Photocatalytic degradation of organic dyes with manganese-doped ZnO nanoparticles.

R. Ullah,J. Dutta

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.12.033

IF: 13.6

2008-08-15

Journal of Hazardous Materials

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

A comparative study on the efficacies of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist and GnRH antagonist in neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy combined with transperineal prostate brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer

Kenta Miki,Hiroshi Sasaki,Masahito Kido,Hiroyuki Takahashi,Manabu Aoki,Shin Egawa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-016-2737-8

IF: 4.638

2016-09-01

BMC Cancer

Abstract:Background: Neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been suggested to confer several clinical benefits in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing transperineal prostate brachytherapy (TPPB). Unlike gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor agonists, a GnRH antagonist such as degarelix can achieve castrate levels of testosterone without testosterone flare. However, normalization of serum testosterone levels following completion of neoadjuvant ADT in either form of treatment has never been compared in clinical trials. Methods/design: This is a single-center, open-label, randomized controlled study that will compare the efficacy and safety of degarelix with those of existing GnRH agonists combined with (125)I-TPPB. A total of 56 patients with low/intermediate-risk clinically localized PCa will be enrolled and randomized to one of two treatment groups: the GnRH agonist group and the degarelix group. Patients in the GnRH agonist group will receive leuprorelin acetate or goserelin acetate, and those in the degarelix group will receive the initial dose of 240 mg as 2 subcutaneous injections of 120 mg each, and then 80 mg of maintenance doses every 4 weeks for 12 weeks. Those randomly assigned to the 12-week intervention period will subsequently undergo 48-weeks of follow-up after (125)I-TPPB. The primary endpoint is defined as normalization of serum testosterone levels (>50 ng/dL) following completion of neoadjuvant ADT. All patients will be assessed every 4 weeks for the first 24 weeks, then every 12 weeks for the next 36 weeks after administrations of these drugs. Secondary endpoints are the proportion of normalized serum luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), the percent reduction in prostate specific antigen (PSA) compared with pretreatment levels, the percent reduction in total prostate volume (TPV) during neoadjuvant ADT, the percent increase in TPV after (125)I-TPPB, the percent reduction in hemoglobin, serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP), changes in free testosterone and bone mineral content measurement, the proportion of patients who have serum testosterone levels over 50 ng/dL at 12 weeks following completion of neoadjuvant ADT, and the improvement of quality of life (QOL). Discussion: The present study will provide additional insight regarding the benefit and potency of degarelix and will examine its potential as a new option for administration in neoadjuvant ADT. Trial registration: Identification number: UMIN000015519 . Registration date: October 24, 2014.
Practical differences between luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists in prostate cancer: perspectives across the spectrum of care

Davide Meani,Mladen Solarić,Harri Visapää,Rose-Marie Rosén,Robert Janknegt,Majana Soče

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1756287217738985

2017-11-23

Therapeutic Advances in Urology

Abstract:Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists is well established for the treatment of men with metastatic prostate cancer. As clear differences in efficacy, safety, or tolerability between the available LHRH agonists are lacking, the healthcare management team needs to look to practical differences between the formulations when selecting therapy for their patients. Moreover, as the economic burden of prostate cancer rises alongside earlier diagnosis and improved survival, the possibility for cost savings by using products with specific features is growing in importance. Methods: A review was conducted to summarize the information on the different LHRH agonist formulations currently available and offer insight into their relative benefits and disadvantages from the perspectives of physicians, a pharmacist, and a nurse. Results: The leuprorelin acetate and goserelin acetate solid implants have the advantage of being ready to use with no requirement for refrigeration, whereas powder and microsphere formulations have to be reconstituted and have specific storage or handling constraints. The single-step administration of solid implants, therefore, has potential to reduce labor time and associated costs. Dosing frequency is another key consideration, as administering the injection provides an opportunity for face-to-face interaction between the patient and healthcare professionals to ensure therapy is optimized and give reassurance to patients. Prostate cancer patients are reported to prefer 3- or 6-monthly dosing, which aligns with the monitoring frequency recommended in European Association of Urology guidelines and has been shown to result in reduced annual costs compared with 1-month formulations. Conclusions: A number of practical differences exist between the different LHRH agonist preparations available, which may impact on clinical practice. It is important for healthcare providers to be aware and carefully consider these differences when selecting treatments for their prostate cancer patients.

urology & nephrology
Androgen-targeted therapy in men with prostate cancer: evolving practice and future considerations

E. David Crawford,Axel Heidenreich,Nathan Lawrentschuk,Bertrand Tombal,Antonio C. L. Pompeo,Arturo Mendoza-Valdes,Kurt Miller,Frans M. J. Debruyne,Laurence Klotz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-018-0079-0

