the volume fraction of particles. Fundamentals of hydrodynamics in capillaries were referenced, such as Navier-Stokes Law equation, Krieger-Dougherty (K-D) equation, Hagen-Poiseuille equation. The best results achieved was using a suspension concentration of 120-240 mg /mL and a viscosity of 60 cP at 20 °C with 23-gauge needles. The optimized conditions were verified in vivo tests. It was proven that the LNG microsphere suspension had a good injectability when injected into subcutaneous tissue of rats.

CONCLUSION

The injection system of injectable microparticle delivery system with lower injection force and higher discharge rate was established and the evaluation method was suitable for the injectability evaluation both in vivo and in vitro. Improved injectability would promote the clinical translation of microparticle delivery systems.

Evolving strategies and application of proteins and peptide therapeutics in cancer treatment

Several proteins and peptides have therapeutic potential and can be used for cancer therapy. By binding to cell surface receptors and other indicators uniquely linked with or overexpressed on tumors compared to healthy tissue, protein biologics enhance the active targeting of cancer cells, as opposed to the passive targeting of cells by conventional small-molecule chemotherapeutics. This study focuses on peptide medications that exist to slow or stop tumor growth and the spread of cancer, demonstrating the therapeutic potential of peptides in cancer treatment. As an alternative to standard chemotherapy, peptides that selectively kill cancer cells while sparing healthy tissue are developing. A mountain of clinical evidence supports the efficacy of peptide-based cancer vaccines. Since a single treatment technique may not be sufficient to produce favourable results in the fight against cancer, combination therapy is emerging as an effective option to generate synergistic benefits. One example of this new area is the use of anticancer peptides in combination with nonpeptidic cytotoxic drugs or the combination of immunotherapy with conventional therapies like radiation and chemotherapy. This review focuses on the different natural and synthetic peptides obtained and researched. Discoveries, manufacture, and modifications of peptide drugs, as well as their contemporary applications, are summarized in this review. We also discuss the benefits and difficulties of potential advances in therapeutic peptides.

Safety, Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Evaluation of Teverelix for the Treatment of Hormone-Sensitive Advanced Prostate Cancer: Phase 2 Loading-Dose-Finding Studies

Background and objectives: Teverelix drug product (DP) is a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist in development for the treatment of patients with prostate cancer in whom androgen deprivation therapy is indicated. The aim of this paper is to present the results of five Phase 2 studies that assessed the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy and safety of different loading dose regimens of teverelix DP. Methods: Five single-arm, uncontrolled clinical trials were conducted in patients with advanced prostate cancer. The five different loading dose regimens of teverelix DP tested were (a) a single 90 mg subcutaneous (SC) injection of teverelix DP given on 3 consecutive days (Days 0, 1 and 2); (b) a single 90 mg intramuscular (IM) injection of teverelix DP given 7 days apart (Days 0 and 7); (c) a single 120 mg SC injection of teverelix DP given on 2 consecutive days (Days 0 and 1); (d) 2 × 60 mg SC injections of teverelix DP given on 3 consecutive days (Days 0, 1 and 2), and (e) 2 × 90 mg SC injections of teverelix DP given on 3 consecutive days (Days 0, 1 and 2). The primary efficacy parameter was the duration of action of an initial loading dose regimen in terms of suppression of testosterone to below the castration level (0.5 ng/mL). Results: Eighty-two patients were treated with teverelix DP. Two regimens (90 mg and 180 mg SC on 3 consecutive days) had a mean duration of castration of 55.32 days and 68.95 days with >90% of patients having testosterone levels < 0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. The mean onset of castration for the SC regimens ranged from 1.10 to 1.77 days, while it was slower (2.4 days) with IM administration. The most common adverse event (AE) was injection site reaction. No AEs of severe intensity were reported. Conclusions: Teverelix DP is safe and well tolerated. Castrate levels of testosterone can be rapidly achieved following the subcutaneous injection of teverelix DP on 3 consecutive days. Streamlining of the administration of the loading dose and identifying a suitable maintenance dose will be investigated in future trials.

Peptide-based diagnostic and therapeutic agents: Where we are and where we are heading?

Peptides are increasingly present in all branches of medicine as innovative drugs, imaging agents, theragnostic, and constituent moieties of other sophisticated drugs such as peptide-drug conjugates. Due to new developments in chemical synthesis strategies, computational biology, recombinant technology, and chemical biology, peptide drug development has made a great progress in the last decade. Numerous natural peptides and peptide mimics have been obtained and studied, covering multiple therapeutic areas. Even though peptides have been investigated across the wide therapeutic spectrum, oncology, metabolism, and endocrinology are the most frequent medical indications of them. This review summarizes the current use of and the emerging new opportunities of peptides for diagnosis and treatment of various diseases.

