BACKGROUND: To compare intermittent treatment (IT) versus continuous treatment (CT) using cyproterone acetate (CPA) in bone metastatic prostate cancer patients, we conducted an open-label, multicenter randomized trial. Continuous androgen deprivation therapy is the standard treatment in metastatic prostate cancer. Intermittent treatment might maintain efficacy while toxicity and costs are reduced. METHODS: Patients received CPA 100 mg tid in the prephase. Patients with a PSA decline of ≥ 90 % or PSA <4 ng/ml were randomized. If patients were progressive, LHRH analogues were added. Primary end point was time to PSA progression. RESULTS:A total of 366 patients were recruited; 258 reached a good response after 3 or 6 months and were randomized. A total of 131 patients randomized to IT and 127 to CT. Patients on IT had an average of 1.7 episodes on CPA, before LHRH analogues were started. The mean time without treatment in IT was 463 days versus 422 days on treatment. There were statistical significant differences between IT and CT in 3 of the 5 functional scales of EORTC QLQ C 30; however, the clinical relevance of this finding appears modest. Symptom and potency scales showed significant advantages for IT. There were no differences in time to PSA progression on CPA, time to PSA and/or clinical progression on LHRH analogues and time to cancer-specific and overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: IT by CPA is associated with less symptoms and modest advantages in QOL domains. There were no differences in time to PSA progression, clinical progression or survival.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: To compare intermittent treatment (IT) versus continuous treatment (CT) using cyproterone acetate (CPA) in bone metastatic prostate cancerpatients, we conducted an open-label, multicenter randomized trial. Continuous androgen deprivation therapy is the standard treatment in metastatic prostate cancer. Intermittent treatment might maintain efficacy while toxicity and costs are reduced. METHODS:Patients received CPA 100 mg tid in the prephase. Patients with a PSA decline of ≥ 90 % or PSA <4 ng/ml were randomized. If patients were progressive, LHRH analogues were added. Primary end point was time to PSA progression. RESULTS: A total of 366 patients were recruited; 258 reached a good response after 3 or 6 months and were randomized. A total of 131 patients randomized to IT and 127 to CT. Patients on IT had an average of 1.7 episodes on CPA, before LHRH analogues were started. The mean time without treatment in IT was 463 days versus 422 days on treatment. There were statistical significant differences between IT and CT in 3 of the 5 functional scales of EORTC QLQ C 30; however, the clinical relevance of this finding appears modest. Symptom and potency scales showed significant advantages for IT. There were no differences in time to PSA progression on CPA, time to PSA and/or clinical progression on LHRH analogues and time to cancer-specific and overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: IT by CPA is associated with less symptoms and modest advantages in QOL domains. There were no differences in time to PSA progression, clinical progression or survival.
Authors: Cora N Sternberg; Michael Krainer; William K Oh; Sergio Bracarda; Joaquim Bellmunt; Haluk Ozen; Alexandre Zlotta; Tomasz M Beer; Stephane Oudard; Michael Rauchenwald; Iwona Skoneczna; Markus M Borner; John M Fitzpatrick Journal: BJU Int Date: 2006-09-06 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Johan F Langenhuijsen; Dirk Badhauser; Berthold Schaaf; Lambertus A L M Kiemeney; J Alfred Witjes; Peter F A Mulders Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2011-05-10 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Arto J Salonen; Kimmo Taari; Martti Ala-Opas; Jouko Viitanen; Seppo Lundstedt; Teuvo L J Tammela Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michel Bolla; Theodorus M de Reijke; Geertjan Van Tienhoven; Alphonsus C M Van den Bergh; Jorg Oddens; Philip M P Poortmans; Eliahu Gez; Paul Kil; Atif Akdas; Guy Soete; Oleg Kariakine; Elsbietha M van der Steen-Banasik; Elena Musat; Marianne Piérart; Murielle E Mauer; Laurence Collette Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-06-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C J Tyrrell; A V Kaisary; P Iversen; J B Anderson; L Baert; T Tammela; M Chamberlain; A Webster; G Blackledge Journal: Eur Urol Date: 1998 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Maha Hussain; Catherine M Tangen; Donna L Berry; Celestia S Higano; E David Crawford; Glenn Liu; George Wilding; Stephen Prescott; Subramanian Kanaga Sundaram; Eric Jay Small; Nancy Ann Dawson; Bryan J Donnelly; Peter M Venner; Ulka N Vaishampayan; Paul F Schellhammer; David I Quinn; Derek Raghavan; Benjamin Ely; Carol M Moinpour; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Ian M Thompson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-04-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Fernando E C Calais da Silva; Aldo V Bono; Peter Whelan; Maurizio Brausi; Anton Marques Queimadelos; Jose A Portillo Martin; Ziya Kirkali; Fernando M V Calais da Silva; Chris Robertson Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-02-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: E David Crawford; Axel Heidenreich; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Bertrand Tombal; Antonio C L Pompeo; Arturo Mendoza-Valdes; Kurt Miller; Frans M J Debruyne; Laurence Klotz Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2018-08-21 Impact factor: 5.554