2018-08-21

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases

Abstract:BackgroundAndrogen deprivation therapy (ADT) is foundational in the management of advanced prostate cancer (PCa) and has benefitted from a recent explosion in scientific advances. These include approval of new therapies that suppress testosterone (T) levels or inactivate its function, improvements in diagnostic and assay technologies, identification of lower therapeutic targets for T, discovery of the relevance of germline genetic mutations and identification of the benefits of sequential and combination therapies.MethodsThis review discusses the clinical profiles of the most up-to-date options for ADT, best practices for managing patients with advanced PCa and future directions in therapy.Results and conclusionsModern assay technologies reveal that bilateral orchiectomy results in a serum T level of approximately 15 ng/dL as compared to the historical definition of castration of T < 50 ng/dL. Evidence shows that lowering T levels to <20 ng/dL improves patient survival and delays disease progression. Routine monitoring of T in addition to prostate-specific antigen throughout treatment is important to ensure continuing efficacy of T suppression. New drugs that inhibit androgen signaling in combination with traditional ADT suppress T activity to near zero and have significantly improved patient survival. When personalizing ADT regimens physicians should consider a number of factors including initiation and duration of ADT, monitoring of T levels and PSA, the possibility of switching monotherapies if a patient does not achieve adequate T suppression, and consideration of intermittent vs. continuous ADT according to patients’ lifestyles, comorbidities, risk factors and tolerance to treatment.

oncology,urology & nephrology
Adjuvant Hormone Therapy after Radical Prostatectomy in High-Risk Localized and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: First Multicenter, Observational Study in China

Dingwei Ye,Wei Zhang,Lulin Ma,Chuanjun Du,Liping Xie,Yiran Huang,Qiang Wei,Zhangqun Ye,Yanqun Na

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2019.03.13

2019-01-01

Chinese Journal of Cancer Research

Abstract:Objective Potential of combined androgen blockade (CAB) has not been explored extensively in Chinese males with prostate cancer (PCa). Therefore, this study evaluated the 2-year prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence rate and quality of life (QoL) in patients with high-risk localized and locally advanced PCa receiving adjuvant hormone therapy (HT) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods This prospective, multicenter, observational study conducted in 18 centers across China enrolled patients with high-risk factor (preoperative PSA>20 ng/mL or Gleason score >7) or locally advanced PCa. Different adjuvant HT were administered after RP according to investigator’s decision in routine clinical practice. Relationship of baseline and postoperative characteristics was assessed with recurrence rate. PSA recurrence rate and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) QoL scores were recorded at 12 months and 24 months. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to construct the PSA recurrence rate during follow-up. Results A total of 189 patients (mean age: 66.9±6.5 years) were recruited, among which 112 (59.3%) patients showed serum PSA>20 ng/mL preoperatively. The highest postoperative pathological advancement noticed was from clinical T2 (cT2) to pathological T3 (pT3) (43.9%) stage. The majority of the patients (66.1%) received CAB as adjuvant HT, for a median duration of 20.0 months. The least recurrence (15.2%) was noticed in patients treated with CAB, followed by those treated with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist (LHRHa) (16.1%), and antiandrogen (19.0%), with non-significant difference noted among the groups. None of the baseline or postoperative characteristics was related with PSA recurrence in our study. The 24-month FACT-P QoL score of 119 patients treated for >12 months showed significant improvement above baseline compared with those treated for ≤12 months. Conclusions Adjuvant CAB therapy after RP showed reduction trend in 2-year PSA recurrence rate in high-risk Chinese patients with localized and locally advanced PCa, compared with adjuvant anti-androgens (AA) or LHRHa therapy. Further long-term therapy (>12 months) significantly improved QoL compared to short-term HT therapy, suggesting the beneficial effect of long-term CAB therapy in improving QoL.
Androgen deprivation therapy and side effects: are GnRH antagonists safer?

Stephen J Freedland,Per-Anders Abrahamsson,StephenJ Freedland

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/aja.aja_22_20

2021-01-01

Asian Journal of Andrology

Abstract:Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists and antagonists is the mainstay of advanced prostate cancer treatment. Both drug classes decrease levels of luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormones (FSH), thereby lowering testosterone to castrate levels. This is associated with adverse events (AEs), including cardiovascular (CV) disorders, bone fractures, metabolic dysfunction, and impaired cognitive function. This literature review discusses these AEs, with a focus on CV and bone-related events. A hypothesis-generating meta-analysis of six clinical trials showed a potentially increased risk for CV disorders with GnRH agonists versus the GnRH antagonist degarelix. While no study has directly compared GnRH agonists versus antagonists with a primary CV outcome, one hypothesis for this observation is that GnRH agonists lead to initial surges in FSH that may negatively impact CV health, whereas antagonists do not. GnRH agonists are associated with metabolic and cognitive AEs and while data are lacking for GnRH antagonists, no differences in risk are predicted. Other common AEs with ADT include injection site reactions, which are much more common with degarelix than with GnRH agonists, which may reflect differing administration and injection techniques. Future studies are needed to further evaluate and compare the safety profiles of GnRH agonists and antagonists, especially in patients with pre-existing CV disease and other co-morbidities. Physicians should carefully evaluate benefits and risks when prescribing ADT and ensure that side effects are well managed.

urology & nephrology,andrology
Effectiveness of three different luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists in the chemical castration of patients with prostate cancer: Goserelin versus triptorelin versus leuprolide