Prognostic significance of nadir PSA value and time to nadir PSA in patients with metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer receiving first-line hormonotherapy

BACKGROUND

The current study aimed to evaluate the effect of the time duration to reach the lowest prostate-specific antigen (PSA) from the onset of first-line hormonal treatment (time to nadir PSA, TTNpsa) on survival in castration-naive metastatic prostate cancer (CN-MPC) patients.

METHODS

Eighty patients who had PSA response >80% with first-line hormonal therapy (luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone, LH-RH analog +/- bicalutamide) were included in this study.

RESULTS

Under androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), a significant positive correlation was found between TTNpsa, nadir PSA (Npsa) duration, and progression-free survival (PFS) ( p < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) ( p < 0.001). There was no correlation between TTNpsa and Npsa duration. TTNpsa and Npsa durations were independently correlated with PFS and OS. In patients with TTNpsa value ≥19 weeks, the median PFS was 126 (95% CI, 68-184) weeks compared with TTNpsa <19-week group in which the median PFS was 44 (95% CI, 26-62) weeks ( p = 0.033). In patients with TTNpsa value ≥19 weeks, the median OS was 242 (95% CI, 169-315) weeks compared with TTNpsa <19-week group in which the OS was 156 (95% CI, 89-223) weeks ( p = 0.018). The median nadir PSA value was 1 ng/mL. The median PFS was significantly longer in the patient group with ≤1 ng/mL (137 weeks, 95% CI, 50-224) compared with the group with >1 ng/mL (41 weeks, 95% CI, 34-48) ( p < 0.001). The median OS was significantly longer in the patient group with nadir PSA ≤1 ng/mL (296 weeks, 95% CI, 220-272) compared to the group with >1 ng/mL (131 weeks, 95% CI, 84-178) ( p = 0.002). In patients with nadir PSA ≤1 ng/mL ( n = 40), there was no relationship between TTNpsa and Npsa duration with both PFS and OS. However, in patients with nadir PSA >1 ng/mL ( n = 40) subgroup, there was a significant positive correlation between TTNpsa and PFS, and OS ( p < 0.001, P = 0.016, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In CN-MPC who received first-line ADT, especially in the group with the nadir PSA value >1 ng/mL, the duration of TTNpsa was positively correlated with PFS and OS.

Lipid Membrane-Wrapped Zeolitic Imidazolate Framework-8 for Synergistic Chemotherapy and Photothermal Therapy to Target Prostate Cancer

Endocrine therapy is often used for advanced prostate cancer. However, with cancer progress, prostate cancer gradually resistant to hormone which lead to serious threatens to life of patients. Herein, a multifunctional synergistic core–shell nanoplatform is reported for improving the therapeutic effect of chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic prostate cancer, and reducing the risk of leakage of chemotherapy drugs. Particularly, Zeolitic imidazolate framework-8 (ZIF-8) is chosen as inner core to load doxorubicin, and the of liposomes which are embedded with IR780 iodide are used as outer shell, and further modified with target ligand that binds to luteinizing hormone releasing hormone receptor. The prepared nanocarrier exhibit satisfactory photothermal effect under near infrared laser irradiation, and the temperature increases to 60.8 °C within 6 min. Meanwhile, the elevated temperature accelerates the degradation of lipid shell, releasing ZIF-8 core to acidic microenvironment of tumor, and resulting in the release of doxorubicin. Moreover, in vivo and in vitro studies have shown the ZIF-D@ALIP core–shell nanoparticles can achieve targeted drug delivery, pH and NIR dual stimuli-responsive drug release, as well as chemotherapy and photothermal therapy synergistically on the tumor site. In addition, the problem of premature leakage and changes in the physicochemical properties of anticancer drugs are avoided under the protection of the outer shell structure. Therefore, the core–shell nanostructure proposes a new lipid membrane coating strategy to promote the effective targeting of prostate cancer cells or tissues and provides some insights in clinical treatment for advanced prostate cancer.

Relugolix in the management of prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Relugolix is the first oral gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist. Based on the phase III HERO trial results, relugolix received Food and Drug Administration approval for adult patients with advanced prostate cancer (PCa).

AREAS COVERED

: We provide an overview of the preclinical and clinical development of relugolix and its role in the current treatment landscape of PCa.

