OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of transdermal estrogen in men with hot flushes after hormonal therapy for prostate cancer. METHODS:Twelve men with moderate to severe hot flushes were randomized to receive either low-dose (0.05 mg) or high-dose (0.10 mg) estrogen patches applied twice weekly for 4 weeks. After a 4-week washout period in which no treatment was given, each patient received the alternative dose for 4 weeks. Treatment response was assessed by daily logs and questionnaires completed every 4 weeks that included a visual analog assessment. Serum luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, testosterone, and estradiol levels were also measured every 4 weeks during the study. RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in the overall severity of the hot flushes seen in patients with both the low and high-dose estrogen patch. A significant reduction in the daily frequency of the hot flushes was seen with the high-dose patch only. Overall, 10 (83%) of 12 men reported either mild, moderate, or major improvement in symptoms with either the low or high-dose patch. Mild, painlessbreast swelling or nipple tenderness was noted in 2 (17%) and 5 (42%) of 12 men treated with the low and high-dose estrogen patch, respectively. FSH levels decreased significantly with both the low and high-dose patch. Estradiol levels increased from 12.1 to 16.4 pg/mL and 26.9 pg/mL with the low and high-dose patch, respectively. There was no significant change in serum testosterone or luteinizing hormone levels. CONCLUSIONS:Transdermal estrogen appears to be a promising, well-tolerated therapy for men with hot flushes after endocrine treatment for prostate cancer. Further study in larger groups of patients is necessary to assess the relative effectiveness and morbidity of this treatment.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of transdermal estrogen in men with hot flushes after hormonal therapy for prostate cancer. METHODS: Twelve men with moderate to severe hot flushes were randomized to receive either low-dose (0.05 mg) or high-dose (0.10 mg) estrogen patches applied twice weekly for 4 weeks. After a 4-week washout period in which no treatment was given, each patient received the alternative dose for 4 weeks. Treatment response was assessed by daily logs and questionnaires completed every 4 weeks that included a visual analog assessment. Serum luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, testosterone, and estradiol levels were also measured every 4 weeks during the study. RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in the overall severity of the hot flushes seen in patients with both the low and high-dose estrogen patch. A significant reduction in the daily frequency of the hot flushes was seen with the high-dose patch only. Overall, 10 (83%) of 12 men reported either mild, moderate, or major improvement in symptoms with either the low or high-dose patch. Mild, painless breast swelling or nipple tenderness was noted in 2 (17%) and 5 (42%) of 12 men treated with the low and high-dose estrogen patch, respectively. FSH levels decreased significantly with both the low and high-dose patch. Estradiol levels increased from 12.1 to 16.4 pg/mL and 26.9 pg/mL with the low and high-dose patch, respectively. There was no significant change in serum testosterone or luteinizing hormone levels. CONCLUSIONS: Transdermal estrogen appears to be a promising, well-tolerated therapy for men with hot flushes after endocrine treatment for prostate cancer. Further study in larger groups of patients is necessary to assess the relative effectiveness and morbidity of this treatment.
Authors: Crystal S Denlinger; Tara Sanft; K Scott Baker; Shrujal Baxi; Gregory Broderick; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Debra L Friedman; Mindy Goldman; Melissa Hudson; Nazanin Khakpour; Allison King; Divya Koura; Elizabeth Kvale; Robin M Lally; Terry S Langbaum; Michelle Melisko; Jose G Montoya; Kathi Mooney; Javid J Moslehi; Tracey O'Connor; Linda Overholser; Electra D Paskett; Jeffrey Peppercorn; M Alma Rodriguez; Kathryn J Ruddy; Paula Silverman; Sophia Smith; Karen L Syrjala; Amye Tevaarwerk; Susan G Urba; Mark T Wakabayashi; Phyllis Zee; Deborah A Freedman-Cass; Nicole R McMillian Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: William F Johnston; Morgan Salmon; Gang Su; Guanyi Lu; Gorav Ailawadi; Gilbert R Upchurch Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Theresa A Guise; Michael G Oefelein; James A Eastham; Michael S Cookson; Celestia S Higano; Matthew Raymond Smith Journal: Rev Urol Date: 2007
Authors: M Dror Michaelson; Shane E Cotter; Patricio C Gargollo; Anthony L Zietman; Douglas M Dahl; Matthew R Smith Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2008-05-23 Impact factor: 508.702