Myungsun Shim,Woo Jin Bang,Cheol Young Oh,Yong Seong Lee,Jin Seon Cho

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2019.60.4.244

Abstract:Purpose: To investigate the changes in testosterone levels and rates of chemical castration following androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with goserelin, triptorelin, and leuprolide. Materials and methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 125 patients with prostate cancer treated with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists between January 2009 and December 2015. Changes in testosterone concentration during 9 months of ADT with goserelin 11.34 mg, triptorelin 11.25 mg, and leuprolide 11.25 mg were analyzed using a mixed model. The number of patients with serum testosterone below castration levels defined as various values (<50 ng/dL, <20 ng/dL, or <10 ng/dL) at 3, 6, and 9 months were also evaluated. Results: Of the 125 patients, 59 received goserelin, 44 received triptorelin, and 22 received leuprolide, respectively. The lowest mean testosterone levels during 9 months of treatment were achieved in patients treated with triptorelin, followed by those treated with leuprolide, and then by those treated with goserelin (p=0.001). Significant differences in chemical castration levels were observed only at <10 ng/dL, with 54.2% of goserelin, 93.2% of triptorelin, and 86.4% of leuprolide treated patients (p<0.001). Conclusions: Three LHRH agonists showed comparable efficacy for achieving castration when the castration threshold was 50 or 20 ng/dL. However, triptorelin was the most potent LHRH agonist, achieving the lowest mean testosterone levels and the highest rate of chemical castration at <10 ng/dL testosterone.
Virtual Actors in Interactivated Storytelling

I. Iurgel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39396-2_43

2003-09-15

Abstract:
PSA-PFS in Metastatic or High Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with GnRH Antagonist (degarelix) Versus LHRH Agonists – A Pooled Analysis of Data from the Americas, Europe and Asia

N. Shore,Z. Bosnyak,M. Gittelman,A. Malmberg,P-A. Abrahamsson,L-P. Xie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw372.19

IF: 51.769

2016-01-01

Annals of Oncology

Abstract:Globally, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) strategies for both prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence and metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) vary significantly. Data suggest that PSA progression free-survival (PSA-PFS) may predict overall survival in PCa patients (pts). We compare PSA-PFS with a GnRH antagonist (degarelix) and LHRH agonists (leuprolide, goserelin) in metastatic or high risk PCa pts in the Americas, Europe and Asia. Data were pooled from two pivotal phase 3 randomized trials of men with PCa where ADT was indicated for pts with metastatic disease or those with PSA relapse deemed at high risk. Metastatic PCa was defined by baseline TNM staging (M1). High risk PCa was defined as baseline PSA >20 ng/mL or Gleason score 8–10. Pts in the Americas (n = 60), Europe (n = 97) and China (n = 224) were randomized to receive degarelix (n = 193), or LHRH agonist (n = 188). PSA-PFS was defined as death from any cause or PSA recurrence (two consecutive increases ≥50% [≥2 weeks apart] and ≥5 ng/mL increase from nadir). Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier analyses (log-rank p-value) and Cox-proportional hazard models (Wald Chi-square p-value) were used (stratified by baseline PSA categories, and adjusted for treatment, PCa stage, age and region) to assess treatment differences in PSA-PFS. PSA-PFS was significantly improved in the degarelix group among metastatic or high risk pts (p = 0.011). Region did not influence difference between antagonist and agonist in PSA-PFS (treatment-by-region interaction p = 0.884), however, Chinese (HR = 0.48 [95% CI: 0.31–0.74]) and American (HR = 0.26 [95%CI: 0.10–0.68]) pts had lower risk for PSA-PFS compared to European pts. There was a lower hazard for PSA-PFS with degarelix across all regions when stratifying for PSA (and adjusting for confounders); HR = 0.67 (95%CI: 0.44–1.01), p = 0.053. Improved PSA-PFS was shown in pts treated with degarelix vs LHRH agonists in metastatic or high risk PCa pts irrespective of region. These results suggest delay of disease progression with initial use of a GnRH antagonist as compared with LHRH agonists across global regions.
The effect of narasin on apparent nitrogen digestibility and large intestine volatile fatty acid concentrations in finishing swine.

A. Wuethrich,L. F. Richardson,D. Mowrey,R. E. Paxton,D. B. Anderson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2527/1998.7641056X

1998-04-01

Journal of Animal Science

Abstract:The effect of narasin on apparent nitrogen and dry matter digestibilities and large intestine VFA concentrations in finishing swine was investigated. The study used 21 crossbred barrows averaging 72 kg. Seven blocks were formed on the basis of pretreatment dry matter digestibility, and barrows were randomly assigned to three treatments in each block. Treatments consisted of a control (C) and narasin (N15 and N30) applied at 15 and 30 ppm, respectively. Fecal and urine samples were collected. Upon the completion of the digestibility work, intestinal samples were taken from three locations, and VFA concentrations for each animal were measured. Weight gains for the N15 and N30 treatments were increased 3.0 and 6.0% (not significant), respectively, over control. Fecal nitrogen was decreased (P < .05) in the narasin-fed barrows, and apparent nitrogen digestibility was increased (P < .05). Neither nitrogen retention nor urinary nitrogen excretion was altered (P > .05) due to narasin. There were no increases (P > .05) in apparent dry matter digestibility due to narasin. Analysis of pooled colon samples showed an increase (P < .05) in the concentration of propionic acid in relation to acetic and butyric in the narasin-fed barrows. Butyric acid was reduced (P < .05) in the transverse colon of narasin-fed barrows. In summary, narasin administration to finishing barrows resulted in improved apparent nitrogen digestibility, thus decreasing fecal nitrogen, and increased relative concentrations of propionic acid in the large intestine.
Study of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist in management of hormonal sensitive prostate cancer

