Antiandrogen treatments in locally advanced prostate cancer: are they all the same?
- First Online:
- 270 Downloads
The objectives are to review the published literature and to evaluate the weight of evidence for clinical effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of the currently available antiandrogens in the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer. This article covers efficacy as monotherapy relative to castration and as adjuvant to radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy as well as adverse-effect and quality-of-life data.
The current literature from online databases between 1986 and the present, relating to antiandrogen treatments in men with locally advanced disease given either as monotherapy or as adjuvant to radical radiotherapy or prostatectomy, was reviewed. Antiandrogens researched included the non-steroidal antiandrogens, bicalutamide (‘Casodex’), flutamide, and nilutamide, and the steroidal antiandrogen cyproterone acetate (CPA).
The most comprehensively investigated and reported antiandrogen is bicalutamide, which has shown survival outcomes similar to those observed with castration in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. In contrast, only limited clinical data are available for the other non-steroidal antiandrogens (flutamide and nilutamide) and the steroidal antiandrogen CPA in patients with locally advanced disease. In terms of safety and tolerability, CPA is associated with loss of libido and erectile dysfunction. CPA is also associated with cardiovascular risk and there have been occasional reports of fatal fulminant hepatitis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Gynecomastia is quite rare with CPA, which is in contrast to the non-steroidal antiandrogens. There are no direct comparisons between the three non-steroidal antiandrogens in terms of quality of life, but available evidence suggests that bicalutamide has a more favorable safety and tolerability profile than nilutamide and flutamide. Unlike CPA, non-steroidal antiandrogens appear to be better tolerated than castration, allowing patients to maintain sexual activity, physical ability, and bone mineral density, but these agents have a higher incidence of gynecomastia and breast pain (mild to moderate in > 90% of cases). Gynecomastia and breast pain, however, can be effectively managed.
The available evidence indicates that the different antiandrogens should not be regarded as equivalents in clinical practice and so the choice of treatment for patients with prostate cancer should be made on an individual basis. It is, therefore, important for clinicians to discuss the efficacy and tolerability profiles of all available treatment options with their patients to enable them to choose a treatment program that best fits with their lifestyle.
- Aus G, Abbou CC, Bolla M, Heidenreich A, Van Poppel H, Schmid H-P, Wolff JM, Zattoni F (2005) European Association of Urology guidelines on prostate cancer. http://www.uroweb.nl/files/uploaded_files/2005Prostate%20Cancer.pdf (accessed 19 December 2005)
- Berruti A, Dogliotti L, Terrone C, Cerruti S, Isaia G, Tarabuzzi R, Reimondo G, Mari M, Ardissone P, De Luca S, Fasolis G, Fontana D, Rossetti SR, Angeli A, Gruppo Onco Urologico Piemontese (GOUP) ROP (2002) Changes in bone mineral density, lean body mass and fat content as measured by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry in patients with prostate cancer without apparent bone metastases given androgen deprivation. J Urol 167:2361–2367Google Scholar
- Boccardo F, Rubagotti A, Barichello M, Battaglia M, Carmignani G, Comeri G, Conti G, Cruciani G, Dammino S, Delliponti U, Ditonno P, Ferraris V, Lilliu S, Montefiore F, Portoghese F, Spano G, for the Italian Prostate Cancer Project (1999) Bicalutamide monotherapy versus flutamide plus goserelin in prostate cancer patients: results of an Italian Prostate Cancer Project study. J Clin Oncol 17:2027–2038Google Scholar
- Boccardo F, Rubagotti A, Battaglia M, Di Tonno P, Selvaggi FP, Conti G, Comeri G, Bertaccini A, Martorana G, Galassi P, Zattoni F, Macchiarella A, Siragusa A, Muscas G, Durand F, Potenzoni D, Manganelli A, Ferraris V, Montefiore F (2005) Evaluation of tamoxifen and anastrozole in the prevention of gynecomastia and breast pain induced by bicalutamide monotherapy of prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:808–815PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bolla M, Collette L, Blank L, Warde P, Dubois JB, Mirimanoff R-O, Storme G, Bernier J, Kuten A, Sternberg C, Mattelaer J, Lopez Torecilla J, Pfeffer JR, Cutajar CL, Zurlo A, Pierart M (2002) Long-term results with immediate androgen suppression and external irradiation in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (an EORTC study): a phase III randomised trial. Lancet 360:103–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Conti G, Cretarola E, Boccardo F, Battaglia M, Di Tonno P, De Antoni P, Zattoni F, Galassi P, Durand F (2004) Tamoxifen is safe and effective in preventing gynecomastia and breast pain induced by bicalutamide monotherapy of prostate cancer and does not alter treatment efficacy (abs 221). Eur Urol Suppl 3:58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Debruyne FJM, Murray R, Fradet Y, Johansson JE, Tyrrell C, Boccardo F, Denis L, Marberger JM, Brune D, Rassweiler J, Vangeneugden T, Bruynseels J, Janssens M, De Porre P, for the Liarozole Study Group (1998) Liarozole—a novel treatment approach for advanced prostate cancer: results of a large randomized trial versus cyproterone acetate. Urology 52:72–81Google Scholar
