Efficacy, Safety, and Dose Comparison of Degarelix for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cheng Fang,Cailiang Wu,Shasha Li,Long Ge,Jin-Liang Bai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13105/wjma.v4.i3.69

2016-01-01

World Journal of Meta-Analysis

Abstract:Efficacy, safety, and dose comparison of degarelix for the treatment of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Efficacy and Safety of Degarelix in Patients with Prostate Cancer: Results from a Phase III Study in China

Yinghao Sun,Liping Xie,Tao Xu,Jorn S. Jakobsen,Weiqing Han,Per S. Sorensen,Xiaofeng Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2019.09.003

2020-01-01

Asian Journal of Urology

Abstract:Objective: To establish non-inferiority of gonadotropin-releasing hormone degarelix compared with goserelin in suppressing and maintaining castrate testosterone levels from Day 28 to Day 364 in Chinese patients with prostate cancer. Methods: This is an open-label, multi-centre study in which men aged >= 18 years were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to once-a-month subcutaneous injection of either degarelix (240/80 mg) or goserelin (3.6 mg) for 12 months. The primary endpoint was difference in 1-year cumulative probability of suppressing testosterone to <= 0.5 ng/mL. Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower 95% confidence interval (CI) limit for difference in cumulative probability between the treatment arms was greater than -10%. Secondary endpoints included cumulative probability of prostate-specific-antigen-progression-free-survival (PSA-PFS). Safety was also assessed. Results: Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were similar between degarelix (n=142) and goserelin (n=141) treatment arms. The difference in cumulative probability of maintaining castrate levels from Day 28e364 was 3.6% (95% CI:-1.5%, 8.7%), demonstrating non-inferiority of degarelix. The cumulative probability of PSA-PFS at Day 364 was higher for degarelix (82.3%, 95% CI: 74.7%, 87.7%) versus goserelin (71.7%, 95% CI: 63.2%, 78.5%, p=0.038). Adverse events (AEs) were similar between treatment arms, except for more injection site reactions with degarelix versus goserelin. Four (2.8%) and nine (6.4%) patients discontinued due to AEs in degarelix and goserelin groups, respectively. Conclusion: Degarelix was non-inferior to goserelin in achieving and maintaining testosterone suppression at castrate levels during 1-year treatment. PSA-PFS was significantly higher with degarelix, suggesting improved disease control. Both treatments were well tolerated. (C) 2020 Editorial Office of Asian Journal of Urology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
A systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular disease risk with degarelix and GnRH agonists in prostate cancer

Francisco Cezar Aquino de Moraes,Vitor Kendi Tsuchiya Sano,Clara Rocha Dantas,Nathália Hoffmeister,Francinny Alves Kelly,Rommel Mario Rodríguez Burbano

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-024-03772-2

2024-11-07

Clinical & Translational Oncology

Abstract:Degarelix is a third-generation GnRH receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of prostate cancer, however, the decision to use a GnRH agonist or an antagonist depends on several factors. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis comparing the cardiovascular disease risk between degarelix and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists in patients with all stages of prostate cancer.

oncology
Degarelix for Treating Advanced Hormone-Dependent Prostate Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

Lesley Uttley,Sophie Whyte,Timothy Gomersall,Shijie Ren,Ruth Wong,Duncan Chambers,Paul Tappenden

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0481-1

2016-12-10

PharmacoEconomics

Abstract:As part of its Single Technology Appraisal Process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of degarelix (Ferring Pharmaceuticals) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of degarelix for the treatment of advanced hormone-dependent prostate cancer. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence contained within the company’s submission to NICE. The evidence, which included a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of degarelix versus leuprorelin, found that degarelix was non-inferior to leuprorelin for reduction of testosterone levels and that degarelix achieved a more rapid suppression of prostate-specific antigen levels and subsequently decreased incidences of testosterone flare associated with luteinising hormone releasing-hormone (LHRH) agonists. However, protection against testosterone flare for the comparators in the clinical trials was not employed in line with UK clinical practice. Further claims surrounding overall survival, cardiovascular adverse events and clinical equivalence of the comparator drugs from six RCTs of degarelix should be regarded with caution because of flaws and inconsistencies in the pooling of trial data to draw conclusions. The cost-effectiveness evidence included a de novo economic model. Based on the ERG’s preferred base case, the deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness analysis (ICER) for degarelix versus 3-monthly triptorelin was £14,798 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Additional scenario analyses undertaken by the ERG resulted in ICERs for degarelix versus 3-monthly triptorelin ranging from £17,067 to £35,589 per QALY gained. Subgroup analyses undertaken using the Appraisal Committee’s preferred assumptions suggested that degarelix was not cost effective for the subgroup with metastatic disease but could be cost effective for the subgroup with spinal metastases. The company submitted further evidence to NICE following an initial negative Appraisal Committee decision. Further analyses from the Decision Support Unit found that that, whilst some evidence indicated that degarelix could be cost effective for a small subgroup of people with spinal cord compression (SCC), data on the potential size of this subgroup and the rate of SCC were insufficient to estimate an ICER based on the evidence submitted by the company and a separately commissioned systematic review. NICE recommended degarelix as an option for treating advanced hormone-dependent prostate cancer in people with spinal metastases, only if the commissioner can achieve at least the same discounted drug cost as that available to the UK NHS in June 2016.