李俊宏,万方宁,戴波,刘铮,叶定伟

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112330-20220509-00265

2022-01-01

Abstract:Objective:To explore the value of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist in prostate cancer management.Methods:We retrospectively analyzed the data of 92 consecutive hormonal sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC) patients treated with GnRH antagonist from Jan 2019 to March 2022 in Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center. The median (IQR) age at diagnosis was 70(65-76)years old. Median(IQR) serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level before treatment was 98.30 (32.50-436.75)ng/ml. The median (IQR) testosterone level was 12.30(1.51-18.44)nmol/L. Twenty-six(28.3%)cases were in M 0 stage, while 66(71.7%) were in M 1 stage at diagnosis. There were 67(72.8%)cases in ≥T 3 stage, and 54(58.7%)cases in N 1 stage.The Gleason score of 80(87.0%)cases was ≥8.The second generation androgen inhibitor was used in 58(63.0%)cases, and 21(22.8%)cases had specific gene mutation. Patients received a subcutaneously 240mg Degarelix in the first 28 days and 80 mg Degarelix following every 28 days. The pre-injection and 3 months post injection PSA and testosterone (T) level were collected. According to the proportion of patients with the largest decrease in PSA, the patients were divided into high response group (PSA decrease ≥99% after 3 months of use of Degarelix) and low response group (PSA decrease <99% after 3 months of use of Degarelix). Univariate and multivariate logistic analysis were used to analyze the risk factors affecting the treatment response of Degarelix. Results:Among the 92 prostate cancer patients, after 3 months Degarelix treatment, the median PSA value decreased to 0.64ng/ ml ( P <0.001), and the median testosterone value decreased to 0.45nmol/L ( P <0.001). After treatment, there were 48 cases in the high reaction group and 44 cases in the low reaction group. Before treatment, the median PSA in the high-response group was 100.00(67.11-444.25) ng/ml, higher than 88.50 (9.91-582.25) ng/ml in the low-response group, but not statistically significant ( P=0.077). The median testosterone level in the high response group was 13.82 (7.53-19.43) nmol/L, which was significantly higher than that in the low response group [4.61 (0.75-16.12) nmol/L, P =0.030]. After treatment, the median PSA in the high-response group was 0.22 (0.09-0.82) ng/ml, significantly lower than that in the low-response group [3.22 (0.19-15.88) ng/ ml, P<0.001]. The median testosterone value of the high reaction group was 0.40 (0.09-0.80) nmol/L and that of the low reaction group was 0.45 (0.02-0.65) nmol/L, which showed no significant difference ( P =0.826), and both reached the level of castration (<1.7nmol/L). Univariate analysis showed that age ≤ 65 years old was a good prognostic factor ( OR=0.333, 95% CI 0.119-0.810, P =0.017); T stage ( P =0.540), N stage ( P =0.363), M stage ( P =0.660), Gleason score ( P =0.834), application of second-generation antiandrogens ( P=0.238) and gene mutation ( P =0.525) were not related to Degarelix hyperresponsiveness. In multivariate analysis, age was the only independent favorite prognostic factors( OR=0.913, 95% CI 0.847-0.983, P=0.016). Conclusions:In the real world, GnRH antagonists significantly reduced the levels of testosterone and PSA in HSPC patients after 3 months of treatment regardless of TNM stage, Gleason score, and the second generation androgen inhibitor using.
Efficacy and Safety of Radiotherapy Plus Relugolix in Men With Localized or Advanced Prostate Cancer

Daniel E. Spratt,Daniel J. George,Neal D. Shore,Michael S. Cookson,Daniel R. Saltzstein,Ronald Tutrone,Alberto Bossi,Bruce A. Brown,Sophia Lu,Mark Fallick,Sarah Hanson,Bertrand F. Tombal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.7279