EXPERT OPINION

Relugolix leads to rapid inhibition of testicular production of testosterone and its rapid recovery upon discontinuation. In the HERO trial, relugolix was associated with a superior cardiovascular safety profile compared to GnRH agonists. These attributes make relugolix a promising therapy for patients with pre-existing cardiovascular co-morbidities, those pursuing intermittent androgen deprivation therapy, and those who desire rapid testosterone recovery during "off-treatment" periods. In the HERO trial, very few patients received concomitant enzalutamide (n=17, 2.7%) or docetaxel (n<10, 1.3%). Safety of relugolix has not been established in combination with many androgen-receptor-axis targeted therapies (e.g. abiraterone, apalutamide), cabazitaxel, or lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan, which precludes its use in combination with these agents. In addition, being an oral drug, relugolix may also be associated with challenges of affordability, adherence, and compliance in this predominantly elderly population.

Effectiveness of GnRH Antagonists and Agonists in Patients with Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Retrospective Study

Objective

To assess the effectiveness of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists and agonists in the treatment of patients with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC), thus providing valid data support for their clinical treatment.

Methods

We collected 52 and 65 HSPC patients treated with GnRH antagonists and agonists, respectively, in Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College of HUST between May 2019 and April 2021. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels before and after treatment were recorded and analyzed. Further, univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to analyze the influencing factors of PSA control rate in HSPC patients.

Results

In patients receiving antagonist, the control rate of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 54.28% and 88% without and with abiraterone, respectively, and 47.91% and 72% in patients treated using agonist without and with abiraterone. In 32 pairs of patients obtained via propensity score matching, the PSA control rates were 84.38% and 53.13% for those receiving antagonists and agonists, respectively, and 66.67% and 50% for those without abiraterone, respectively. In addition, univariate logistic regression analysis showed that the type of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) drugs and combined use of abiraterone had a significant effect on the control rate of PSA. Further multivariate logistic regression revealed that GnRH antagonists in ADT drugs were risk factors for PSA control rate.

Conclusion

The PSA control rate of HSPC patients treated with GnRH antagonist is significantly higher than that of the agonist group, and the use of GnRH antagonist is an independent predictor of PSA control rate.

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.

Comparison of Anticancer Drug Toxicities: Paradigm Shift in Adverse Effect Profile

The inception of cancer treatment with chemotherapeutics began in the 1940s with nitrogen mustards that were initially employed as weapons in World War II. Since then, treatment options for different malignancies have evolved over the period of last seventy years. Until the late 1990s, all the chemotherapeutic agents were small molecule chemicals with a highly nonspecific and severe toxicity spectrum. With the landmark approval of rituximab in 1997, a new horizon has opened up for numerous therapeutic antibodies in solid and hematological cancers. Although this transition to large molecules improved the survival and quality of life of cancer patients, this has also coincided with the change in adverse effect patterns. Typically, the anticancer agents are fraught with multifarious adverse effects that negatively impact different organs of cancer patients, which ultimately aggravate their sufferings. In contrast to the small molecules, anticancer antibodies are more targeted toward cancer signaling pathways and exhibit fewer side effects than traditional small molecule chemotherapy treatments. Nevertheless, the interference with the immune system triggers serious inflammation- and infection-related adverse effects. The differences in drug disposition and interaction with human basal pathways contribute to this paradigm shift in adverse effect profile. It is critical that healthcare team members gain a thorough insight of the adverse effect differences between the agents discovered during the last twenty-five years and before. In this review, we summarized the general mechanisms and adverse effects of small and large molecule anticancer drugs that would further our understanding on the toxicity patterns of chemotherapeutic regimens.

An Expert Review on the Combination of Relugolix with Definitive Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is an integral component in the management of prostate cancer across multiple disease states. Traditionally, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists constituted the backbone of ADT. However, gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor hormone (GnRH) antagonists are also available, which offer faster testosterone suppression and reduced likelihood of ADT-related adverse effects compared to LHRH agonists, including the potential for fewer ADT-associated major cardiac events. Until recently, all forms of LHRH agonists and GnRH antagonist formulations are of parenteral administration. However, recently relugolix gained FDA approval as the first oral GnRH antagonist. Relugolix achieves faster and more complete testosterone suppression compared to an LHRH agonist. This translates to more rapid prostate-specific antigen response compared to LHRH agonists. After discontinuation of relugolix, testosterone recovers faster than after GnRH agonists or injectable GnRH antagonist therapy. Overall, these factors provide opportunities for more precisely defined ADT duration when combined with radiation therapy. The rapid onset and offset testosterone suppression with relugolix, however, may require physicians to rethink the mechanism and goals of ADT when prescribing. As an oral formulation, relugolix enables patients to avoid pain and injection site reactions, limit extra office visits for injections, and achieve a shorter duration of experiencing the side effects of castrate testosterone levels. This convenience and tolerability may enhance physicians' willingness to prescribe ADT and patients' feeling of control over their ADT course, but the potential advantages are accompanied by the risks of patients choosing to discontinue therapy to escape side effects of ADT. This article focuses on different aspects of what is known and unknown regarding the optimal use of ADT and radiation therapy, and how relugolix, due to its properties, fit into our current treatment paradigms for localized prostate cancer.

