Sarosdy M F, Schellhammer P F, Sharifi R, Block N L, Soloway M S, Venner P M, Patterson A L, Vogelzang N J, Chodak G W, Klein E A, Schellenger J J, Kolvenbag G J
University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, USA.
Urology. 1998 Jul;52(1):82-8. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(98)00145-9.
To perform exploratory analyses of data from a controlled trial that assessed the efficacy and tolerability of two antiandrogens, bicalutamide and flutamide, each combined with monthly depot preparations of leuprolide or goserelin, in patients with Stage D2 prostate cancer. One analysis compared goserelin plus antiandrogen therapy with leuprolide plus antiandrogen therapy; a second analysis compared the four combined androgen blockade (CAB) regimens.
This was a randomized, multicenter trial, open-label for luteinizing hormone releasing hormone analogue (LHRH-A) therapy, double-blind for antiandrogen therapy, with a two-by-two factorial design. Eight-hundred thirteen patients were allocated in a ratio of 2:1 to goserelin therapy (3.6 mg every 28 days) or leuprolide therapy (7.5 mg every 28 days) and 1:1 to bicalutamide therapy (50 mg once a day) or flutamide therapy (250 mg three times a day). The end points of time to progression and survival were assessed with a median of 160 weeks of follow-up.
The percentages of progression events (70.9% versus 73.3%) and deaths (54.3% versus 56.8%) were similar for goserelin plus antiandrogen and leuprolide plus antiandrogen therapies. The hazard ratios for goserelin plus antiandrogen therapy to leuprolide plus antiandrogen therapy were 0.99 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84 to 1.18; P = 0.92) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.11; P = 0.34) for time to progression and survival, respectively. Goserelin plus antiandrogen and leuprolide plus antiandrogen therapies were generally well tolerated, and the side effects associated with depot administration occurred with a low frequency in the two groups. There were no significant differences among the goserelin plus bicalutamide, goserelin plus flutamide, or leuprolide plus bicalutamide therapy groups, but leuprolide plus flutamide therapy had a significantly poorer outcome than the other three therapies. The side-effect profiles for the four CAB groups were generally similar; diarrhea was more common among patients treated with flutamide and hematuria was more common among patients treated with bicalutamide.
Although the results of these exploratory analyses should be interpreted with caution, they indicate that goserelin plus antiandrogen and leuprolide plus antiandrogen therapies are similarly well tolerated and have equivalent time to progression and survival, and that leuprolide plus flutamide therapy appears to be the least effective of the four CAB regimens.
对一项对照试验的数据进行探索性分析,该试验评估了两种抗雄激素药物比卡鲁胺和氟他胺分别与每月一次的亮丙瑞林或戈舍瑞林长效制剂联合应用于D2期前列腺癌患者的疗效和耐受性。一项分析比较了戈舍瑞林联合抗雄激素治疗与亮丙瑞林联合抗雄激素治疗;另一项分析比较了四种联合雄激素阻断(CAB)方案。
这是一项随机、多中心试验,促性腺激素释放激素类似物(LHRH-A)治疗为开放标签,抗雄激素治疗为双盲,采用二乘二析因设计。813例患者按2:1的比例分配接受戈舍瑞林治疗(每28天3.6mg)或亮丙瑞林治疗(每28天7.5mg),并按1:1的比例分配接受比卡鲁胺治疗(每日50mg)或氟他胺治疗(每日3次,每次250mg)。进展时间和生存时间的终点在中位随访160周时进行评估。
戈舍瑞林联合抗雄激素治疗和亮丙瑞林联合抗雄激素治疗的进展事件百分比(70.9%对73.3%)和死亡百分比(54.3%对56.8%)相似。戈舍瑞林联合抗雄激素治疗与亮丙瑞林联合抗雄激素治疗相比,进展时间和生存时间的风险比分别为0.99(95%置信区间[CI]0.84至1.18;P=0.92)和0.91(95%CI 0.75至1.11;P=0.34)。戈舍瑞林联合抗雄激素治疗和亮丙瑞林联合抗雄激素治疗一般耐受性良好,两组中与长效制剂给药相关的副作用发生率较低。戈舍瑞林联合比卡鲁胺、戈舍瑞林联合氟他胺或亮丙瑞林联合比卡鲁胺治疗组之间无显著差异,但亮丙瑞林联合氟他胺治疗的结果明显比其他三种治疗差。四个CAB组的副作用谱一般相似;腹泻在接受氟他胺治疗的患者中更常见,血尿在接受比卡鲁胺治疗的患者中更常见。
尽管这些探索性分析的结果应谨慎解释,但它们表明戈舍瑞林联合抗雄激素治疗和亮丙瑞林联合抗雄激素治疗耐受性相似,进展时间和生存时间相当,并且亮丙瑞林联合氟他胺治疗似乎是四种CAB方案中效果最差的。