IF: 33.006

2024-03-07

JAMA Oncology

Abstract:Importance Combination androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy is commonly used for patients with localized and advanced prostate cancer. Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of the oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist relugolix with radiotherapy for treating prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants This multicenter post hoc analysis of patients with localized and advanced prostate cancer receiving radiotherapy in 2 randomized clinical trials (a phase 2 trial of relugolix vs degarelix, and a subset of the phase 3 HERO trial of relugolix vs leuprolide acetate) included men who were receiving radiotherapy and short-term (24 weeks) ADT (n = 103) from 2014 to 2015 and men receiving radiotherapy and longer-term (48 weeks) ADT (n = 157) from 2017 to 2019. The data were analyzed in November 2022. Interventions Patients receiving short-term ADT received relugolix, 120 mg, orally once daily (320-mg loading dose) or degarelix, 80 mg, 4-week depot (240-mg loading dose) for 24 weeks with 12 weeks of follow-up. Patients receiving longer-term ADT received relugolix, 120 mg, orally once daily (360-mg loading dose) or leuprolide acetate injections every 12 weeks for 48 weeks, with up to 90 days of follow-up. Main Outcomes and Measures Castration rate (testosterone level &lt;50 ng/dL [to convert to nmol/L, multiply by 0.0347) at all scheduled visits between weeks 5 and 25 for patients receiving short-term ADT and weeks 5 and 49 for patients receiving longer-term ADT. Results Of 260 patients (38 Asian [14.6%], 23 Black or African American [8.8%], 21 Hispanic [8.1%], and 188 White [72.3%] individuals), 164 (63.1%) received relugolix. Relugolix achieved castration rates of 95% (95% CI, 87.1%-99.0%) and 97% (95% CI, 90.6%-99.0%) among patients receiving short-term and longer-term ADT, respectively. Twelve weeks post–short-term relugolix, 34 (52%) achieved testosterone levels to baseline or more than 280 ng/dL. Ninety days post longer-term ADT, mean (SD) testosterone levels were 310.5 (122.4) (106.7) ng/dL (relugolix; n = 15) vs 53.0 ng/dL (leuprolide acetate; n = 8) among the subset assessed for testosterone recovery. Castration resistance-free survival was not statistically different between the relugolix and leuprolide acetate cohorts (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.35-2.72; P = .62). Adverse events grade 3 or greater for short-term or longer-term relugolix (headache, hypertension, and atrial fibrillation) were uncommon (less than 5%). Conclusions and Relevance The results of these 2 randomized clinical trials suggest that relugolix rapidly achieves sustained castration in patients with localized and advanced prostate cancer receiving radiotherapy. No new safety concerns were identified when relugolix was used with radiotherapy.

oncology
Safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of SHR7280, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor antagonist, in healthy men: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1 study

Xin Li,Feifei Sun,Xiaolei Zhang,Pingping Lin,Kai Shen,Yu Shen,Lingyu Ma,Yu Cao,Chenjing Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-02834-6

IF: 9.3

2023-04-03

BMC Medicine

Abstract:Abstract Background Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists are a promising therapeutic approach for treating hormone-dependent prostate cancer. Currently, the mainstream GnRH antagonists are polypeptide agents administered through subcutaneous injection. In this study, we evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of SHR7280, an oral small molecule GnRH antagonist, in healthy men. Methods This phase 1 trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and dose-ascending study. Eligible healthy men were randomized in a 4:1 ratio to receive either oral SHR7280 tablets or placebo twice daily (BID) for 14 consecutive days. The SHR7280 dose was initiated at 100 mg BID and then sequentially increased to 200, 350, 500, 600, 800, and 1000 mg BID. Safety, PK, and PD parameters were assessed. Results A total of 70 subjects were enrolled and received the assigned drug, including 56 with SHR7280 and 14 with placebo. SHR7280 was well-tolerated. The incidence of adverse events (AEs, 76.8% vs 85.7%) and treatment-related AEs (75.0% vs 85.7%), as well as the severity of AEs (moderate AEs, 1.8% vs 7.1%) were similar between the SHR7280 group and placebo group. SHR7280 was rapidly absorbed in a dose-dependent manner, with a median T max of each dose group ranging from 0.8 to 1.0 h on day 14 and a mean t 1/2 ranging from 2.8 to 3.4 h. The PD results demonstrated that SHR7280 exhibited a rapid and dose-proportional suppression of hormones, including LH, FSH, and testosterone, with maximum suppression achieved at doses of 800 and 1000 mg BID. Conclusions SHR7280 showed an acceptable safety profile, as well as favorable PK and PD profiles within a dose range of 100 to 1000 mg BID. This study proposes a rationale for further investigation of SHR7280 as a potential androgen deprivation therapy. Trial registration Clinical trials.gov NCT04554043; registered September 18, 2020.

medicine, general & internal
Development of a Second-Generation Antiandrogen for Treatment of Advanced Prostate Cancer

Chris Tran,Samedy Ouk,Nicola J. Clegg,Yu Chen,Philip A. Watson,Vivek Arora,John Wongvipat,Peter M. Smith-Jones,Dongwon Yoo,Andrew Kwon,Teresa Wasielewska,Derek Welsbie,Charlie Degui Chen,Celestia S. Higano,Tomasz M. Beer,David T. Hung,Howard I. Scher,Michael E. Jung,Charles L. Sawyers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1168175

IF: 56.9

2009-05-08

Science

Abstract:A Second Act for Antiandrogens Men with advanced prostate cancer are often treated with antiandrogens; drugs that inhibit the activity of male hormones, such as testosterone, that help drive tumor growth. Many of these drugs act by functionally disrupting the androgen receptor (AR), a transcriptional regulator of cell proliferation, but tumors eventually become resistant to the drugs by expressing higher levels of the AR. Tran et al. (p. 787 , published online 9 April) have developed a “second-generation” antiandrogen, a thiohydantoin called MDV3100, which binds the AR with high affinity. MDV3100 retains its anticancer activity in cell culture and in mouse models even when AR levels are elevated. The drug appears to act both by inhibiting translocation of the AR into the nucleus and by reducing its transcriptional activity. MDV3100 is being tested in patients with advanced prostate cancer, the first group of which have shown a decline in blood levels of a marker of cancer growth, prostate-specific antigen.

