Fernando Calais da Silva1, Fernando Manuel Calais da Silva2, Frederico Gonçalves3, Américo Santos4, Jan Kliment5, Peter Whelan6, Tim Oliver7, Nicos Antoniou8, Spiro Pastidis8, Anton Marques Queimadelos9, Chris Robertson10. 1. Department of Urology, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Central, Lisbon, Portugal. Electronic address: secretariado@seug-gpgu.org. 2. Department of Urology, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Central, Lisbon, Portugal. 3. Department of Urology, Klinika Lfuk, Bratislava, Slovakia. 4. Department of Urology, Hospital S. Marcos, Braga, Portugal. 5. Department of Urology, Jessenius School of Medicine, Martin, Slovakia. 6. Department of Urology, Saint James University Hospital, Leeds, UK. 7. Department of Urology, Saint Bartholomew's, London, UK. 8. Department of Urology, Amalia Fleming Hospital, Melissa, Greece. 9. Department of Urology, Policlinico La Rosaleda, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 10. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK; Health Protection Scotland, Glasgow, UK; International Prevention Research Institute, Lyon, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few randomised studies have compared antiandrogen intermittent hormonal therapy (IHT) with continuous maximal androgen blockade (MAB) therapy for advanced prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVE: To determine whether overall survival (OS) on IHT (cyproterone acetate; CPA) is noninferior to OS on continuous MAB. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This phase 3 randomised trial compared IHT and continuous MAB in patients with locally advanced or metastatic PCa. INTERVENTION: During induction, patients received CPA 200 mg/d for 2 wk and then monthly depot injections of a luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH; triptoreline 11.25 mg) analogue plus CPA 200 mg/d. Patients whose prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was <4 ng/ml after 3 mo of induction treatment were randomised to the IHT arm (stopped treatment and restarted on CPA 300 mg/d monotherapy if PSA rose to ≥20 ng/ml or they were symptomatic) or the continuous arm (CPA 200 mg/d plus monthly LHRH analogue). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary outcome measurement was OS. Secondary outcomes included cause-specific survival, time to subjective or objective progression, and quality of life. Time off therapy in the intermittent arm was recorded. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We recruited 1045 patients, of which 918 responded to induction therapy and were randomised (462 to IHT and 456 to continuous MAB). OS was similar between groups (p=0.25), and noninferiority of IHT was demonstrated (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.07). There was a trend for an interaction between PSA and treatment (p=0.05), favouring IHT over continuous therapy in patients with PSA ≤1 ng/ml (HR: 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61-1.02). Men treated with IHT reported better sexual function. Among the 462 patients on IHT, 50% and 28% of patients were off therapy for ≥2.5 yr or >5 yr, respectively, after randomisation. The main limitation is that the length of time for the trial to mature means that other therapies are now available. A second limitation is that T3 patients may now profit from watchful waiting instead of androgen-deprivation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Noninferiority of IHT in terms of survival and its association with better sexual activity than continuous therapy suggest that IHT should be considered for use in routine clinical practice.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Few randomised studies have compared antiandrogen intermittent hormonal therapy (IHT) with continuous maximal androgen blockade (MAB) therapy for advanced prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVE: To determine whether overall survival (OS) on IHT (cyproterone acetate; CPA) is noninferior to OS on continuous MAB. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This phase 3 randomised trial compared IHT and continuous MAB in patients with locally advanced or metastatic PCa. INTERVENTION: During induction, patients received CPA 200 mg/d for 2 wk and then monthly depot injections of a luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH; triptoreline 11.25 mg) analogue plus CPA 200 mg/d. Patients whose prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was <4 ng/ml after 3 mo of induction treatment were randomised to the IHT arm (stopped treatment and restarted on CPA 300 mg/d monotherapy if PSA rose to ≥20 ng/ml or they were symptomatic) or the continuous arm (CPA 200 mg/d plus monthly LHRH analogue). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary outcome measurement was OS. Secondary outcomes included cause-specific survival, time to subjective or objective progression, and quality of life. Time off therapy in the intermittent arm was recorded. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We recruited 1045 patients, of which 918 responded to induction therapy and were randomised (462 to IHT and 456 to continuous MAB). OS was similar between groups (p=0.25), and noninferiority of IHT was demonstrated (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.07). There was a trend for an interaction between PSA and treatment (p=0.05), favouring IHT over continuous therapy in patients with PSA ≤1 ng/ml (HR: 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61-1.02). Men treated with IHT reported better sexual function. Among the 462 patients on IHT, 50% and 28% of patients were off therapy for ≥2.5 yr or >5 yr, respectively, after randomisation. The main limitation is that the length of time for the trial to mature means that other therapies are now available. A second limitation is that T3 patients may now profit from watchful waiting instead of androgen-deprivation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Noninferiority of IHT in terms of survival and its association with better sexual activity than continuous therapy suggest that IHT should be considered for use in routine clinical practice.
Authors: Neal Shore; Ivan Mincik; Mark DeGuenther; Vladimir Student; Mindaugas Jievaltas; Jitka Patockova; Kelle Simpson; Chu-Hsuan Hu; Shih-Tsung Huang; Yuhua Li; Yisheng Lee; Ben Chien; John Mao Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-04-03 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: C Jin; Y Fan; Y Meng; C Shen; Y Wang; S Hu; C Cui; T Xu; W Yu; J Jin Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Dawn L Hershman; Joseph M Unger; Jason D Wright; Scott Ramsey; Cathee Till; Catherine M Tangen; William E Barlow; Charles Blanke; Ian M Thompson; Maha Hussain Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Jessica E Hawley; Samuel Pan; William D Figg; Zoila A Lopez-Bujanda; Jonathan D Strope; David H Aggen; Matthew C Dallos; Emerson A Lim; Mark N Stein; Jianhua Hu; Charles G Drake Journal: Prostate Date: 2020-01-03 Impact factor: 4.104