- Decensi AU, Boccardo F, Guarneri D, Positano N, Paoletti MC, Costantini M, Martorana G, Giuliani L, for the Italian Prostatic Cancer Project (1991) Monotherapy with nilutamide, a pure nonsteroidal antiandrogen, in untreated patients with metastatic carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 146:377–381Google Scholar
- Iversen P, Tyrrell CJ, Kaisary AV, Anderson JB, Van Poppel H, Tammela TL, Chamberlain M, Carroll K, Melezinek I (2000) Bicalutamide monotherapy compared with castration in patients with nonmetastatic locally advanced prostate cancer: 6.3 years of followup. J Urol 164:1579–1582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Iversen P, Tammela TLJ, Vaage S, Lukkarinen O, Lodding P, Bull-Njaa T, Viitanen J, Hoisaeter P, Lundmo P, Rasmussen F, Johansson J-E, Persson B-E, Carroll K, Scandinavian Prostatic Cancer Group (SPCG) (2002) A randomised comparison of bicalutamide (‘Casodex’) 150 mg versus placebo as immediate therapy either alone or as adjuvant to standard care for early non-metastatic prostate cancer. First report from the Scandinavian Prostatic Cancer Group study no. 6. Eur Urol 42:204–211Google Scholar
- McLeod DG, Iversen P, See WA, Morris T, Armstrong J, Wirth MP, on behalf of the ‘Casodex’ Early Prostate Cancer Trialists’ Group (2006) Bicalutamide 150 mg plus standard care versus standard care alone for early prostate cancer. BJU Int 97:247–254Google Scholar
- Messing E, Manola J, Sarosdy M, Wilding G, Crawford ED (2003) Immediate hormonal therapy compared with observation after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with node positive prostate cancer: results at 10 years of EST 3886 (abs 1480). J Urol 169:396Google Scholar
- Schröder FH, Collette L, De Reijke TM, Whelan P, members of the EORTC Genitourinary Group (2000) Prostate cancer treated by anti-androgens: is sexual function preserved? Br J Cancer 82:283–290Google Scholar
- Schröder FH, Whelan P, De Reijke TM, Kurth KH, Pavone-Macaluso M, Mattelaer J, van Velthoven RF, Debois M, Collette L (2004) Metastatic prostate cancer treated by flutamide versus cyproterone acetate. Final analysis of the “European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer” (EORTC) Protocol 30892. Eur Urol 45:457–464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Thorpe SC, Azmatullah S, Fellows GJ, Gingell JC, O’Boyle PJ (1996) A prospective, randomised study to compare goserelin acetate (Zoladex®) versus cyproterone acetate (Cyprostat®) versus a combination of the two in the treatment of metastatic prostatic carcinoma. Eur Urol 29:47–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tyrrell CJ, Payne H, Tammela TL, Bakke A, Lodding P, Goedhals L, Van Erps P, Boon T, Van De Beek C, Andersson SO, Morris T, Carroll K (2004) Prophylactic breast irradiation with a single dose of electron beam radiotherapy (10 Gy) significantly reduces the incidence of bicalutamide-induced gynecomastia. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 60:476–483PubMedGoogle Scholar
- de Voogt HJ, Smith PH, Pavone-Macaluso M, De Pauw M, Suciu S, members of the European Organization for Research on Treatment of Cancer Urological Group (1986) Cardiovascular side effects of diethylstilbestrol, cyproterone acetate, medroxyprogesterone acetate and estramustine phosphate used for the treatment of advanced prostatic cancer: results from European Organization for Research on Treatment of Cancer trials 30761 and 30762. J Urol 135:303–307Google Scholar
- Wirth MP, Weissbach L, Marx FJ, Heckl W, Jellinghaus W, Riedmiller H, Noack B, Hinke A, Froehner M (2004a) Prospective randomized trial comparing flutamide as adjuvant treatment versus observation after radical prostatectomy for locally advanced, lymph node-negative prostate cancer. Eur Urol 45:267–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wirth MP, See WA, McLeod D, Iversen P, Morris T, Carroll K, Casodex Early Prostate Cancer Trialists’ Group (2004b) Bicalutamide 150 mg in addition to standard care in patients with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer: results from the second analysis of the early prostate cancer program at median followup of 5.4 years. J Urol 172:1865–1870Google Scholar