Literature DB >> 19035858

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

Laurence Klotz1, Laurent Boccon-Gibod, Neal D Shore, Cal Andreou, Bo-Eric Persson, Per Cantor, Jens-Kristian Jensen, Tine Kold Olesen, Fritz H Schröder.   

Abstract

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'.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19035858     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08183.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  161 in total

1.  Prostate cancer: making the switch from LHRH antagonist to LHRH agonist.

Authors:  Judd W Moul
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2012-01-31       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  Estrogens in the time of blood-thinners.

Authors:  Yosh Taguchi
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  Androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer-review of indications in 2010.

Authors:  H Quon; D A Loblaw
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.677

4.  SEOM clinical guidelines for treatment of prostate cancer.

Authors:  José Ángel Arranz Arija; Javier Cassinello Espinosa; Miguel Ángel Climent Durán; Fernando Rivero Herrero
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 3.405

5.  The hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis and prostate cancer: implications for androgen deprivation therapy.

Authors:  Luis A Kluth; Shahrokh F Shariat; Christian Kratzik; Scott Tagawa; Guru Sonpavde; Malte Rieken; Douglas S Scherr; Karl Pummer
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-09-03       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 6.  Pharmacotherapeutic Targeting of G Protein-Coupled Receptors in Oncology: Examples of Approved Therapies and Emerging Concepts.

Authors:  Rosamaria Lappano; Marcello Maggiolini
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 7.  Optimal pharmacotherapeutic management of hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ajjai Alva; Maha Hussain
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 9.546

8.  Anti-cancer effect of ursolic acid activates apoptosis through ROCK/PTEN mediated mitochondrial translocation of cofilin-1 in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Wen-Tao Gai; Da-Peng Yu; Xin-Sheng Wang; Pei-Tao Wang
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2016-08-16       Impact factor: 2.967

9.  Effectiveness of Subcutaneously Administered Leuprolide Acetate to Achieve Low Nadir Testosterone in Prostate Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Christopher M Pieczonka; Przemyslaw Twardowski; Joseph Renzulli; Jason Hafron; Deborah M Boldt-Houle; Stuart Atkinson; Scott Eggener
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2018

Review 10.  Degarelix for Treating Advanced Hormone-Dependent Prostate Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

Authors:  Lesley Uttley; Sophie Whyte; Timothy Gomersall; Shijie Ren; Ruth Wong; Duncan Chambers; Paul Tappenden
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.