Comparison of Total Androgen Blockade and Orchiectomy in Metastatic Cancer of Prostate

  • Gilles Beland


Total androgen blockade, which consists of the inhibition of action of all androgens, has been described (1). On the basis of an open clinical trial, it was claimed that total androgen blockade gives much better results than simple testicular androgen ablation in metastatic prostate cancer and that it represents the only acceptable form of treatment of that disease (2). In order to test this claim, which is not supported by all investigators (3), a double-blind, randomized study comparing these two modes of treatment was initiated. Testicular androgen suppression is usually obtained by the administration of estrogens or LHRH agonists, or by orchiectomy. We feel that this last method is the safest, the simplest and the most reliable. It is independent of patient compliance and has no unexpected side effects or serious complications. It also avoids the possible flare which may have a deleterious effect (4–6). The suppression of action of other androgens at the level of the prostatic cell is obtained by administration of an antiandrogen (7–9).


Prostate Cancer LHRH Agonist Open Clinical Trial Unexpected Side Effect Testicular Androgen 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Geller, J. and Albert J. The case for total androgen blockade in the management of metastatic prostate cancer, in: “The Management of Prostate Cancer,” D.S. Coffey, M. Resnick, A. Dorr and J. Karr (eds.), Plenum Publishing Corporation, New York (in press).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Labrie, F., Dupont, A. and Belanger, A. Complete androgen blockade for the treatment of prostate cancer, in “Important Advances in Oncology 1985”, V.T. De Vita, S. Hellman and S.A. Rosenberg, eds., Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1985.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schulze, H., Oesterling, J.E., Isaacs, J. and Coffey D. Hormonal therapy of prostate cancer: limitations in the total androgen ablation concept, in: “The Management of Prostate Cancer”, D.S. Coffey, M. Resnick, A. Dorr and J. Karr (eds.), Plenum Publishing Corporation, New York (in press).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Santen, R.J., Warner, B., Demers, L.M., Dufau, M. and Smith J. Use of GnRH hormone agonists analogs, in “LHRH and its Analogs - A New Clas’s of Contraceptive and Therapeutic Agents”, B. Vickery, J.J. Nestor and E.S.E. Hafez, eds., MTP Press, Boston, 1984.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Trachtenberg, J. The treatment of metastatic prostatic cancer with a potent luteinizing hormone - releasing hormone analogue. J. Urol. 129:1149–1152, 1983.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    The Leuprolide Study Group Leuprolide versus diethylstilbestrol for metastatic prostate cancer. New Engl. J. Med. pp. 1281- 1286, 1984.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Neumann, F. and Schenck, B. New antiandrogens and their mode of action. J. Reprod. Fértil. 24:129–145, 1976.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Irwin, R.J. and Prout, Jr., G.J. A new antiprostatic agent for treatment of prostate carcinoma. Surg. Forum 24:536–538, 1973.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Raynaud, J.P., Bonne, C., Bouton, M.M., Lagace, L. and Labrie, F. Action of a nonsteroidal antiandrogen RU 23908 in peripheral and central tissues. J. Steroid Biochem. 11:93–99, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moguilewsky, Fiet, J., Tournemine C. and Raynaud, J.P. Pharmacology of an antiandrogen, Anandron, used as an adjuvant therapy in the treatment of prostate cancer. J. Steroid Biochem. 24:139–146, 1986.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burton, S., and Trachtenberg, J. Effectiveness of antiandrogens in the rat. J. Urol. 136:932–935, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Beland, G., Elhilali, M., Fradet, Y., Laroche, B., Ramsey, E.W., Venner, P.M., and Tewari, H.D. Total androgen blockade versus orchiectomy in Stage D2 prostate cancer, in: “Progress in Clinical and Biological Research”, 243A:391–400, 1987.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Labrie, F., Dupont, A., Belanger, A., Poyet, P., Giguere, M., Lacoursiere, Y., Emond, J., Monfette, G. and Borsayi, J.P. Combined treatment with flutamide and surgical or medical(LHRH agonist) castration in metastatic prostatic cancer. The Lancet 4:48–49, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Emrich, L.J., Priore, R.L. and investigators of the NPCP. Prognostic factors in patients with advanced stage prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 45:5173–5179, 1985.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gilles Beland
    • 1
  1. 1.Quebec Urologie Association, Department of UrologyNotre Dame HospitalMonteralCanada

Personalised recommendations