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.

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

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

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

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

Cardiovascular risk profiles of GnRH agonists and antagonists: real-world analysis from UK general practice

Adverse cardiovascular effect following gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist versus GnRH agonist for prostate cancer treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cardiovascular Safety of Degarelix Versus Leuprolide for Advanced Prostate Cancer

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

Cardiovascular Safety of Degarelix versus Leuprolide in Patients with Prostate Cancer: The Primary Results of the PRONOUNCE Randomized Trial

Cardiovascular Toxicity of Androgen Deprivation Therapy

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

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

Cardiovascular Risk Profile in Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with GnRH Agonists versus Antagonists: An Italian Real-World Analysis

Sex differences in the cardiovascular effects of GnRH analogues

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist associated with lower cardiovascular risk compared with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist in prostate cancer: A nationwide cohort and in vitro study

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

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

Cardiovascular and thromboembolic events in patients with localized prostate cancer receiving intensified neoadjuvant androgen deprivation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Impact of neoadjuvant relugolix on patient-reported sexual function and bother

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