Intermittent versus continuous cyproterone acetate in bone metastatic prostate cancer: results of a randomized trial
- 396 Downloads
To compare intermittent treatment (IT) versus continuous treatment (CT) using cyproterone acetate (CPA) in bone metastatic prostate cancer patients, we conducted an open-label, multicenter randomized trial. Continuous androgen deprivation therapy is the standard treatment in metastatic prostate cancer. Intermittent treatment might maintain efficacy while toxicity and costs are reduced.
Patients received CPA 100 mg tid in the prephase. Patients with a PSA decline of ≥90 % or PSA <4 ng/ml were randomized. If patients were progressive, LHRH analogues were added. Primary end point was time to PSA progression.
A total of 366 patients were recruited; 258 reached a good response after 3 or 6 months and were randomized. A total of 131 patients randomized to IT and 127 to CT. Patients on IT had an average of 1.7 episodes on CPA, before LHRH analogues were started. The mean time without treatment in IT was 463 days versus 422 days on treatment. There were statistical significant differences between IT and CT in 3 of the 5 functional scales of EORTC QLQ C 30; however, the clinical relevance of this finding appears modest. Symptom and potency scales showed significant advantages for IT. There were no differences in time to PSA progression on CPA, time to PSA and/or clinical progression on LHRH analogues and time to cancer-specific and overall survival.
IT by CPA is associated with less symptoms and modest advantages in QOL domains. There were no differences in time to PSA progression, clinical progression or survival.
KeywordsMetastatic prostate cancer Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) Intermittent ADT Cyproterone acetate (CPA)
Bayer Pharma AG (former Schering AG) Berlin supported the trial. There was no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Conflict of interest
None of the authors has a conflict of interest.
- 1.Conti PD, Atallah AN, Arruda H et al (2007) Intermittent versus continuous androgen suppression for prostatic cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD005009Google Scholar
- 2.Miller K, Steiner U, Lingnau A et al (2007) Randomised prospective study of intermittent versus continuous androgen suppression in advanced prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 25: 2007 (suppl; abstr 5015)Google Scholar
- 4.Langenhuijsen JF, Badhauser D, Schaaf B et al (2011) Continuous versus intermittent androgen deprivation therapy for metastatic prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 31(5):549–556 Google Scholar
- 10.Tunn UW, Canepa G, Kochanowsky A, Kienle E (2012) Testosterone recovery in the off-treatment time in prostate cancer patients undergoing intermittent androgen deprivation therapy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 15(3):296–302Google Scholar
- 16.Communication: FDS (2010) Update to ongoing safety review of GnRH agonists and notification to manufacturers of GnRH agonists to add new safety information to labelling regarding increased risk of diabetes and certain cardiovascular diseases. US Food and Drug Administration Web siteGoogle Scholar