multidisciplinary sciences
Inhibitors of the transactivation domain of androgen receptor as a therapy for prostate cancer

Jon K Obst,Amy H Tien,Josie C Setiawan,Lauren F Deneault,Marianne D Sadar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.steroids.2024.109482

IF: 2.76

Steroids

Abstract:The androgen receptor (AR) is a modular transcription factor which functions as a master regulator of gene expression. AR protein is composed of three functional domains; the ligand-binding domain (LBD); DNA-binding domain (DBD); and the intrinsically disordered N-terminal transactivation domain (TAD). AR is transactivated upon binding to the male sex hormone testosterone and other androgens. While the AR may tolerate loss of its LBD, the TAD contains activation function-1 (AF-1) that is essential for all AR transcriptional activity. AR is frequently over-expressed in most prostate cancer. Currently, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the form of surgical or chemical castration remains the standard of care for patients with high risk localized disease, advanced and metastatic disease, and those patients that experience biochemical relapse following definitive primary treatment. Patients with recurrent disease that receive ADT will ultimately progress to lethal metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. In addition to ADT not providing a cure, it is associated with numerous adverse effects including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and sexual dysfunction. Recently there has been a renewed interest in investigating the possibility of using antiandrogens which competitively bind the AR-LBD without ADT for patients with hormone sensitive, non-metastatic prostate cancer. Here we describe a class of compounds termed AR transactivation domain inhibitors (ARTADI) and their mechanism of action. These compounds bind to the AR-TAD to inhibit AR transcriptional activity in the absence and presence of androgens. Thus these inhibitors may have utility in preventing prostate cancer growth in the non-castrate setting.
Does Exist a Differential Impact of Degarelix Versus LHRH Agonists on Cardiovascular Safety? Evidences From Randomized and Real-World Studies

Alessandro Sciarra,Gian Maria Busetto,Stefano Salciccia,Francesco Del Giudice,Martina Maggi,Felice Crocetto,Matteo Ferro,Ettore De Berardinis,Roberto Mario Scarpa,Francesco Porpiglia,Luca Carmignani,Rocco Damiano,Walter Artibani,Giuseppe Carrieri

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2021.695170

IF: 6.055

2021-06-14

Frontiers in Endocrinology

Abstract:The main systemic therapy for the management of hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (PC) is androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), with the use of long-acting luteinizing hormone releasing-hormone (LHRH) agonists considered the main form of ADT used in clinical practice to obtain castration in PC. The concomitant administration of antiandrogens for the first weeks could reduce the incidence of clinical effects related to the testosterone flare-up in the first injection of LHRH. On the contrary, Gonadotropin Rh (GnRH) antagonists produce a rapid decrease of testosterone levels without the initial flare-up, with degarelix commonly used in clinical practice to induce castration in PC patients. Even if no long-term data are reported in terms of survival to define a superiority of GnRH or LHRH, for oncological efficacy and PC control, data from randomized clinical trials and from real-life experiences, suggest a difference in cardiovascular risk of patients starting ADT. The age-related decline in testosterone levels may represent a factor connected to the increase of cardiovascular disease risk, however, the role of ADT in increasing CV events remains controversial. For these reasons, the aim of the paper is to synthesize the difference in cardiovascular risk between LHRH and degarelix in patients undergoing ADT. A difference in cardiovascular risk could be indeed an important parameter in the evaluation of these two forms of castration therapy. The Randomized trials analyzed in this paper sustain a possible protective role for degarelix versus LHRH agonists in reducing the rate of new CV events and interventions in the short-term period. On the contrary, real-word data are contradictory in different national experiences and are strongly conditioned by huge differences between the LHRH agonists group and the degarelix group.

endocrinology & metabolism
Second generation androgen receptor antagonists and challenges in prostate cancer treatment

Yanhua Chen,Qianqian Zhou,William Hankey,Xiaosheng Fang,Fuwen Yuan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41419-022-05084-1

2022-07-22

Cell Death and Disease

Abstract:Prostate cancer is a hormone-dependent malignancy, whose onset and progression are closely related to the activity of the androgen receptor (AR) signaling pathway. Due to this critical role of AR signaling in driving prostate cancer, therapy targeting the AR pathway has been the mainstay strategy for metastatic prostate cancer treatment. The utility of these agents has expanded with the emergence of second-generation AR antagonists, which began with the approval of enzalutamide in 2012 by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Together with apalutamide and darolutamide, which were approved in 2018 and 2019, respectively, these agents have improved the survival of patients with prostate cancer, with applications for both androgen-dependent and castration-resistant disease. While patients receiving these drugs receive a benefit in the form of prolonged survival, they are not cured and ultimately progress to lethal neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC). Here we summarize the current state of AR antagonist development and highlight the emerging challenges of their clinical application and the potential resistance mechanisms, which might be addressed by combination therapies or the development of novel AR-targeted therapies.

cell biology
Abstract 12107: Cardiovascular Outcomes Associated With Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Antagonists vs Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonists for Prostate Cancer Treatment: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Vikash Jaiswal,Akash Jaiswal,Marina Saleeb,Mayank Jha,Muhammad Hanif,Kriti Kalra,Endurance O Evbayekha,Vibhor Agrawal,Song Peng Ang,Jerome S Zacks

