INTRODUCTION: No studies to date have assessed the efficacy/tolerability of degarelix in the relief of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to prostate cancer (PrCa). METHODS: Patients were randomised to degarelix 240/80 mg or goserelin 3.6 mg + bicalutamide flare protection (G+B); both treatments were administered for 3 months. The primary endpoint was change in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at week 12 compared with baseline. RESULTS: This study was stopped early due to recruitment difficulties. 40 patients received treatment (degarelix n = 27; G+B n = 13); most had locally advanced disease and were highly symptomatic. Degarelix was non-inferior to G+B in reducing IPSS at week 12 in the full analysis set (p = 0.20); the significantly larger IPSS reduction in the per-protocol analysis (p = 0.04) was suggestive of superior reductions with degarelix. Significantly more degarelix patients had improved quality of life (IPSS question) at week 12 (85 vs. 46%; p = 0.01). Mean prostate size reductions at week 12 were 42 versus 25% for patients receiving degarelix versus G+B, respectively (p = 0.04; post hoc analysis). Most adverse events were mild/moderate; more degarelix patients experienced injection site reactions whereas more G+B patients had urinary tract infections/cystitis. CONCLUSION: In 40 men with predominantly locally advanced PrCa and highly symptomatic LUTS, degarelix was at least non-inferior to G+B in reducing IPSS at week 12.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: No studies to date have assessed the efficacy/tolerability of degarelix in the relief of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to prostate cancer (PrCa). METHODS:Patients were randomised to degarelix 240/80 mg or goserelin 3.6 mg + bicalutamide flare protection (G+B); both treatments were administered for 3 months. The primary endpoint was change in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at week 12 compared with baseline. RESULTS: This study was stopped early due to recruitment difficulties. 40 patients received treatment (degarelix n = 27; G+B n = 13); most had locally advanced disease and were highly symptomatic. Degarelix was non-inferior to G+B in reducing IPSS at week 12 in the full analysis set (p = 0.20); the significantly larger IPSS reduction in the per-protocol analysis (p = 0.04) was suggestive of superior reductions with degarelix. Significantly more degarelixpatients had improved quality of life (IPSS question) at week 12 (85 vs. 46%; p = 0.01). Mean prostate size reductions at week 12 were 42 versus 25% for patients receiving degarelix versus G+B, respectively (p = 0.04; post hoc analysis). Most adverse events were mild/moderate; more degarelixpatients experienced injection site reactions whereas more G+B patients had urinary tract infections/cystitis. CONCLUSION: In 40 men with predominantly locally advanced PrCa and highly symptomatic LUTS, degarelix was at least non-inferior to G+B in reducing IPSS at week 12.