pharmacology & pharmacy,health care sciences & services,health policy & services,economics
Comparative Cardiovascular Safety of Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone Antagonists and Agonists Among Patients Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Real-world Evidence Studies

Savan Patel,Kexin Zhu,Chintan V Dave,Mina Ghajar,Yingting Zhang,Biren Saraiya,Elisa V Bandera,Farzin Khosrow-Khavar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2024.09.004

2024-09-28

Abstract:Background and objective: Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists and agonists are cornerstone treatments in prostate cancer. However, evidence regarding the comparative cardiovascular safety of these drugs from clinical trials is inconclusive. The objective of this study was to systematically assess the risk of adverse cardiovascular events of GnRH antagonists compared with GnRH agonists across real-world evidence studies. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science (2008-2023). We included real-world evidence studies comparing the risk of cardiovascular outcomes of GnRH antagonists with those of GnRH agonists among patients with prostate cancer. We conducted a meta-analysis of effect estimates across studies at a low or moderate risk of bias, assessed via the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool, using random-effect models. Key findings and limitations: Among ten included studies, four were classified as having a moderate and six as having a serious risk of bias. Across three studies at a moderate risk of bias in the primary analysis, degarelix was associated with an increased risk (pooled relative risk [RR]: 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.14-1.51) of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). An augmented risk was observed in two studies among patients with a history of cardiovascular disease (pooled RR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.11-1.56) compared with one study among patients without a history of cardiovascular disease (RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.83-1.59). Conclusions and clinical implications: Real-world evidence studies indicate that degarelix, compared with GnRH agonists, is associated with a modest increased risk of MACEs, particularly among patients with a history of cardiovascular disease. However, residual confounding due to the treatment of high-risk patients with degarelix may account for these findings. Additional large studies with detailed data on tumor characteristics and cardiovascular risk factors are needed to confirm these findings. Patient summary: In this systematic evaluation of evidence among patients diagnosed with prostate cancer in routine care, degarelix was associated with higher cardiovascular adverse outcomes than gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists.
AB085. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Phosphodiesterase Type 5 Inhibitors for the Treatment of Female Sexual Dysfunction

Liang Gao,Lu Yang,Shengqiang Qian,Tao Li,Ping Han,Jiuhong Yuan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2016.s085

2015-01-01

Abstract:Objective To obtain systematic and comprehensive evidence regarding the benefits and safety of PDE5i compared to those of placebo. Methods All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on the effectiveness of PDE5i in FSD were identified through comprehensive searches of PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase, and a meta-analysis and systematic review of these studies were conducted. Results Fourteen studies were included for meta-analysis. Because RCTs included in our study adopted different questionnaires for the measurement of sexual function, most of the data had to be separated rather than pooling the results. Summarizing the results of each comparison, we found that the use of PDE5i resulted in a significant improvement in sexual functioning compared with placebo in most studies, except for a few sporadic negative results. However, pooled data for adverse events showed significantly higher rates of headache, flushing, and vision changes in PDE5i treatment group [risk ratio (RR) 2.59, 95%95% confidence interval (CI), 1.93–3.47, P<0.00001; RR 5.74, 95% CI, 3.60–9.14, P<0.00001; and RR 4.64, 95% CI, 2.16–9.98, P<0.0001, respectively]. However, no one reported the need of any additional therapy for these adverse events. Conclusions Our results indicate that PDE5i would be effective for female sexual dysfunction. Though there were significantly higher rates of adverse events, use of PDE5i was still relatively safe. More well-designed, double-blind, crossover RCTs reporting results from standardized questionnaires should be conducted to accurately solve this issue.
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
Efficacy and safety of 3-month dosing regimen of degarelix in Japanese subjects with prostate cancer: A phase III study

Seiichiro Ozono,Taiji Tsukamoto,Seiji Naito,Shigeo Horie,Yasuo Ohashi,Hiroji Uemura,Yumiko Yokomizo,Satoshi Fukasawa,Hidehito Kusuoka,Rio Akazawa,Masako Saito,Hideyuki Akaza