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.148.suppl_1.12107

IF: 37.8

2023-11-07

Circulation

Abstract:Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), comprising the administration of Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists and antagonists, is a widely utilized treatment for prostate cancer patients and has been universally accepted as the first-line treatment for symptomatic metastatic prostatic cancer. While ADT has proven effective, concerns about its impact on cardiovascular health have emerged. Conflicting results regarding the association between ADT and cardiovascular events have been reported in the most recent PRONOUNCE trial hence a meta-analysis to systematically evaluate the evidence is desired. Aim: The primary objective of this meta-analysis was to investigate and compare the effects of GnRH agonists and antagonists on cardiovascular events in patients with prostate cancer. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in major electronic databases to identify relevant RCTs. Studies published from inception to April 2023 were scrutinized. Results: 9 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis. A total of 3648 patients were randomized to receive either an agonist (n=1375) or an antagonist (n=2273). The pooled results revealed a significant reduction in the risk of adverse cardiovascular events by 48% with the use of GnRH agonists compared to GnRH antagonists (RR=0.52; 95% CI=0.39-0.71; p<0.01). Furthermore, GnRH agonists also decreased the risk of all-cause mortality by 46% (RR=0.54; 95% CI= 0.33-0.88; p=0.01) and cardiovascular mortality by 78% (RR= 0.22; 95% CI= 0.07-0.76; p=0.02) compared to GnRH antagonists. Conclusion: The findings of this meta-analysis reveal the favorable cardiovascular risk profile associated with GnRH agonists, supporting their role as a preferred treatment option over GnRH antagonists.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems,peripheral vascular disease
The Biological Basis for the Use of an Anti-Androgen and A 5-Alpha-reductase Inhibitor in the Treatment of Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Case Report and Review

LG Wang,SK Mencher,JP McCarron,AC Ferrari

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3892/or.11.6.1325

2004-01-01

Oncology Reports

Abstract:Although many prostate cancer cases relapse to a hormone-insensitive state, endocrine therapy involving androgen depletion by orchiectomy or by treatment with LHRH-analogue as well as blockade of the androgen receptor (AR) with anti-androgens remains a primary treatment option. Quality of life (QOL) however, is a prime consideration of men choosing such an approach. In this report we discuss a synergistic combination of 150-mg bicaltumide (Casodex) and 5 mg finasteride (Proscar) in the treatment of a 69-year-old patient with a relapsed (biochemical failure) Gleason score 7 prostate cancer, initially treated with external beam radiation therapy. A successful clinical outcome as evidenced by undetectable serum PSA, bone scan density and overall general well-being was accomplished with minimal side effects. Experiments using an established hormone-dependent prostate cancer cell line (LNCaP) showed that the combination of bicaltumide-finasteride at the same ratio as used clinically, produced synergistic effects on the inhibition of cell proliferation and AR expression/phosphorylation. A more complete inactivation of the AR on this regimen may have had the effect of constraining the ability of the AR to mutate, and/or diminishing the ability of androgen independent clones to evolve. Thus, passage to androgen independence may have been slowed or arrested.
OOIS 2001 : 7th International Conference on Object-Oriented Information Systems, 27-29 August 2001, Calgary, Canada : proceedings