Current approaches to overcome the side effects of GnRH analogs in the treatment of patients with uterine fibroids

Introduction: Uterine fibroids (UFs) are the most prevalent benign neoplastic threat originating from myometria of reproductive age women, with a profound financial load valued in hundreds of billions of dollars. Unfortunately, there is no curative treatment so far except surgery and available pharmacological treatments are restricted for short-term treatment options. Thus, there is a large unmet need in the UF space for noninvasive therapeutics.Areas covered: The authors reviewed the literature available for the utility of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogs in women with UFs. We also focused on clinical studies exploring the therapeutic benefits of novel oral non-peptide GnRH antagonists that were recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in combination with estradiol/norethindrone acetate for the management of heavy menstrual bleeding associated with UFs in premenopausal women.Expert opinion: The results regarding the efficacy of new-generation oral GnRH-antagonists, such as elagolix, relugolix and linzagolix, are promising and offer potential prospect for the future therapy of UFs. However, these antagonists must be combined with hormonal add-back therapy to minimize the resultant hypoestrogenic side effects such as bone loss.

Hormonal Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Huggins and Hodges demonstrated the therapeutic effect of gonadal testosterone deprivation in the 1940s and therefore firmly established the concept that prostate cancer is a highly androgen-dependent disease. Since that time, hormonal therapy has undergone iterative advancement, from the types of gonadal testosterone deprivation to modalities that block the generation of adrenal and other extragonadal androgens, to those that directly bind and inhibit the androgen receptor (AR). The clinical states of prostate cancer are the product of a superimposition of these therapies with nonmetastatic advanced prostate cancer, as well as frankly metastatic disease. Today's standard of care for advanced prostate cancer includes gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (e.g., leuprolide), second-generation nonsteroidal AR antagonists (enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide) and the androgen biosynthesis inhibitor abiraterone. The purpose of this review is to provide an assessment of hormonal therapies for the various clinical states of prostate cancer. The advancement of today's standard of care will require an accounting of an individual's androgen physiology that also has recently recognized germline determinants of peripheral androgen metabolism, which include HSD3B1 inheritance.

Emerging trends of receptor-mediated tumor targeting peptides: A review with perspective from molecular imaging modalities

Natural peptides extracted from natural components such are known to have a relatively short in-vivo half-life and can readily metabolize by endo- and exo-peptidases. Fortunately, synthetic peptides can be easily manipulated to increase in-vivo stability, membrane permeability and target specificity with some well-known natural families. Many natural as well as synthetic peptides target to their endogenous receptors for diagnosis and therapeutic applications. In order to detect these peptides externally, they must be modified with radionuclides compatible with single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) or positron emission tomography (PET). Although, these techniques mainly rely on physiological changes and have profound diagnostic strength over anatomical modalities such as MRI and CT. However, both SPECT and PET observed to possess lack of anatomical reference frame which is a key weakness of these techniques, and unfortunately, cannot be available freely in most clinical centres especially in under-developing countries. Hence, it is need of the time to design and develop economic, patient friendly and versatile strategies to grapple with existing problems without any hazardous side effects. Optical molecular imaging (OMI) has emerged as a novel technique in field of medical science using fluorescent probes as imaging modality and has ability to couple with organic drugs, small molecules, chemotherapeutics, DNA, RNA, anticancer peptide and protein without adding chelators as necessary for radionuclides. Furthermore, this review focuses on difference in imaging modalities and provides ample knowledge about reliable, economic and patient friendly optical imaging technique rather radionuclide-based imaging techniques.

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.

Does Exist a Differential Impact of Degarelix Versus LHRH Agonists on Cardiovascular Safety? Evidences From Randomized and Real-World Studies

The main systemic therapy for the management of hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (PC) is androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), with the use of long-acting luteinizing hormone releasing-hormone (LHRH) agonists considered the main form of ADT used in clinical practice to obtain castration in PC. The concomitant administration of antiandrogens for the first weeks could reduce the incidence of clinical effects related to the testosterone flare-up in the first injection of LHRH. On the contrary, Gonadotropin Rh (GnRH) antagonists produce a rapid decrease of testosterone levels without the initial flare-up, with degarelix commonly used in clinical practice to induce castration in PC patients. Even if no long-term data are reported in terms of survival to define a superiority of GnRH or LHRH, for oncological efficacy and PC control, data from randomized clinical trials and from real-life experiences, suggest a difference in cardiovascular risk of patients starting ADT. The age-related decline in testosterone levels may represent a factor connected to the increase of cardiovascular disease risk, however, the role of ADT in increasing CV events remains controversial. For these reasons, the aim of the paper is to synthesize the difference in cardiovascular risk between LHRH and degarelix in patients undergoing ADT. A difference in cardiovascular risk could be indeed an important parameter in the evaluation of these two forms of castration therapy. The Randomized trials analyzed in this paper sustain a possible protective role for degarelix versus LHRH agonists in reducing the rate of new CV events and interventions in the short-term period. On the contrary, real-word data are contradictory in different national experiences and are strongly conditioned by huge differences between the LHRH agonists group and the degarelix group.

Therapies Targeted to Androgen Receptor Signaling Axis in Prostate Cancer: Progress, Challenges, and Hope

Prostate cancer is the mostly commonly diagnosed non-cutaneous malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer-related death affecting men in the United States. Moreover, it disproportionately affects the men of African origin, who exhibit significantly greater incidence and mortality as compared to the men of European origin. Since androgens play an important role in the growth of normal prostate and prostate tumors, targeting of androgen signaling has remained a mainstay for the treatment of aggressive prostate cancer. Over the years, multiple approaches have been evaluated to effectively target the androgen signaling pathway that include direct targeting of the androgens, androgen receptor (AR), AR co-regulators or other alternate mechanisms that impact the outcome of androgen signaling. Several of these approaches are currently in clinical practice, while some are still pending further development and clinical evaluation. This remarkable progress has resulted from extensive laboratory, pre-clinical and clinical efforts, and mechanistic learnings from the therapeutic success and failures. In this review, we describe the importance of androgen signaling in prostate cancer biology and advances made over the years to effectively target this signaling pathway. We also discuss emerging data on the resistance pathways associated with the failure of various androgen signaling- targeted therapies and potential of this knowledge for translation into future therapies for prostate cancer.

Efficacy and safety of degarelix in patients with prostate cancer: Results from a phase III study in China

Objective

To establish non-inferiority of gonadotropin-releasing hormone degarelix compared with goserelin in suppressing and maintaining castrate testosterone levels from Day 28 to Day 364 in Chinese patients with prostate cancer.

Methods

This is an open-label, multi-centre study in which men aged ≥18 years were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to once-a-month subcutaneous injection of either degarelix (240/80 mg) or goserelin (3.6 mg) for 12 months. The primary endpoint was difference in 1-year cumulative probability of suppressing testosterone to ≤0.5 ng/mL. Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower 95% confidence interval (CI) limit for difference in cumulative probability between the treatment arms was greater than −10%. Secondary endpoints included cumulative probability of prostate-specific-antigen-progression-free-survival (PSA-PFS). Safety was also assessed.

Results

Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were similar between degarelix (n=142) and goserelin (n=141) treatment arms. The difference in cumulative probability of maintaining castrate levels from Day 28–364 was 3.6% (95% CI:−1.5%, 8.7%), demonstrating non-inferiority of degarelix. The cumulative probability of PSA-PFS at Day 364 was higher for degarelix (82.3%, 95% CI: 74.7%, 87.7%) versus goserelin (71.7%, 95% CI: 63.2%, 78.5%, p=0.038). Adverse events (AEs) were similar between treatment arms, except for more injection site reactions with degarelix versus goserelin. Four (2.8%) and nine (6.4%) patients discontinued due to AEs in degarelix and goserelin groups, respectively.

Conclusion

Degarelix was non-inferior to goserelin in achieving and maintaining testosterone suppression at castrate levels during 1-year treatment. PSA-PFS was significantly higher with degarelix, suggesting improved disease control. Both treatments were well tolerated.

Hormone naïve prostate cancer: predicting and maximizing response intervals

Hormone naïve advanced prostate cancer is subdivided into two disease states: biochemical recurrence and traditional M1 (metastatic) prostate cancer and characterized by no prior hormonal therapy or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). In biochemical recurrence/prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence, men should be risk-stratified based on their PSA doubling time, the Gleason score and the timing of the recurrence. In general, only men who are at high risk should be considered for early/immediate ADT although this is best done using shared decision with the patient. The type of ADT to be used in biochemical recurrence ranging from oral-only peripheral blockade (peripheral androgen deprivation) to complete hormonal therapy (combined androgen blockade [CAB]) remains in debate owing to lack of randomized controlled trials (RCT). However, there is good RCT support for use of intermittent hormonal therapy (IHT). There is also limited research on biomarker response (PSA and testosterone decline) to predict prognosis. On the other hand, in the setting of M1 hormone naïve prostate cancer, there are many more RCT's to inform our decisions. CAB and gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists perhaps provide a slight efficacy advantage while IHT may be slightly inferior with minimal M1 disease. The PSA nadir at 7 months after starting ADT is a powerful prognostic tool for M1 patients. There is growing recognition that serum testosterone (T) control while on ADT is linked to the development of castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Especially for a M1 patient, maintaining a serum T below 20–30 ng dl⁻¹ prolongs the response to ADT. Novel oral agents (abiraterone and enzalutamide) may soon find use in hormone naïve disease and may alter the treatment landscape. Despite over 75 years of experience with ADT, many questions remain, and the field continues to evolve.

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.

Bench-to-bedside development of agonists and antagonists of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone for treatment of advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been the standard of care for treating patients with hormone-sensitive advanced prostate cancer (PCa) for 3 decades. The agonists of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH), also called gonadotropin-releasing hormone, are still the most frequently used form of medical ADT.

ADT AND LHRH ANALOGS

The application of agonists of LHRH has improved and modernized the treatment of advanced PCa; millions of patients have benefited from therapy with LHRH agonists as a preferred alternative to surgical castration, as the psychological effects and perpetuity of orchiectomy are undesirable for most men. Despite their efficacy, agonists of LHRH have several shortcomings, including initial surge in testosterone, producing exacerbation of clinical symptoms, and microsurges in testosterone that might occur after each administration. A new, alternate approach to ADT is emerging with the improvements in antagonists of LHRH. This class of LHRH analogues produces a direct and immediate blockade of pituitary LHRH receptors and leads to a more rapid suppression of testosterone without an initial surge or subsequent microsurges. Degarelix, a third-generation LHRH antagonist, is the only antagonist with a low histamine-releasing activity that is currently on the market for clinical use in advanced PCa with improved testosterone suppression, better control of follicle-stimulating hormone and prostate-specific antigen, and which offers a prolonged delay to progression and more favorable effects on serum alkaline phosphatase.

CONCLUSIONS

Although LHRH agonists are still the mainstay for treatment of advanced PCa, antagonists of LHRH offer an alternative as a pharmacological approach.

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.

Cancer treatment using peptides: current therapies and future prospects

This paper discusses the role of peptides in cancer therapy with special emphasis on peptide drugs which are already approved and those in clinical trials. The potential of peptides in cancer treatment is evident from a variety of different strategies that are available to address the progression of tumor growth and propagation of the disease. Use of peptides that can directly target cancer cells without affecting normal cells (targeted therapy) is evolving as an alternate strategy to conventional chemotherapy. Peptide can be utilized directly as a cytotoxic agent through various mechanisms or can act as a carrier of cytotoxic agents and radioisotopes by specifically targeting cancer cells. Peptide-based hormonal therapy has been extensively studied and utilized for the treatment of breast and prostate cancers. Tremendous amount of clinical data is currently available attesting to the efficiency of peptide-based cancer vaccines. Combination therapy is emerging as an important strategy to achieve synergistic effects in fighting cancer as a single method alone may not be efficient enough to yield positive results. Combining immunotherapy with conventional therapies such as radiation and chemotherapy or combining an anticancer peptide with a nonpeptidic cytotoxic drug is an example of this emerging field.

Androgen deprivation therapy: past, present and future

Since Huggins and Hodges demonstrated the responsiveness of prostate cancer to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), androgen-suppressing strategies have formed the cornerstone of management of advanced prostate cancer. Approaches to ADT have included orchidectomy, oestrogens, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists, anti-androgens and more recently the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists. The most extensively studied antagonist, degarelix, avoids the testosterone surge and clinical flare associated with LHRH agonists, offering more rapid PSA and testosterone suppression, improved testosterone control and improved PSA progression-free survival compared with agonists. The clinical profile of degarelix appears to make it a particularly suitable therapeutic option for certain subgroups of patients, including those with metastatic disease, high baseline PSA (>20 ng/mL) and highly symptomatic disease. As well as forming the mainstay of treatment for advanced prostate cancer, ADT is increasingly used in earlier disease stages. While data from clinical trials support the use of ADT neoadjuvant/adjuvant to radiotherapy for locally advanced or high-risk localized prostate cancer, it remains to be established whether specific ADT classes/agents provide particular benefits in this clinical setting.

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.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone: an update review of the antagonists versus agonists

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists provide androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. Unlike agonists, gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists have a direct mode of action to block pituitary gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptors. There are two licensed gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists, degarelix and abarelix. Of these, degarelix is the more extensively studied and has been documented to be more effective than the well-established, first-line agonist, leuprolide, in terms of substantially faster onset of castration, faster suppression of prostate-specific antigen, no risk for testosterone surge or clinical flare, and improved prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival, suggesting a delay in castration resistance. Other than minor injection-site reactions, degarelix is generally well tolerated, without systemic allergic reactions and with most adverse events consistent with androgen suppression or the underlying condition. In conclusion, degarelix provides a rational, first-line androgen-deprivation therapy suitable for the treatment of prostate cancer, with faster onset of castration than with agonists, and no testosterone surge. Furthermore, data suggest that degarelix improves disease control compared with leuprolide, and might delay the onset of castration-resistant disease. In view of these clinical benefits and the lack of need for concomitant anti-androgen treatment, gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists might replace gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists as first-line androgen-deprivation therapy in the future.

Effects of cetrorelix, a GnRH-receptor antagonist, on gonadal axis in women with functional hypothalamic amenorrhea

BACKGROUND

Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone (GnRH) antagonists (GnRHa) suppress gonadotropin and sex-steroid secretion. In normal women, acute GnRHa administration induces inhibitory effect on pituitary-gonadal axis, followed by Luteinizing Hormone (LH) rebound. Functional hypothalamic amenorrhea (HA) is characterised by impaired gonadotropin secretion and hypogonadism secondary to blunted GnRH pulsatility.

METHODS

We studied the effects of a GnRHa, cetrorelix (CTX 3.0 mg), in six women with HA (age 30.7 ± 3.2 years; BMI 21.5 ± 1.7 kg/m(2)) and six control subjects (CS, 28.2 ± 0.6 years; 22.6 ± 0.9 kg/m(2)) on LH, Follicle-Stimulating Hormone (FSH) and oestradiol levels over 4 h (08.00-12.00 am) before, +24 h and +96 h after CTX; LH, FSH, and oestradiol were also evaluated at +6, +8, +12, +48, +72 h after CTX.

RESULTS

CS: CTX reduced (p < 0.05) LH, FSH, and oestradiol (nadir at +12 h, +24 h, and +24 h); LH rebounded at +96 h, FSH and oestradiol recovered at +48 h and +72 h. The 4-h evaluation showed LH and FSH reduction (p < 0.05) at +24 h, with LH rebound at +96 h. HA: CTX reduced (p < 0.05) LH, FSH, and oestradiol, (nadir at +24 h, +48 h, and +48 h, recovery at +48 h, +72 h, and +96 h). The 4-h evaluation showed gonadotropin reduction (p < 0.05) 24 h after CTX, without any rebound effect.

CONCLUSIONS

One single CTX dose still modulates gonadotropin secretion in HA. Its 'paradoxical' stimulatory effect on gonadotropins needs to be verified after prolonged administration.

An update on the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists in prostate cancer

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the main treatment approach in advanced prostate cancer and in recent years has primarily involved the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists. However, despite their efficacy, GnRH agonists have several drawbacks associated with their mode of action. These include an initial testosterone surge and testosterone microsurges on repeat administration. GnRH antagonists provide an alternative approach to ADT with a more direct mode of action that involves immediate blockade of GnRH receptors. Antagonists produce a more rapid suppression of testosterone (and prostate-specific antigen [PSA]) without a testosterone surge or microsurges and appear to offer an effective and well tolerated option for the hormonal treatment of prostate cancer. Comparisons with GnRH agonists have shown GnRH antagonists to be at least as effective in achieving and maintaining castrate testosterone levels in patients with prostate cancer. Furthermore, with antagonists, the lack of an initial testosterone surge (which may cause clinical flare) may allow more rapid relief of symptoms related to prostate cancer, avoid the need for concomitant antiandrogens to prevent clinical flare (so avoiding any antiandrogen-associated adverse events) and allow GnRH antagonist use in patients with high tumour burden and/or acute problems such as spinal cord compression. Although several antagonists have been investigated, only degarelix and abarelix are currently available for clinical use in prostate cancer. Currently, degarelix is the most extensively studied and widely available agent in this class. Degarelix is one of a newer generation of antagonists which, in a comprehensive and ongoing clinical development programme, has been shown to provide rapid, profound and sustained testosterone suppression without the systemic allergic reactions associated with earlier antagonists. This review examines the currently available data on GnRH antagonists in prostate cancer.

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

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

Degarelix, a novel GnRH antagonist, causes minimal histamine release compared with cetrorelix, abarelix and ganirelix in an ex vivo model of human skin samples

AIMS

Early studies on gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists pointed out histamine-mediated anaphylactic reactions as a potential adverse effect of these drug candidates. In this study we have compared the histamine-releasing potential of four approved and marketed antagonists, degarelix, cetrorelix, abarelix and ganirelix in an ex vivo model of human skin samples.

METHODS

Human skin samples were obtained during cosmetic plastic surgery and kept in oxygenated saline solution. The samples were incubated either without or at different concentrations of the antagonists (3, 30 or 300 µg ml(-1) for all, except for ganirelix 1, 10 or 100 µg ml(-1) ). The drug-induced effect was expressed as the increase relative to basal release. The histamine-releasing capacity of the skin was verified by a universal histamine releaser, compound 40/80.

RESULTS

Degarelix had no significant effect on basal histamine release in the 3 to 300 µg ml(-1) concentration range. The effect of ganirelix was moderate causing a nonsignificant increase of 81 ± 27% at the 100 µg ml(-1) concentration. At 30 and 300 µg ml(-1) concentrations abarelix (143 ± 29% and 362 ± 58%, respectively, P < 0.05) and cetrorelix (228 ± 111% and 279 ± 46%, respectively, P < 0.05) caused significantly increased histamine release.

CONCLUSIONS

In this ex vivo human skin model, degarelix displayed the lowest capacity to release histamine followed by ganirelix, abarelix and cetrorelix. These findings may provide indirect hints as to the relative likelihood of systemic anaphylactic reactions in clinical settings.

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

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

Evaluation of degarelix in the management of prostate cancer

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Indirect androgen doping by oestrogen blockade in sports

Androgens can increase muscular mass and strength and remain the most frequently abused and widely available drugs used in sports doping. Banning the administration of natural or synthetic androgens has led to a variety of strategies to circumvent the ban of the most effective ergogenic agents for power sports. Among these, a variety of indirect androgen doping strategies aiming to produce a sustained rise in endogenous testosterone have been utilized. These include oestrogen blockade by drugs that act as oestrogen receptor antagonists (antioestrogen) or aromatase inhibitors. The physiological and pharmacological basis for the effects of oestrogen blockade in men, but not women, are reviewed.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist-induced pituitary apoplexy in treatment of prostate cancer: case report and review of literature

OBJECTIVE

To describe a case and review the literature on the rare complication of pituitary apoplexy after administration of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) for treatment of patients with prostate cancer.

METHODS

We present a detailed case report of a patient with immediate signs of pituitary apoplexy after receiving a GnRHa and review the 6 previously reported cases in the literature. A 60-year-old man presented to a local hospital with severe headache, nausea, vomiting, and diplopia. Prostate cancer had recently been diagnosed, and he had received his first dose of a GnRHa 4 hours before this presentation. On physical examination, he was confused and had ptosis of the left eye. A head computed tomographic scan without contrast enhancement showed soft tissue filling the sella, without intracranial hemorrhage or mass effect. He was discharged with the diagnosis of viral meningitis. Three weeks later, he presented again with severe headache and diplopia. He had confusion, lethargy, disorientation, a blood pressure of 88/64 mm Hg, and left cranial nerve III, IV, and VI paralysis. Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain revealed an enhancing pituitary mass with hemorrhage extending to the optic chiasm, consistent with pituitary apoplexy. Laboratory results were consistent with panhypopituitarism. Surgical excision revealed a necrotic pituitary macroadenoma with hemorrhage. Tumor immunohistochemical staining was positive only for luteinizing hormone.

CONCLUSION

We describe a rare adverse effect of GnRHa therapy, which unmasked a gonadotropin-secreting pituitary macroadenoma. This case adds to the 6 previously reported cases of GnRHa administration inducing pituitary apoplexy in men with prostate cancer.

Luteinising hormone-releasing hormone antagonists in prostate cancer therapy

The introduction of androgen blockade therapy using luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH)/gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues alone or in combination with non-steroidal antiandrogens has a major impact in both survival and quality of life of patients with locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer. The effect of LHRH agonists is based on the continuous binding to the LHRH receptor (LHRH-R) on the gonadotrope cells of the pituitary, which although initially stimulate LH release, consequently downregulates the LHRH-R, thereby suppressing serum LH, testosterone levels and 5alpha-dihydrotestosterone levels. Because this initial surge of LH and testosterone can cause adverse consequences in these patients (the so-called flare-up symptoms), immediate inhibition of LH release and testosterone production is desirable and this can be achieved with the use of the LHRH antagonists. In addition, there exist data to support a direct anticancer effect of LHRH antagonists on prostate cancer cells. This review summarises the potential clinical use of the LHRH antagonists in prostate cancer patients.