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cas.13600

Abstract:Non-inferiority in the cumulative castration rate of the 3-month formulation of degarelix compared with the 3-month formulation of goserelin was evaluated in subjects with prostate cancer. A phase III, open-label, parallel-arm study was carried out. An initial dose of 240 mg degarelix or 3.6 mg goserelin was given s.c.; after day 28, a maintenance dose of 480 mg degarelix or 10.8 mg goserelin was given once every 84 days. Non-inferiority in castration rate and safety of degarelix to goserelin were evaluated. The primary end-point was the cumulative castration rate from day 28 to day 364 and the non-inferiority margin was set to be 10%. A total of 234 subjects with prostate cancer were randomized to the degarelix group (n = 117) and the goserelin group (n = 117). The cumulative castration rate was 95.1% in the degarelix group and 100.0% in the goserelin group. As there were no events in the goserelin group, an additional analysis was carried out using 95% confidence intervals of the difference in the proportion of subjects with castration. Analyses indicated the non-inferiority of the 3-month formulation of degarelix to goserelin. Degarelix showed more rapid decreases in testosterone, luteinizing hormone, follicle stimulating hormone, and prostate-specific antigen levels compared with goserelin. The most common adverse events in the degarelix group were injection site reactions. Non-inferiority of the 3-month formulation of degarelix to goserelin was shown for testosterone suppression. The 3-month formulation of degarelix was also found to be tolerated as an androgen deprivation therapy for patients with prostate cancer. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT01964170).
Efficacy and Safety of Serenoa repens Extract Among Patients with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in China: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Trial.

Zhangqun Ye,Jian Huang,Liqun Zhou,Shan Chen,Zengjun Wang,Lulin Ma,Dongfang Wang,Gongxian Wang,Shusheng Wang,Chaozhao Liang,Shaopeng Qiu,Xiaojian Gu,Jianhe Liu,Zhiliang Weng,Changli Wu,Qiang Wei,Liping Xie,Weizhen Wu,Yue Cheng,Jingqian Hu,Zhixian Wang,Xiaoyong Zeng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.02.030

IF: 2.633

2019-01-01

Urology

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Serenoa repens among patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia [LUTS/BPH]) in China. METHODS:We conducted a double blind, placebo-controlled study of 354 patients with LUTS/BPH from 19 institutions, to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Serenoa repens. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) into the Serenoa repens extract (320 mg) or placebo groups for 24 weeks. Primary efficacy parameters were changes in International Prostate Symptom Score and peak urinary flow from baseline to each assessment. Secondary efficacy parameters included improvement of storage symptom and voiding symptom scores, prostate volume, urinary frequency, and total prostate-specific antigen level. Other parameters assessed were quality of life score, a four-item male sexual function questionnaire score, and International Index of Erectile Function score across the consecutive double-blind visits. RESULTS:Statistically significant improvement in the peak urinary flow, International Prostate Symptom Score, scores of storage symptoms and voiding symptoms, quality of life score, four-item male sexual function questionnaire score, and International Index of Erectile Function score were observed in the Serenoa repens extract group compared with those in the placebo group (P <.05). Two (1.18%) of 169 patients in the placebo group and 3 (1.89) of 159 patients in the Serenoa repens extract group experienced 1 or more adverse events. CONCLUSION:The Serenoa repens extract was effective, safe, well-tolerated, and clinically and statistically superior to placebo in the target LUTS/BPH population.
Real-world Cardiovascular Outcomes Associated With Degarelix vs Leuprolide for Prostate Cancer Treatment

Joshua D. Wallach,Yihong Deng,Rozalina G. McCoy,Sanket S. Dhruva,Jeph Herrin,Alyssa Berkowitz,Eric C. Polley,Kenneth Quinto,Charu Gandotra,William Crown,Peter Noseworthy,Xiaoxi Yao,Nilay D. Shah,Joseph S. Ross,Timothy D. Lyon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.30587

2021-10-22

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:Importance: With a growing interest in the use of real-world evidence for regulatory decision-making, it is important to understand whether real-world data can be used to emulate the results of randomized clinical trials.Objective: To use electronic health record and administrative claims data to emulate the ongoing PRONOUNCE trial (A Trial Comparing Cardiovascular Safety of Degarelix Versus Leuprolide in Patients With Advanced Prostate Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease).Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, propensity-matched cohort study included adult men with a diagnosis of prostate cancer and cardiovascular disease who initiated either degarelix or leuprolide between December 24, 2008, and June 30, 2019. Participants were commercially insured individuals and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries included in a large US administrative claims database.Exposures: Degarelix or leuprolide.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was time to first occurrence of a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), defined as death due to any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke, analogous to the PRONOUNCE trial. Secondary end points were time to death due to any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, and angina. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate primary and secondary end points.Results: A total of 32 172 men initiated degarelix or leuprolide for prostate cancer; of them, 9490 (29.5%) had cardiovascular disease, and 7800 (24.2%) met the PRONOUNCE trial eligibility criteria and were included in this study. Overall, 165 participants (2.1%) were Asian, 1390 (17.8%) were Black, 663 (8.5%) were Hispanic, and 5258 (67.4%) were White. The mean (SD) age was 74.4 (7.4) years. Among 2226 propensity score-matched patients, no significant difference was observed in the risk of MACE for patients taking degarelix vs those taking leuprolide (10.18 vs 8.60 events per 100 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 1.18; 95% CI, 0.86-1.61). Degarelix was associated with a higher risk of death from any cause (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.01-2.18) but not of myocardial infarction (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.60-2.25), stroke (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.45-1.85), or angina (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.43-4.27).Conclusions and Relevance: In this emulation of a clinical trial of men with cardiovascular disease undergoing treatment for prostate cancer, degarelix was not associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events than leuprolide. Comparison of these data with PRONOUNCE trial results, when published, will help enhance our understanding of the appropriate role of using real-world data to emulate clinical trials.

medicine, general & internal
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.
Degarelix vs. leuprorelin for the treatment of prostate cancer in China: A cost-utility analysis

Jianzhou Yan,Caiyun Li,Xuefang Zhang,Luyan Cheng,Ruilin Ding,Lingli Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.942800

IF: 5.2

2022-07-18

Frontiers in Public Health

Abstract:Objective To explore the cost-effectiveness of degarelix acetate for injection (degarelix) compared to leuprorelin in prostate cancer (Pca) castration treatment from Chinese healthcare system perspective. Methods A Markov model, adapted from the one established in Finland was conducted for the cost-effectiveness analysis of degarelix and leuprorelin for Pca treatment. The main data were derived from global phase III clinical trials of degarelix (CS21), published study and expert surveys. Outcomes, utility and costs of prostate cancer patients were calculated on a 30-year time horizon. The CS21 study based population of intention-to-treat (ITT) population and three scenarios were modeled. Taking three times of the Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (242,928 yuan, 2021) as the acceptable threshold for cost-effectiveness. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed on key parameters, including transition probabilities, costs, utility, and discount rate to test the robustness of the model. Results Base case analysis for ITT population revealed that total costs of degarelix and leuprorelin were 566,226 yuan and 489,693 yuan, while the total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 5.19 and 4.51 during the 30-year time horizon, resulting an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 112,674 yuan/QALY which was 1.39 times the GDP per capita, lower than willingness-to-pay level of three times the GDP per capita. The results for scenario analyses revealed that compared to leuprorelin, degarelix for Pca treatment in China was cost-effective. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the model was most sensitive to price of 80 mg degarelix, utility of 1st-line therapy, hazard ratio of PSA recurrence, price of 3.75 mg leuprorelin, response rate of docetaxel per cycle, and discount rate of cost. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, compared to leuprorelin, the probability of degarelix to be cost-effective was 53 and 81% for willingness-to-pay threshold of one and three times the GDP per capita. Conclusion Compared to leuprorelin, degarelix for prostate cancer treatment is cost-effective. Moreover, scenario, one-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that the model was robust.

public, environmental & occupational health
Evaluation on Safety and Efficacy of Finasteride in Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

Xiaojing LI,Yanhong WEI,Sijing SHEN,Lei ZHANG

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14009/j.issn.1672-2124.2016.01.022

2016-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis on the clinical safety of finasteride in treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia ( BPH) , and to compare and analyze the results with related foreign studies . METHODS:Correlative literature with application of single finasteride or finasteride combined with other drugs in treatment of BPH were retrieved .RCT, CCT that related to finasteride were involved .The quality of literature was evaluated , the data were extracted and meta-analysis or qualitative systematic review were conducted .RESULTS:10 RCT/CCT met the inclusion criteria .According to the analysis: finasteride had a curative efficacy with slight adverse reactions .Compared with tamsulosin group , finasteride group had a grater improvement in IPSS score , Qmax and prostate volume , with significant difference ( P <0.05 ) . Compared with finasteride group , finasteride +tamsulosin group had a greater improvement in Ru ( P <0.01 ) , but there was no significant difference in the improvement of IPSS score and prostate volume between the two groups ( P>0.05 ) .Compared with finasteride group , finasteride +terazosin group had a greater improvement in prostate volume , IPSS, Ru and Qmax , with significant difference ( P<0.05 ) .Also, compared with bonuo group , finasteride group had a grater improvement in prostate volume and PSA (P<0.01), but there was no significant difference in the improvement of IPSS , Ru and Qmax between two groups ( P>0.05 ) .CONCLUSIONS:Finasteridecan in treatment of BPH can significantly relief the symptoms and reduce the prostate volume with slight adverse reactions .Finasteride combined with tamsulosin or terazosin had a better clinical curative efficacy than the single drug therapy .
Comparison of Systemic Treatments for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer After Docetaxel Failure: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Junru Chen,Yaowen Zhang,Xingming Zhang,Jinge Zhao,Yuchao Ni,Sha Zhu,Ben He,Jindong Dai,Zhipeng Wang,Zilin Wang,Jiayu Liang,Xudong Zhu,Pengfei Shen,Hao Zeng,Guangxi Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.789319

IF: 5.6

2022-01-18

Frontiers in Pharmacology

Abstract:Background: Lacking head-to-head trial, the optimal treatment for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after docetaxel failure is unclear. This study is to compare the efficacy and safety of systemic treatments in patients who progressed after docetaxel to aid clinical decision-making. Methods: Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to June 15th, 2021. The outcomes of interest include overall survival (OS), biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), and serious adverse events (SAEs). The Cochrane risk of bias tools were used to assess study quality. Indirect comparisons of competing treatments were performed via Bayesian network meta-analysis. Results: Five trials with 3,862 patients comparing four treatments (abiraterone, enzalutamide, cabazitaxel, and radium-223) were identified. All the four treatments were associated with improved OS and bPFS relative to best supportive care. Among them, enzalutamide (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.58, 95% credible interval [Crl]: 0.49–0.69) had the highest probability of ranking first in terms of OS, followed by cabazitaxel (HR = 0.70, 95% Crl: 0.59–0.83), radium-223 (HR = 0.71, 95% Crl: 0.56–0.90) and abiraterone (HR = 0.73, 95% Crl: 0.63–0.84). Similarly, enzalutamide (HR = 0.25, 95% Crl: 0.20–0.31) showed the greatest improvement of bPFS, followed by abiraterone (HR = 0.60, 95% Crl: 0.51–0.71) and cabazitaxel (HR = 0.75, 95% Crl: 0.63–0.89). In terms of safety, treatments ranked from the safest to the least safe were radium-223 (OR = 0.58, 95% Crl: 0.20–1.68), enzalutamide (OR = 0.80, 95% Crl: 0.28–2.29), abiraterone (OR = 0.94, 95% Crl: 0.39–2.27) and cabazitaxel (OR = 2.50, 95% Crl: 0.84–7.44). Conclusion: For patients with mCRPC who progressed after docetaxel, enzalutamide may offer the most significant survival benefits and satisfying safety. Cabazitaxel is effective in post-docetaxel settings but associated with a high risk of SAEs. Although network meta-analysis provides indirect comparisons and ranking probabilities, the results should be treated with caution as it cannot replace randomized direct comparison. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020223040 , identifier CRD42020223040.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Efficacy and Safety of Abiraterone Acetate and Enzalutamide for the Treatment of Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ZhenHeng Wei,ChuXin Chen,BoWen Li,YongYue Li,Hong Gu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.732599

IF: 4.7

2021-08-27

Frontiers in Oncology

Abstract:Objective The androgen receptor-targeting drugs abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide have shown positive results as treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Therefore, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide in patients with mCRPC. Methods We retrieved relevant articles from PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE published before December 31, 2020. Eleven articles were initially selected, and four phase III, double-blind, randomized controlled trials of abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide that involved 5199 patients with mCRPC were included. The end points were time to prostate-specific antigen progression (TTPP), according to the prostate-specific antigen working group criteria; overall survival (OS); and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS). Results Four randomized, controlled clinical trials involving 5199 patients were included in this study. The results of the meta-analysis showed that compared with placebo alone, abiraterone significantly improved OS (HR=0.69, 95% CI: 0.60-0.8, P<0.00001), rPFS (HR=0.64, 95% CI: 0.57-0.71, P < 0.00001), and TTPP (HR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.45-0.59, P < 0.00001) in patients with mCRPC. Compared with placebo, enzalutamide significantly improved OS (HR=0.67, 95% CI: 0.59-0.75, P<0.00001), rPFS (HR=0.33, 95% CI: 0.29-0.37, P< 0.00001), and TTPP (HR=0.19, 95% CI: 0.17-0.22, P < 0.00001). An indirect comparison was performed to compare the efficacy of abiraterone and enzalutamide. The results showed that there was no significant difference between abiraterone and enzalutamide with regard to improving the OS of patients with mCRPC (HR=1.03, 95% CI: 0.854-1.242). Enzalutamide was superior to abiraterone with regard to improving rPFS in patients with mCRPC (HR=0.516, 95% CI: 0.438-0.608). With regard to improving TTPP, the efficacy of enzalutamide was better than that of abiraterone (HR=0.365, 95% CI: 0.303-0.441). In sAE, there was no difference between abiraterone and enzalutamide (P=0.21, I 2 = 38%). Conclusions Compared with placebo, both abiraterone and enzalutamide significantly prolonged OS, rPFS, and TTPP in patients with mCRPC. There was no difference in safety between abiraterone and enzalutamide. In addition, enzalutamide had better efficacy than abiraterone with regard to improving rPFS and TTPP but not OS, but the level of evidence was low. Therefore, a large direct comparison trial is needed to compare the efficacy of the two drugs. Systematic Review Registration PROSPERO, identifier (CRD42021226808)

oncology
Docetaxel Chemotherapy Plus Androgen-Deprivation Therapy in High-Volume Disease Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer in Chinese Patients: an Efficacy and Safety Analysis

Guo Zhuifeng,Lu Xuwei,Yang Fan,Qin Liang,Yang Ning,Wu Jiawen,Wang Hang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-022-00773-1

IF: 4.981

2022-01-01

European Journal of Medical Research

Abstract:Abstract Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of docetaxel chemotherapy combined with androgen-deprivation therapy for patients with high-volume disease metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Methods 153 cases of high-volume disease metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in Minhang Hospital between January 2018 and December 2019 were analyzed retrospectively, including the number of patients, age, initial PSA level, Gleason score, TNM stage and ECOG score. 90 patients in the endocrine therapy group received continuous ADT, and 63 patients in the combined chemotherapy group received docetaxel plus ADT. The progression-free survival time (time from initiation of prostate cancer treatment to progression to CRPC), PSA response rate, and adverse reactions were compared between the two groups. Results All 153 cases were closely followed up for a period of 12.3–35.3 months, with a median follow-up time of 23.5 months. The median time to reach the lowest point of PSA in the two groups was 6.3 months and 7.9 months (P = 0.018) in the combination chemotherapy group and the ADT group alone, with 27 (42.9%) and 12 (13.3%) cases in the two groups Within 12 months of treatment, PSA decreased to below 0.2 ng/ml (P = 0.02), and progression-free survival was 16.9 months (6.5–28.5 months) and 11.2 months (4.3–22.7 months) in the two groups. (P < 0.001). There were 18 cases (28.6%) and 54 cases (60%) in the two groups with disease progression (P < 0.001). There were 6 cases (9.5%) and 15 cases (16.7%) in the combination chemotherapy group and the ADT group died of prostate cancer and related complications, respectively. All 63 cases in the combined chemotherapy group completed 6 cycles of chemotherapy. 39 (61.9%) cases experienced varying degrees of neutropenia, of which 12 (19%) experienced grade 3–4 neutropenia, with 6 cases (9.5%) developed febrile neutropenia. 30 cases (47.6%) had toxic reactions in the digestive system, and 3 case (4.3%) had grade 3 liver dysfunction. 27 cases (42.8%) had skin and mucosal toxicity. 9 cases (14.3%) had mild fluid retention. No blood and digestive toxicity were observed in the ADT group. 33 cases (52.4%) and 48 (53.3%) of the two groups had symptoms of afternoon hot flashes and fatigue, (P = 0.961). Conclusion Docetaxel chemotherapy combined with endocrine therapy could be one of effective treatments for delaying castration resistance of HVD-mHSPC, which could prolong PFS effectively and obtain a higher PSA response rate, high safety under close monitoring, and controllable adverse reactions.
Cardiovascular Safety of Degarelix Versus Leuprolide for Advanced Prostate Cancer

Chiara Melloni,Susan F. Slovin,Allan Blemings,Shaun G. Goodman,Christopher P. Evans,Jan Nilsson,Deepak L. Bhatt,Konstantin Zubovskiy,Tine K. Olesen,Klaus Dugi,Noel W. Clarke,Celestia S. Higano,Matthew T. Roe,PRONOUNCE Investigators

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccao.2020.01.004

2020-03-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVES: This study will compare the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) among men with advanced prostate cancer who are being treated with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist versus a GnRH agonist.BACKGROUND: Treatment of advanced prostate cancer with ADT might increase the risk of subsequent cardiovascular events among men with known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but a recent meta-analysis suggested that this risk might be lower with ADT using a GnRH antagonist versus a GnRH agonist.METHODS: PRONOUNCE is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open, blinded endpoint trial that will enroll approximately 900 patients with advanced prostate cancer and pre-existing ASCVD who will be treated with ADT. Participants will be randomized to receive the GnRH antagonist degarelix or the GnRH agonist leuprolide as ADT for 12 months. The primary endpoint is time from randomization to first confirmed, adjudicated occurrence of a MACE, which is defined as a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke through 12 months of ADT treatment. Baseline cardiovascular biomarkers (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, high-sensitivity troponin T, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide), as well as serial inflammatory and immune biomarkers, will be evaluated in exploratory analyses.RESULTS: As of October 1, 2019, a total of 364 patients have been enrolled. The mean age is 74 years, 90% are white, 80% have hypertension or dyslipidemia, 30% diabetes mellitus, 40% have had a previous myocardial infarction, and 65% have had previous revascularization. Regarding prostate cancer features at randomization, 48% of the patients had localized disease, 23% had locally advanced disease, and 18% had metastatic disease.CONCLUSIONS: PRONOUNCE is the first prospective cardiovascular outcomes trial in advanced prostate cancer that will delineate whether the risk of subsequent cardiovascular events associated with ADT is lower with a GnRH antagonist versus a GnRH agonist for men with pre-existing ASCVD. (A Trial Comparing Cardiovascular Safety of Degarelix Versus Leuprolide in Patients With Advanced Prostate Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease [PRONOUNCE]; NCT02663908).

oncology,cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Evaluation of the efficiency of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy in patients with metastatic prostate carcinoma: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

Gang Liu,Tang Tang,Xiao-Peng Liu,Zhong-Hua Zhou,Feng-Jiao Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000025612

2021-04-30

Abstract:Background: Metastatic prostate carcinoma has poor prognoses with a median survival period ranging from 2 to 5 years with existing therapeutic challenges. Currently, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy is permitted as a treatment method for metastatic prostate carcinoma patients. Therefore, it is crucial to comprehend the efficiency and safety of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy among this patient population. This study aims to analyse the efficacy of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy when used to treat metastatic prostate carcinoma patients. Methods: This research will perform a methodological search in the following electronic databases to find related randomized controlled trials: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang database, and Chinese BioMedical Literature. All the databases are searched from their inauguration till November 2020. Two independent authors will screen and select literature for review. The two authors will independently utilize the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to assess the bias risk in studies. This study also plans to conduct subgroup and sensitivity analyses to evaluate the robustness in the results. Statistical analyses will be conducted with the RevMan 5.3 software. Results: A high-quality synthesis of existing evidence related to peptide receptor radionuclide therapy in the treatment of metastatic prostate carcinoma will be presented in this study. Conclusion: Our findings will provide evidence to judge whether peptide receptor radionuclide treatment is efficient for metastatic prostate carcinoma patients. Ethics and dissemination: An ethics approval is not required because the data of the present study are primarily obtained from published studies.OSF registration number: December 1, 2020.osf.io/3psx7. (https://osf.io/3psx7/).
Evaluating first-line therapeutic strategies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a comprehensive network meta-analysis and systematic review

Duojie Zhang,Haimin Weng,Zhangji Zhu,Weilun Gong,Yinfeng Ma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1378993

IF: 4.7

2024-04-15

Frontiers in Oncology

Abstract:Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of first-line treatment options for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Methods: We systematically searched electronic databases, including PubMed and Web of Science, for studies published from their inception to April 3rd, 2023. Inclusion criteria were: 1) Completed Phase III or IV randomized controlled trials (RCTs) registered on ClinicalTrials.gov; 2) Patients with a confirmed diagnosis of mCRPC who had not previously received chemotherapy or novel endocrine therapies. We conducted a network meta-analysis using R software (version 3.4.0). Network graphs and risk of bias graphs were generated using Stata 14.0 and RevMan 5.4, respectively. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), and the secondary outcome was the incidence of severe adverse events (SAEs). Results: Seven RCTs encompassing 6,641 patients were included. The network meta-analysis revealed that both docetaxel+prednisone (DP) and cabazitaxel+prednisone (CP) significantly improved OS compared to abiraterone. Compared to placebo, DP showed comparable results to both cabazitaxel 20 mg/m ^2 +prednisone (C20P) and cabazitaxel 25 mg/m ^2 +prednisone (C25P) in terms of OS. For SAEs, both DP and C20P were superior to C25P, with no statistical difference between C20P and DP. The probability ranking plots indicated that C25P ranked highest for OS, while DP ranked highest for SAEs. Conclusions: Based on our network meta-analysis, we recommend cabazitaxel 20 mg/m ^2 +prednisone (C20P) as the primary choice for first-line management of mCRPC, followed by DP. Enzalutamide and abiraterone are suggested as subsequent options. Radium-223 may be considered for patients presenting with bone metastases. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023443943.

oncology
Docetaxel-based Therapy with and Without Antiangiogenic Agents As First-Line Chemotherapy for Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Nine Randomized Controlled Trials.

Naijun Lei,Zhengfang Song,Bing Lu,Zheng Tan,Jiao Pei,Wusong Liu,Ke Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2014.404

2014-01-01

Molecular and Clinical Oncology

Abstract:The aim of this study was to systematically assess the effectiveness and safety of the addition of antiangiogenic agents to docetaxel-based chemotherapy for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer. Computerized electronic databases, including Embase, PubMed and The Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the comparison between docetaxel-based therapy with and without antiangiogenic agents for the treatment of prostate cancer. The search time limit was from the building of the database until July 18, 2013. Following extracting information and conducting a methodological quality evaluation for study inclusion based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, RevMan 5.2 and Stata 12.0 software were used to perform a meta-analysis and the Jadad scale was used for evaluation of study quality. A total of 9 RCTs and 4,681 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The comparison between docetaxel-based therapy with and without antiangiogenic agents revealed no statistically significant differences regarding prostate-specific antigen response rate [risk ratio (RR)=0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.87-1.12, P=0.84], overall survival (OS) [hazard ratio (HR)=0.97, 95%CI: 0.91-1.05)] and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR=0.99, 95%CI: 0.83-1.18); however, the incidence of treatment-related mortality was higher in the docetaxel-based therapy with antiangiogenic agents group (RR=1.95, 95%CI: 1.23-3.11, P=0.005), whereas the incidence of thrombus formation was higher in the docetaxel-based therapy without antiangiogenic agents group (RR=0.57, 95%CI: 0.41-0.80, P=0.001). In conclusion, our findings indicated that docetaxel combined with antiangiogenic agents did not increase the OS or the PFS of the patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer, whereas it may increase the risk of treatment-related mortality. However, further RCTs with larger, high-quality patient samples are required to verify these findings.
[Chemotherapy Combined with Androgen-Deprivation Therapy in High-Volume Metastatic Hormone Sensitive Prostate Cancer: a Short-Term Efficacy and Safety Analysis].

P H Xu,Y J Shen,W J Xiao,G W Lin,X J Qin,Y Zhu,B Dai,D W Ye

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-5815.2019.06.005

2019-01-01

Abstract:Objective: To investigate the short-term efficacy and adverse events of chemotherapy combined with androgen-deprivation therapy in high-volume metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer. Methods: From March 2015 to August 2017, 55 patients with high-volume metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer were enrolled at Department of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center receiving chemotherapy combined with androgen-deprivation therapy. The age was 65(8) years (M(Q(R))) (range: 46 to 79 years). Patients were enrolled in the study for continuous androgen-deprivation therapy (medical or surgical castration), combined with docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) intravenous injection on the first day, repeated every 21 days (6 cycles). Endpoints included overall survival, progression-free survival of prostate cancer, prostate specific antigen (PSA) response rate, and adverse events. Results: The follow-up time was 21.2(11.7) months. The PSA value before chemotherapy was 144.9(415.3) μg/L. The days in patients undergoing androgen deprivation therapy before chemotherapy was 14(23) days. Four patients (7.3%) presented 0 in Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scoring system and 51 patients(92.7%) presented 1. Thirty-nine patients (70.9%) completed more than 6 cycles of combined chemotherapy, 17 patients (30.9%) showed PSA<0.2 μg/L at 6 months after treatment, and 14 patients (25.5%) showed PSA<0.2 μg/L at 12 months after treatment. Twenty-eight patients (50.9%) had grade 3 to 4 neutropenia and 1 patient (1.8%) developed infectious neutropenia and died. Nausea and vomit occurred in 16 patients (29.1%). Twelve patients (21.8%) underwent dose adjustment due to adverse events in blood system. Conclusions: The short-term effect was confirmed in high-volume metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer using chemotherapy combined androgen-deprivation therapy, and the long-term effect remains to be seen. Myelosuppression during chemotherapy requires close attention, and taking timely examination is recommended.

Efficacy, Safety, and Dose Comparison of Degarelix for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Efficacy and Safety of Degarelix in Patients with Prostate Cancer: Results from a Phase III Study in China

A systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular disease risk with degarelix and GnRH agonists in prostate cancer

Degarelix for Treating Advanced Hormone-Dependent Prostate Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

Comparative Cardiovascular Safety of Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone Antagonists and Agonists Among Patients Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Real-world Evidence Studies

AB085. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Phosphodiesterase Type 5 Inhibitors for the Treatment of Female Sexual Dysfunction

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

Efficacy and safety of 3-month dosing regimen of degarelix in Japanese subjects with prostate cancer: A phase III study

Efficacy and Safety of Serenoa repens Extract Among Patients with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in China: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Trial.

Real-world Cardiovascular Outcomes Associated With Degarelix vs Leuprolide for Prostate Cancer Treatment

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

Degarelix vs. leuprorelin for the treatment of prostate cancer in China: A cost-utility analysis

Evaluation on Safety and Efficacy of Finasteride in Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

Comparison of Systemic Treatments for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer After Docetaxel Failure: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Efficacy and Safety of Abiraterone Acetate and Enzalutamide for the Treatment of Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Docetaxel Chemotherapy Plus Androgen-Deprivation Therapy in High-Volume Disease Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer in Chinese Patients: an Efficacy and Safety Analysis

Cardiovascular Safety of Degarelix Versus Leuprolide for Advanced Prostate Cancer

Evaluation of the efficiency of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy in patients with metastatic prostate carcinoma: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

Evaluating first-line therapeutic strategies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a comprehensive network meta-analysis and systematic review

Docetaxel-based Therapy with and Without Antiangiogenic Agents As First-Line Chemotherapy for Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Nine Randomized Controlled Trials.

[Chemotherapy Combined with Androgen-Deprivation Therapy in High-Volume Metastatic Hormone Sensitive Prostate Cancer: a Short-Term Efficacy and Safety Analysis].