Yingxu Wang,S. Patel,R. Johnston

Abstract:Keynote I. GRIDs - The Next Generation Technologies for the Internet.- Keynote II. Developing E-Business Enterprise Frameworks: Session 1.A OO Foundations. Improving the UML Metamodel to Rigorously Specify Aggregation and Composition. Principles and Patterns in the Object Oriented Design. OMS Java: Providing Information, Storage and Access Abstractions in an Object-Oriented Framework. Session 1.B OO Modeling and Analysis.- Actor-Led Object Modeling for Requirements and Systems Analysis. Reconciliation of Object Interaction Models. Ontology Modeling Using UML. Session 2.A OOIS Processes. Organising and Selecting Patterns in Pattern Languages with Process Maps. An Object-Oriented Workflow Metamodel. XP as a Development Process Framework. Session 2.B ASERC ASE (I) - Software Engineering Metrics and Analysis. Meta Analysis - A Method of Combining Empirical Results and its Application in Object-Oriented Software Systems. Metrics of Refactoring-based Development: An Experience Report. Formal Description of Object-Oriented Software Measurement and Metrics in SEMS. Analysis of Software Engineering Data Using Computational Intelligence Techniques. Session 3.A XML-Based Information Systems. A Designing Model of XML-Dataweb. Beyond Object-Oriented Paradigm - A Document-Oriented Development Paradigm for the online XML-based Information Navigation System. A Browser for Specifying XML Views. Critical Success Factors for using XML for Delivery of Post-Trading Financial Information. Session 3.B OO-Based Reuse. Towards a Model-Driven Approach to Reuse. Components for the Reuse of Activities in Web Applications. Engineering and Reuse of Domain Components. A UML based Design Language for Framework Reuse. Session 4.A OO Frameworks.- An Object-Oriented Framework for Goal and Process Modeling. A Framework for Intelligent Maturity Model. A Framework for Dynamic Client-Driven Customization. An Object-Oriented Framework for Developing Information Retrieval Applications. Session 4.B ASERC ASE (II) - Production Line and Requirements Engineering. A Product Line Analysis of Software-Controlled Gastrointestinal Stimulators. Towards a Requirements Engineering Process Model. Interface the 'Abridged Bayou Sate Periodical Index' with a Web based Search Engine. Session 5.A OO and Web Testing. Using UML to Partially Automate Generation of Scenario-Based Test Drivers. On Built-in-Test Classes for Object-Oriented and Component-Based Information Systems. Session 5.B Use Case for Requirement Analysis. From Use Cases to Objects: An Industrial Information Systems Case Study Analysis. Guiding Use Case Driven Requirements Elicitation and Analysis.- Session 6.A OO CASE Tools. Enhancing UML Expressivity towards Automatic Code Generation. jShio-A Customization Language Compiler-Compiler. A CASE Tool for Object-Oriented Database Design. Supporting Development of Cooperative Object Information Systems with CoLaSD. Session 6.B OO Virtual Environments and Real-Time Systems. Integration of Object-Oriented Databases with VRML in Virtual Environments. Design of Real-Time Distributed Manufacturing Control Systems using UML Capsules. A Model-based Open Architecture for Mobile, Spatially Aware Applications. Session 7.A IT Process Assessment and Improvement. Experience in Assessment of a Software Project by Using Multiple Process Models. The Business Value of Software Process Improvement. Issues Specific for Software Process Improvement in Teleworking Environments. Session 7.B Industrial Experience and Case Studies. Understanding Strategy: a Goal Modeling Methodology. Documentation Assistance in Object Oriented Software Development. Industrial Experience: Object-Oriented Methodology Approach to Remote Terminal Unit Programming. Session 8.A Web-Based Information Systems. Progressive Access to Knowledge in Web Information Systems through Zooms. Web-Enabling an I
Insight into Recent Advances in Degrading Androgen Receptor for Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

Qiao-Hong Chen,Erick Munoz,Dennis Ashong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16030663

2024-02-05

Cancers

Abstract:Induced protein degradation has emerged as an innovative drug discovery approach, complementary to the classical method of suppressing protein function. The androgen receptor signaling pathway has been identified as the primary driving force in the development and progression of lethal castration-resistant prostate cancer. Since androgen receptor degraders function differently from androgen receptor antagonists, they hold the promise to overcome the drug resistance challenges faced by current therapeutics. Proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs), monomeric degraders, hydrophobic tagging, molecular glues, and autophagic degradation have demonstrated their capability in downregulating intracellular androgen receptor concentrations. The potential of these androgen receptor degraders to treat castration-resistant prostate cancer is substantiated by the advancement of six PROTACs and two monomeric androgen receptor degraders into phase I or II clinical trials. Although the chemical structures, in vitro and in vivo data, and degradation mechanisms of androgen receptor degraders have been reviewed, it is crucial to stay updated on recent advances in this field as novel androgen receptor degraders and new strategies continue to emerge. This review thus provides insight into recent advancements in this paradigm, offering an overview of the progress made since 2020.

oncology

Photocatalytic degradation of organic dyes with manganese-doped ZnO nanoparticles.

A comparative study on the efficacies of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist and GnRH antagonist in neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy combined with transperineal prostate brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer

Practical differences between luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists in prostate cancer: perspectives across the spectrum of care

Androgen-targeted therapy in men with prostate cancer: evolving practice and future considerations

Adjuvant Hormone Therapy after Radical Prostatectomy in High-Risk Localized and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: First Multicenter, Observational Study in China

Androgen deprivation therapy and side effects: are GnRH antagonists safer?

Effectiveness of three different luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists in the chemical castration of patients with prostate cancer: Goserelin versus triptorelin versus leuprolide

Virtual Actors in Interactivated Storytelling

PSA-PFS in Metastatic or High Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with GnRH Antagonist (degarelix) Versus LHRH Agonists – A Pooled Analysis of Data from the Americas, Europe and Asia

The effect of narasin on apparent nitrogen digestibility and large intestine volatile fatty acid concentrations in finishing swine.

Study of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist in management of hormonal sensitive prostate cancer

Efficacy and Safety of Radiotherapy Plus Relugolix in Men With Localized or Advanced Prostate Cancer

Safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of SHR7280, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor antagonist, in healthy men: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1 study

Development of a Second-Generation Antiandrogen for Treatment of Advanced Prostate Cancer

Inhibitors of the transactivation domain of androgen receptor as a therapy for prostate cancer

Does Exist a Differential Impact of Degarelix Versus LHRH Agonists on Cardiovascular Safety? Evidences From Randomized and Real-World Studies

Second generation androgen receptor antagonists and challenges in prostate cancer treatment

Abstract 12107: Cardiovascular Outcomes Associated With Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Antagonists vs Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonists for Prostate Cancer Treatment: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The Biological Basis for the Use of an Anti-Androgen and A 5-Alpha-reductase Inhibitor in the Treatment of Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Case Report and Review

OOIS 2001 : 7th International Conference on Object-Oriented Information Systems, 27-29 August 2001, Calgary, Canada : proceedings

Insight into Recent Advances in Degrading Androgen Receptor for Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer