No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Impact of Concomitant Prostate Cancer Medications on Efficacy and Safety of Relugolix vs Leuprolide in Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer
Abstract
Background:
To characterize the impact of concomitant prostate cancer treatments with the use of relugolix, the oral GnRH receptor antagonist, in advanced prostate cancer, a subgroup and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analyses of the HERO study was undertaken.
Patients and methods:
Overall, 934 patients were randomized 2:1 to receive relugolix 120 mg orally once daily or leuprolide injections every 12 weeks for 48 weeks. In the setting of rising PSA, patients could receive enzalutamide or docetaxel 2 months after study initiation. Assessments included sustained testosterone suppression to castrate levels (<50 ng/dL) through 48 weeks and safety parameters. Subgroups analyzed included patients with or without concomitant enzalutamide or docetaxel. A sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint was performed excluding patients who received concomitant therapies that may affect testosterone. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analyses of 20 participants in the relugolix treatment group assessed the net effect of enzalutamide on exposure to relugolix.
Results:
Overall, 125 patients (13.4%) took concomitant therapies that could impact testosterone levels. Enzalutamide (n = 23) was the most frequently used therapy in the relugolix (2.7%) and leuprolide groups (1.9%). Docetaxel (n = 13) was used by 1.3% and 1.6% of patients in the relugolix and leuprolide groups, respectively. All other relevant concomitant therapy were used in <1% of population. Sensitivity analysis showed concomitant therapy did not impact the testosterone levels. Castration rates were similar with and without concomitant use of enzalutamide or docetaxel. No clinically relevant differences in adverse events were observed between subgroups in either treatment group. No differences in relugolix Ctrough or testosterone concentrations were observed, suggesting that any induction or inhibition properties of enzalutamide on relugolix metabolism result in a neutral net effect on relugolix exposure and testosterone suppression.
Conclusion:
Treatment with relugolix was associated with similar efficacy and safety profiles with and without concomitant enzalutamide or docetaxel. Standard-of-care use of relugolix in combination with these agents is supported by these data.
... Therefore, further studies with a larger sample size are required for validation. The reliable safety profile of leuprorelin acetate microspheres has been previously reported (28)(29)(30)(31); fatigue, weight gain, hot flushes and sweating are the common adverse events recorded in patients with PCa who receive leuprorelin acetate microsphere treatment (28)(29)(30)(31). The present study also showed good tolerance of Boennuokang ® and Enantone ® leuprorelin acetate microspheres in patients with PCa, and the most common adverse events, including fatigue, weight gain and sweating, were consistent with previous studies (28,29), while hot flushes were not observed in this study, which may be explained as follows: It was a retrospective observational study and the adverse events may be underestimated. ...
... Therefore, further studies with a larger sample size are required for validation. The reliable safety profile of leuprorelin acetate microspheres has been previously reported (28)(29)(30)(31); fatigue, weight gain, hot flushes and sweating are the common adverse events recorded in patients with PCa who receive leuprorelin acetate microsphere treatment (28)(29)(30)(31). The present study also showed good tolerance of Boennuokang ® and Enantone ® leuprorelin acetate microspheres in patients with PCa, and the most common adverse events, including fatigue, weight gain and sweating, were consistent with previous studies (28,29), while hot flushes were not observed in this study, which may be explained as follows: It was a retrospective observational study and the adverse events may be underestimated. ...
... The HERO study demonstrated that relugolix suppresses testosterone in a manner superior to that of leuprolide in men with advanced prostate cancer [46]. In a subgroup and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis of the HERO study, George et al. demonstrated that treatment of patients with advanced prostate cancer with relugolix was associated with similar efficacy and safety outcomes with and without coadministration of enzalutamide [47]. Importantly, the results of this study suggest that any effects enzalutamide may have on relugolix metabolism do not have an overall impact on relugolix drug exposure or relugolix-mediated testosterone suppression [47]. ...
... In a subgroup and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis of the HERO study, George et al. demonstrated that treatment of patients with advanced prostate cancer with relugolix was associated with similar efficacy and safety outcomes with and without coadministration of enzalutamide [47]. Importantly, the results of this study suggest that any effects enzalutamide may have on relugolix metabolism do not have an overall impact on relugolix drug exposure or relugolix-mediated testosterone suppression [47]. Therefore, when enzalutamide is combined with relugolix, no dose adjustments are needed for either medication. ...
Enzalutamide is an oral androgen receptor signaling inhibitor utilized in the treatment of men with prostate cancer. It is a moderate inducer of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes CYP2C9 and CYP2C19, and a strong inducer of CYP3A4. It was also shown to be a mild inhibitor of the efflux transporter P-glycoprotein in patients with prostate cancer. Enzalutamide is primarily metabolized by CYP3A4 and CYP2C8. The risk of enzalutamide drug interactions arises primarily when it is coadministered with other drugs that interact with these CYPs, including CYP3A4. In this review, we begin by providing an overview of enzalutamide including its dosing, use in special populations, pharmacokinetics, changes to its prescribing information, and potential for interaction with coadministered drugs. Enzalutamide interactions with drugs from a wide range of medication classes commonly prescribed to patients with prostate cancer are described, including oral androgen deprivation therapy, agents used to treat a range of cardiovascular diseases, antidiabetic drugs, antidepressants, anti-seizure medications, common urology medications, analgesics, proton pump inhibitors, immunosuppressants, and antigout drugs. Enzalutamide interactions with common vitamins and supplements are also briefly discussed. This review provides a resource for healthcare practitioners and patients that will help provide a basis for the understanding and management of enzalutamide drug–drug interactions to inform decision making, improve patient safety, and optimize drug efficacy.
... She reminded the audience of the HERO study, showing that relugolix was non-inferior to leuprolide for sustained castration rate, 12 with a post hoc analysis revealing that castration rates with relugolix were similar irrespective of the concomitant use of enzalutamide or docetaxel. 47 Birtle also noted that the decision regarding which ARSi to use would depend on toxicity, efficacy, tolerability, drug-drug interactions, and reimbursement issues, while the CV risks would clearly need to be considered, as discussed previously. 12 In terms of new combinations of therapies, studies have shown no safety signals either for the combination of relugolix with enzalutamide or docetaxel, 47 or for relugolix with abiraterone or apalutamide. ...
Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been a cornerstone in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer (PCa) for many years, and continues to form the basis of current therapeutic approaches. However, a recent dramatic upsurge in the number of treatment options available in this area creates a responsibility for healthcare professionals to carefully select optimal drugs and combinations of drugs, to ensure the best outcomes and greatest quality of life for all patients. This requires a thorough understanding of clinical trial data, and an ability to apply this knowledge to everyday clinical practice. This article summarises presentations delivered during a symposium held on 29ᵗʰ November 2023 at the Global Congress on Prostate Cancer (PROSCA) 2023 in Málaga, Spain, where three distinguished speakers described and explored practical approaches to the use of ADT in complex clinical scenarios. Nazareno Suardi, Associate Professor of Urology at the University of Brescia, Italy, described approaches to manage ADT prescription when a patient presents with cardiovascular (CV) risk factors. Matthias Saar, Director and Chairman of the Department of Urology and Uro-oncology at the University Hospital Aachen, Germany, explored whether intermittent ADT remains an alternative in the new era of hormonal therapy. Alison Birtle, Consultant Clinical Oncologist at the Rosemere Cancer Centre, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Preston, UK, investigated the importance of drug choice in triplet or doublet therapy in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa (mHSPC). The meeting was chaired by Antoni Vilaseca, Senior Specialist in the Urology Service at the Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Spain, who introduced the symposium, and also co-ordinated a question and answer session to conclude the meeting.
Background:
The single-arm, open-label, multicenter, phase II Apa-RP study evaluates the biochemical recurrence (confirmed prostate-specific antigen [PSA] > 0.2 ng/mL)-free rate in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer (HR-LPC) after radical prostatectomy following adjuvant apalutamide and androgen-deprivation therapy. In this substudy, relugolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, was evaluated in combination with apalutamide.
Objective:
The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the approved standard maintenance dose of relugolix in combination with apalutamide sustains castrate testosterone levels (< 50 ng/dL).
Patients and methods:
Twelve patients with HR-LPC who met all the main study criteria were included in the substudy. Patients received relugolix monotherapy for 2 weeks (loading dose [360 mg] at Day - 14 then 120 mg/day daily until Day - 1), then daily relugolix (120 mg) with apalutamide (240 mg) from Day 1 to Day 28. Endpoints were rate of maintained castration (testosterone < 50 ng/dL) through Day 28 (primary) and safety (secondary).
Results:
All 12 patients received relugolix and apalutamide and achieved castrate testosterone levels after 2-week relugolix monotherapy (median testosterone 348.5 ng/dL and 8.7 ng/dL at Days - 14 and - 1). All 11 patients who had testosterone measured at Day 28 maintained castrate testosterone (median 10.0 ng/dL) without relugolix dose adjustment. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in nine patients during relugolix monotherapy and in eight patients during relugolix + apalutamide coadministration. Hot flush was the most common TEAE reported, in six and four patients, respectively.
Conclusions:
Relugolix administered at approved standard doses concurrently with apalutamide was effective in maintaining castrate testosterone levels in HR-LPC without new safety signals.
Trial registration number and date:
NCT04523207, 21 August 2020.
Background
External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with neoadjuvant/adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is an established treatment option to prolong survival for patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Relugolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist, was evaluated in this clinical setting in comparison with degarelix, an injectable GnRH antagonist.
Objective
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of relugolix to achieve and maintain castration.
Design, setting, and participants
A phase 2 open-label study was conducted in 103 intermediate-risk PCa patients undergoing primary EBRT and neoadjuvant/adjuvant ADT between June 2014 and December 2015.
Intervention
Patients randomly assigned (3:2) to 24-wk treatment with either daily oral relugolix or 4-wk subcutaneous depot degarelix (reference control).
Outcome measurements and statistical analysis
The primary endpoint was the rate of effective castration (testosterone <1.73 nmol/l) in relugolix patients between 4 and 24 wk of treatment. Secondary endpoints included rate of profound castration (testosterone <0.7 nmol/l), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, prostate volume, quality of life (QoL) assessed using the Aging Males’ Symptoms scale, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life (30-item EORTC core questionnaire [EORTC QLQ-C30] and 25-item EORTC prostate cancer module [EORTC QLQ-PR25]) questionnaires, and safety. No formal statistical comparisons with degarelix were planned.
Results and limitations
Castration rates during treatment were 95% and 82% with relugolix and 89% and 68% with degarelix for 1.73 and 0.7 nmol/l thresholds, respectively. Median time to castration in the relugolix arm was 4 d. During treatment, PSA levels and prostate volumes were reduced in both groups. Three months after discontinuing treatment, 52% of men on relugolix and 16% on degarelix experienced testosterone recovery (statistical significance of differences not tested). Mean and median QoL scores improved following treatment discontinuation. The most common adverse event was hot flush (relugolix 57%; degarelix 61%). Lack of blinding was a potential limitation.
Conclusions
Relugolix achieved testosterone suppression to castrate levels within days and maintained it over 24 wk with a safety profile consistent with its mechanism of action.
Patient summary
Oral once-daily relugolix may be a novel oral alternative to injectable androgen deprivation therapies.
This open‐label, phase I dose‐finding study evaluated the gonadotropin‐releasing hormone antagonist, TAK‐385, in Japanese patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer. In a two‐part design, patients received daily oral TAK‐385 at doses of 320 (loading, day 1)/80 (maintenance, day 2 and thereafter), 320/120, 320/160, or 360/120 mg for 28 days in a dose‐escalation phase (part A, n = 13), and at 320/80 or 320/120 mg for up to 96 weeks in a randomized expansion phase (part B, n = 30). Primary endpoint in both parts was safety, including dose‐limiting toxicity in part A. Secondary endpoints included pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and prostate‐specific antigen concentration. Ten (77%) patients in part A and all patients in part B experienced an adverse event; hot flush (part A, n = 4; part B, n = 15), viral upper respiratory tract infection (part A, n = 1; part B, n = 10), and diarrhea (part B, n = 8) were most frequent. No dose‐limiting toxicities were observed (part A). In 12 evaluable patients (part A), TAK‐385 was rapidly absorbed after a single loading dose; on day 28 (maintenance dose), median steady‐state Tmax was ~1‐2 hours and mean t1/2z was 67‐79 hours. All doses rapidly reduced testosterone concentrations to castration levels within 1 week. Durable reductions in prostate‐specific antigen of >90% from baseline were observed through 96 weeks. TAK‐385 appeared tolerable and resulted in sustained reductions in testosterone to castration levels at all doses. The lowest loading/maintenance dose required for a clinical effect was 320/80 mg.
ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02141659.
Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been the standard of care for the last 75 years in metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (PCa). However, this approach is rarely curative. Recent clinical trials have demonstrated that ADT combined with other agents, notably docetaxel and abiraterone, lead to improved survival. The mechanisms surrounding this improved cancer outcomes are incompletely defined. The response of cancer cells to ADT includes apoptosis and cell death, but a significant fraction remains viable. Our laboratory has demonstrated both in vitro and in vivo that cellular senescence occurs in a subset of these cells. Cellular senescence is a phenotype characterized by cell cycle arrest, senescence-associated β-galactosidase (SA-β-gal), and a hypermetabolic state. Positive features of cellular senescence include growth arrest and immune stimulation, although persistence may release cytokines and growth factors that are detrimental. Senescent tumor cells generate a catabolic state with increased glycolysis, protein turnover and other metabolic changes that represent targets for drugs, like metformin, to be applied in a synthetic lethal approach. This review examines the response to ADT and the putative role of cellular senescence as a biomarker and therapeutic target in this context.
Axel S Merseburger,1 Antonio Alcaraz,2 Christoph A von Klot3 1Department of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Germany; 2Department of Urology, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain; 3Department of Urology and Urologic Oncology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany Abstract: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is well established as a backbone therapy for metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa), and both European and American guidelines emphasize the importance of maintaining ADT after progression to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). However, the use of ADT varies widely in clinical practice despite these recommendations. Both research and development of increasingly precise assay technologies have improved our understanding of androgen production and signaling, and the recent data have suggested that a new serum testosterone cutoff value of <0.7 nmol/L should be employed. Most clinical trials to date have used the historical 1.7 nmol/L cutoff, but the <0.7 nmol/L cutoff has been associated with improved patient outcomes. Combining agents with different mechanisms of action to achieve intense androgen blockade may improve survival both before and after progression to CRPC. Data suggest that this intensive approach to androgen deprivation could delay the transition to CPRC and hence improve survival dramatically. Various combinations of backbone ADT with chemotherapy or radiotherapy are under investigation. Administration of ADT is established in patients with intermediate or high-risk localized prostate cancer (PCa) receiving radiotherapy with curative intent. This article reviews the current and potential role of ADT as backbone therapy in both hormone-sensitive PCa and CRPC with a focus on mPCa. Keywords: prostate cancer, androgen deprivation therapy, ADT, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, treatment guidelines
Background:
Long-term hormone therapy has been the standard of care for advanced prostate cancer since the 1940s. STAMPEDE is a randomised controlled trial using a multiarm, multistage platform design. It recruits men with high-risk, locally advanced, metastatic or recurrent prostate cancer who are starting first-line long-term hormone therapy. We report primary survival results for three research comparisons testing the addition of zoledronic acid, docetaxel, or their combination to standard of care versus standard of care alone.
Methods:
Standard of care was hormone therapy for at least 2 years; radiotherapy was encouraged for men with N0M0 disease to November, 2011, then mandated; radiotherapy was optional for men with node-positive non-metastatic (N+M0) disease. Stratified randomisation (via minimisation) allocated men 2:1:1:1 to standard of care only (SOC-only; control), standard of care plus zoledronic acid (SOC + ZA), standard of care plus docetaxel (SOC + Doc), or standard of care with both zoledronic acid and docetaxel (SOC + ZA + Doc). Zoledronic acid (4 mg) was given for six 3-weekly cycles, then 4-weekly until 2 years, and docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) for six 3-weekly cycles with prednisolone 10 mg daily. There was no blinding to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Pairwise comparisons of research versus control had 90% power at 2·5% one-sided α for hazard ratio (HR) 0·75, requiring roughly 400 control arm deaths. Statistical analyses were undertaken with standard log-rank-type methods for time-to-event data, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs derived from adjusted Cox models. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ControlledTrials.com (ISRCTN78818544).
Findings:
2962 men were randomly assigned to four groups between Oct 5, 2005, and March 31, 2013. Median age was 65 years (IQR 60-71). 1817 (61%) men had M+ disease, 448 (15%) had N+/X M0, and 697 (24%) had N0M0. 165 (6%) men were previously treated with local therapy, and median prostate-specific antigen was 65 ng/mL (IQR 23-184). Median follow-up was 43 months (IQR 30-60). There were 415 deaths in the control group (347 [84%] prostate cancer). Median overall survival was 71 months (IQR 32 to not reached) for SOC-only, not reached (32 to not reached) for SOC + ZA (HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·79-1·11; p=0·450), 81 months (41 to not reached) for SOC + Doc (0·78, 0·66-0·93; p=0·006), and 76 months (39 to not reached) for SOC + ZA + Doc (0·82, 0·69-0·97; p=0·022). There was no evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effect (for any of the treatments) across prespecified subsets. Grade 3-5 adverse events were reported for 399 (32%) patients receiving SOC, 197 (32%) receiving SOC + ZA, 288 (52%) receiving SOC + Doc, and 269 (52%) receiving SOC + ZA + Doc.
Interpretation:
Zoledronic acid showed no evidence of survival improvement and should not be part of standard of care for this population. Docetaxel chemotherapy, given at the time of long-term hormone therapy initiation, showed evidence of improved survival accompanied by an increase in adverse events. Docetaxel treatment should become part of standard of care for adequately fit men commencing long-term hormone therapy.
Funding:
Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer, Janssen, Astellas, NIHR Clinical Research Network, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research.
Background:
Results from large randomised controlled trials combining docetaxel or bisphosphonates with standard of care in hormone-sensitive prostate cancer have emerged. In order to investigate the effects of these therapies and to respond to emerging evidence, we aimed to systematically review all relevant trials using a framework for adaptive meta-analysis.
Methods:
For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, conference proceedings, review articles, and reference lists of trial publications for all relevant randomised controlled trials (published, unpublished, and ongoing) comparing either standard of care with or without docetaxel or standard of care with or without bisphosphonates for men with high-risk localised or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For each trial, we extracted hazard ratios (HRs) of the effects of docetaxel or bisphosphonates on survival (time from randomisation until death from any cause) and failure-free survival (time from randomisation to biochemical or clinical failure or death from any cause) from published trial reports or presentations or obtained them directly from trial investigators. HRs were combined using the fixed-effect model (Mantel-Haenzsel).
Findings:
We identified five eligible randomised controlled trials of docetaxel in men with metastatic (M1) disease. Results from three (CHAARTED, GETUG-15, STAMPEDE) of these trials (2992 [93%] of 3206 men randomised) showed that the addition of docetaxel to standard of care improved survival. The HR of 0·77 (95% CI 0·68-0·87; p<0·0001) translates to an absolute improvement in 4-year survival of 9% (95% CI 5-14). Docetaxel in addition to standard of care also improved failure-free survival, with the HR of 0·64 (0·58-0·70; p<0·0001) translating into a reduction in absolute 4-year failure rates of 16% (95% CI 12-19). We identified 11 trials of docetaxel for men with locally advanced disease (M0). Survival results from three (GETUG-12, RTOG 0521, STAMPEDE) of these trials (2121 [53%] of 3978 men) showed no evidence of a benefit from the addition of docetaxel (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·69-1·09]; p=0·218), whereas failure-free survival data from four (GETUG-12, RTOG 0521, STAMPEDE, TAX 3501) of these trials (2348 [59%] of 3978 men) showed that docetaxel improved failure-free survival (0·70 [0·61-0·81]; p<0·0001), which translates into a reduced absolute 4-year failure rate of 8% (5-10). We identified seven eligible randomised controlled trials of bisphosphonates for men with M1 disease. Survival results from three of these trials (2740 [88%] of 3109 men) showed that addition of bisphosphonates improved survival (0·88 [0·79-0·98]; p=0·025), which translates to 5% (1-8) absolute improvement, but this result was influenced by the positive result of one trial of sodium clodronate, and we found no evidence of a benefit from the addition of zoledronic acid (0·94 [0·83-1·07]; p=0·323), which translates to an absolute improvement in survival of 2% (-3 to 7). Of 17 trials of bisphosphonates for men with M0 disease, survival results from four trials (4079 [66%] of 6220 men) showed no evidence of benefit from the addition of bisphosphonates (1·03 [0·89-1·18]; p=0·724) or zoledronic acid (0·98 [0·82-1·16]; p=0·782). Failure-free survival definitions were too inconsistent for formal meta-analyses for the bisphosphonate trials.
Interpretation:
The addition of docetaxel to standard of care should be considered standard care for men with M1 hormone-sensitive prostate cancer who are starting treatment for the first time. More evidence on the effects of docetaxel on survival is needed in the M0 disease setting. No evidence exists to suggest that zoledronic acid improves survival in men with M1 or M0 disease, and any potential benefit is probably small.
Funding:
Medical Research Council UK.
Background:
Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) has been the backbone of treatment for metastatic prostate cancer since the 1940s. We assessed whether concomitant treatment with ADT plus docetaxel would result in longer overall survival than that with ADT alone.
Methods:
We assigned men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer to receive either ADT plus docetaxel (at a dose of 75 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks for six cycles) or ADT alone. The primary objective was to test the hypothesis that the median overall survival would be 33.3% longer among patients receiving docetaxel added to ADT early during therapy than among patients receiving ADT alone.
Results:
A total of 790 patients (median age, 63 years) underwent randomization. After a median follow-up of 28.9 months, the median overall survival was 13.6 months longer with ADT plus docetaxel (combination therapy) than with ADT alone (57.6 months vs. 44.0 months; hazard ratio for death in the combination group, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.80; P<0.001). The median time to biochemical, symptomatic, or radiographic progression was 20.2 months in the combination group, as compared with 11.7 months in the ADT-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.72; P<0.001). The rate of a prostate-specific antigen level of less than 0.2 ng per milliliter at 12 months was 27.7% in the combination group versus 16.8% in the ADT-alone group (P<0.001). In the combination group, the rate of grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia was 6.2%, the rate of grade 3 or 4 infection with neutropenia was 2.3%, and the rate of grade 3 sensory neuropathy and of grade 3 motor neuropathy was 0.5%.
Conclusions:
Six cycles of docetaxel at the beginning of ADT for metastatic prostate cancer resulted in significantly longer overall survival than that with ADT alone. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00309985.).
Recently, the standard of care for metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC) has changed considerably. Persistent androgen receptor (AR) signaling has been identified as a target for novel therapies and reengages the fact that AR continues to be the primary target responsible for metastatic prostate cancer. Androgen receptor gene amplification and over expression have been found to result in a higher concentration of androgen receptors on tumor cells, making them extremely sensitive to low levels of circulating androgens. Additionally, prostate cancer cells are able to maintain dihydrotestosterone (DHT) concentration in excess of serum concentrations to support tumor growth. For many years ketoconazole was the only CYP17 inhibitor that was used to treat mCRPC. However, significant toxicities limit its use. Newly approved chemotherapeutic agents such as Abiraterone (an oral selective inhibitor of CYP17A), which blocks androgen biosynthesis both within and outside the prostate cancer cells), and enzalutamide (blocks AR signaling) have improved overall survival. There are also ongoing phase III trials for Orteronel (TAK- 700), ARN- 509 and Galeterone (TOK-001), which targets androgen signaling. In this review, we will present the rationale for the newly approved hormonal treatments, their indications and complications, and we will discuss ongoing trials that are being done to improve the efficacy of the approved agents. Finally, we will talk about the potential upcoming hormonal treatments for mCRPC.
Background:
Enzalutamide is an oral androgen-receptor inhibitor that prolongs survival in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in whom the disease has progressed after chemotherapy. New treatment options are needed for patients with metastatic prostate cancer who have not received chemotherapy, in whom the disease has progressed despite androgen-deprivation therapy.
Methods:
In this double-blind, phase 3 study, we randomly assigned 1717 patients to receive either enzalutamide (at a dose of 160 mg) or placebo once daily. The coprimary end points were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival.
Results:
The study was stopped after a planned interim analysis, conducted when 540 deaths had been reported, showed a benefit of the active treatment. The rate of radiographic progression-free survival at 12 months was 65% among patients treated with enzalutamide, as compared with 14% among patients receiving placebo (81% risk reduction; hazard ratio in the enzalutamide group, 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15 to 0.23; P<0.001). A total of 626 patients (72%) in the enzalutamide group, as compared with 532 patients (63%) in the placebo group, were alive at the data-cutoff date (29% reduction in the risk of death; hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.84; P<0.001). The benefit of enzalutamide was shown with respect to all secondary end points, including the time until the initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.35), the time until the first skeletal-related event (hazard ratio, 0.72), a complete or partial soft-tissue response (59% vs. 5%), the time until prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (hazard ratio, 0.17), and a rate of decline of at least 50% in PSA (78% vs. 3%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). Fatigue and hypertension were the most common clinically relevant adverse events associated with enzalutamide treatment.
Conclusions:
Enzalutamide significantly decreased the risk of radiographic progression and death and delayed the initiation of chemotherapy in men with metastatic prostate cancer. (Funded by Medivation and Astellas Pharma; PREVAIL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01212991.).
Background
Preliminary trial results showed that enzalutamide significantly improved metastasis-free survival among men who had nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and rapidly increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels while taking androgen-deprivation therapy. Results from the final analysis of overall survival have not yet been reported.
Methods
In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (defined on the basis of conventional imaging and a PSA doubling time of ≤10 months) who were continuing to receive androgen-deprivation therapy were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) to receive enzalutamide at a dose of 160 mg or placebo once daily. Overall survival was assessed with a group sequential testing procedure and an O’Brien–Fleming–type alpha-spending function.
Results
As of October 15, 2019, a total of 288 of 933 patients (31%) in the enzalutamide group and 178 of 468 (38%) in the placebo group had died. Median overall survival was 67.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.0 to not reached) in the enzalutamide group and 56.3 months (95% CI, 54.4 to 63.0) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.89; P=0.001). The exposure-adjusted rate of adverse events of grade 3 or higher was 17 per 100 patient-years in the enzalutamide group and 20 per 100 patient-years in the placebo group. Adverse events in the enzalutamide group were consistent with those previously reported for enzalutamide; the most frequently reported events were fatigue and musculoskeletal events.
Conclusions
Enzalutamide plus androgen-deprivation therapy resulted in longer median overall survival than placebo plus androgen-deprivation therapy among men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a rapidly rising PSA level. The risk of death associated with enzalutamide was 27% lower than with placebo. Adverse events were consistent with the established safety profile of enzalutamide. (Funded by Pfizer and Astellas Pharma; PROSPER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02003924.)
Background
Injectable luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone agonists (e.g., leuprolide) are the standard agents for achieving androgen deprivation for prostate cancer despite the initial testosterone surge and delay in therapeutic effect. The efficacy and safety of relugolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, as compared with those of leuprolide are not known.
Methods
In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with advanced prostate cancer, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive relugolix (120 mg orally once daily) or leuprolide (injections every 3 months) for 48 weeks. The primary end point was sustained testosterone suppression to castrate levels (<50 ng per deciliter) through 48 weeks. Secondary end points included noninferiority with respect to the primary end point, castrate levels of testosterone on day 4, and profound castrate levels (<20 ng per deciliter) on day 15. Testosterone recovery was evaluated in a subgroup of patients.
Results
A total of 622 patients received relugolix and 308 received leuprolide. Of men who received relugolix, 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94.9 to 97.9) maintained castration through 48 weeks, as compared with 88.8% (95% CI, 84.6 to 91.8) of men receiving leuprolide. The difference of 7.9 percentage points (95% CI, 4.1 to 11.8) showed noninferiority and superiority of relugolix (P<0.001 for superiority). All other key secondary end points showed superiority of relugolix over leuprolide (P<0.001). The percentage of patients with castrate levels of testosterone on day 4 was 56.0% with relugolix and 0% with leuprolide. In the subgroup of 184 patients followed for testosterone recovery, the mean testosterone levels 90 days after treatment discontinuation were 288.4 ng per deciliter in the relugolix group and 58.6 ng per deciliter in the leuprolide group. Among all the patients, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was 2.9% in the relugolix group and 6.2% in the leuprolide group (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.88).
Conclusions
In this trial involving men with advanced prostate cancer, relugolix achieved rapid, sustained suppression of testosterone levels that was superior to that with leuprolide, with a 54% lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. (Funded by Myovant Sciences; HERO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03085095.)
Background
Men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a rapidly rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level are at high risk for metastasis. We hypothesized that enzalutamide, which prolongs overall survival among patients with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer, would delay metastasis in men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a rapidly rising PSA level.
Methods
In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a PSA doubling time of 10 months or less who were continuing androgen-deprivation therapy to receive enzalutamide (at a dose of 160 mg) or placebo once daily. The primary end point was metastasis-free survival (defined as the time from randomization to radiographic progression or as the time to death without radiographic progression).
Results
A total of 1401 patients (median PSA doubling time, 3.7 months) underwent randomization. As of June 28, 2017, a total of 219 of 933 patients (23%) in the enzalutamide group had metastasis or had died, as compared with 228 of 468 (49%) in the placebo group. The median metastasis-free survival was 36.6 months in the enzalutamide group versus 14.7 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for metastasis or death, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.24 to 0.35; P<0.001). The time to the first use of a subsequent antineoplastic therapy was longer with enzalutamide treatment than with placebo (39.6 vs. 17.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.21; P<0.001; such therapy was used in 15% vs. 48% of patients) as was the time to PSA progression (37.2 vs. 3.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.07; P<0.001; progression occurred in 22% vs. 69% of patients). At the first interim analysis of overall survival, 103 patients (11%) receiving enzalutamide and 62 (13%) receiving placebo had died. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 31% of the patients receiving enzalutamide, as compared with 23% of those receiving placebo.
Conclusions
Among men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer with a rapidly rising PSA level, enzalutamide treatment led to a clinically meaningful and significant 71% lower risk of metastasis or death than placebo. Adverse events were consistent with the established safety profile of enzalutamide. (Funded by Pfizer and Astellas Pharma; PROSPER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02003924.)
BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone improves survival in men with relapsed prostate cancer. We assessed the effect of this combination in men starting long-term androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), using a multigroup, multistage trial design. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive ADT alone or ADT plus abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily) and prednisolone (5 mg daily) (combination therapy). Local radiotherapy was mandated for patients with node-negative, nonmetastatic disease and encouraged for those with positive nodes. For patients with nonmetastatic disease with no radiotherapy planned and for patients with metastatic disease, treatment continued until radiologic, clinical, or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression; otherwise, treatment was to continue for 2 years or until any type of progression, whichever came first. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. The intermediate primary outcome was failure-free survival (treatment failure was defined as radiologic, clinical, or PSA progression or death from prostate cancer). RESULTS: A total of 1917 patients underwent randomization from November 2011 through January 2014. The median age was 67 years, and the median PSA level was 53 ng per milliliter. A total of 52% of the patients had metastatic disease, 20% had node-positive or node-indeterminate nonmetastatic disease, and 28% had node-negative, nonmetastatic disease; 95% had newly diagnosed disease. The median follow-up was 40 months. There were 184 deaths in the combination group as compared with 262 in the ADT-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.76; P<0.001); the hazard ratio was 0.75 in patients with nonmetastatic disease and 0.61 in those with metastatic disease. There were 248 treatment-failure events in the combination group as compared with 535 in the ADT-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.34; P<0.001); the hazard ratio was 0.21 in patients with nonmetastatic disease and 0.31 in those with metastatic disease. Grade 3 to 5 adverse events occurred in 47% of the patients in the combination group (with nine grade 5 events) and in 33% of the patients in the ADT-alone group (with three grade 5 events). CONCLUSIONS: Among men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer, ADT plus abiraterone and prednisolone was associated with significantly higher rates of overall and failure-free survival than ADT alone.
Background
Abiraterone acetate, a drug that blocks endogenous androgen synthesis, plus prednisone is indicated for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We evaluated the clinical benefit of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone with androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed, metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer.
Methods
In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 1199 patients to receive either androgen-deprivation therapy plus abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily, given once daily as four 250-mg tablets) plus prednisone (5 mg daily) (the abiraterone group) or androgen-deprivation therapy plus dual placebos (the placebo group). The two primary end points were overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival.
Results
After a median follow-up of 30.4 months at a planned interim analysis (after 406 patients had died), the median overall survival was significantly longer in the abiraterone group than in the placebo group (not reached vs. 34.7 months) (hazard ratio for death, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.76; P<0.001). The median length of radiographic progression-free survival was 33.0 months in the abiraterone group and 14.8 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.55; P<0.001). Significantly better outcomes in all secondary end points were observed in the abiraterone group, including the time until pain progression, next subsequent therapy for prostate cancer, initiation of chemotherapy, and prostate-specific antigen progression (P<0.001 for all comparisons), along with next symptomatic skeletal events (P=0.009). These findings led to the unanimous recommendation by the independent data and safety monitoring committee that the trial be unblinded and crossover be allowed for patients in the placebo group to receive abiraterone. Rates of grade 3 hypertension and hypokalemia were higher in the abiraterone group.
Conclusions
The addition of abiraterone acetate and prednisone to androgen-deprivation therapy significantly increased overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival in men with newly diagnosed, metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; LATITUDE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01715285.)
Background
Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone improves survival in men with relapsed prostate cancer. We assessed the effect of this combination in men starting long-term androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), using a multigroup, multistage trial design.
Methods
We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive ADT alone or ADT plus abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily) and prednisolone (5 mg daily) (combination therapy). Local radiotherapy was mandated for patients with node-negative, nonmetastatic disease and encouraged for those with positive nodes. For patients with nonmetastatic disease with no radiotherapy planned and for patients with metastatic disease, treatment continued until radiologic, clinical, or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression; otherwise, treatment was to continue for 2 years or until any type of progression, whichever came first. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. The intermediate primary outcome was failure-free survival (treatment failure was defined as radiologic, clinical, or PSA progression or death from prostate cancer).
Results
A total of 1917 patients underwent randomization from November 2011 through January 2014. The median age was 67 years, and the median PSA level was 53 ng per milliliter. A total of 52% of the patients had metastatic disease, 20% had node-positive or node-indeterminate nonmetastatic disease, and 28% had node-negative, nonmetastatic disease; 95% had newly diagnosed disease. The median follow-up was 40 months. There were 184 deaths in the combination group as compared with 262 in the ADT-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.76; P<0.001); the hazard ratio was 0.75 in patients with nonmetastatic disease and 0.61 in those with metastatic disease. There were 248 treatment-failure events in the combination group as compared with 535 in the ADT-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.34; P<0.001); the hazard ratio was 0.21 in patients with nonmetastatic disease and 0.31 in those with metastatic disease. Grade 3 to 5 adverse events occurred in 47% of the patients in the combination group (with nine grade 5 events) and in 33% of the patients in the ADT-alone group (with three grade 5 events).
Conclusions
Among men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer, ADT plus abiraterone and prednisolone was associated with significantly higher rates of overall and failure-free survival than ADT alone. (Funded by Cancer Research U.K. and others; STAMPEDE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00268476, and Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN78818544.)
200 Background: Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists achieve rapid decrease in testosterone (T) without transient T surge seen with GnRH agonists and thus may avoid clinical flare symptomatology. TAK-385 is an investigational, oral, non-peptide GnRH antagonist highly selective for the human GnRH receptor (IC50 0.12 nM). We report IA2 results from a phase 2, randomized, open label, parallel group study of TAK-385 in pts with advanced prostate cancer (NCT02083185). Methods: Pts aged ≥ 18 yrs with histologically confirmed prostate cancer, baseline T > 150 ng/dL and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) > 2 ng/mL, who were candidates for first-line androgen deprivation therapy, were randomized to receive oral TAK-385, 80 or 120 mg, once daily (QD) or leuprorelin (LEU) 22.5 mg subcutaneously every 12 wks, for 48 wks. The primary endpoint was effective castration rate of TAK-385 (T < 50 ng/dL) from wk 5–24. Secondary endpoints included: safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and PSA. Results: At data cut-off, 75...
Purpose:
Evolving treatments, disease phenotypes, and biology, together with a changing drug development environment, have created the need to revise castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) clinical trial recommendations to succeed those from prior Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Groups.
Methods:
An international expert committee of prostate cancer clinical investigators (the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 [PCWG3]) was reconvened and expanded and met in 2012-2015 to formulate updated criteria on the basis of emerging trial data and validation studies of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 2 recommendations.
Results:
PCWG3 recommends that baseline patient assessment include tumor histology, detailed records of prior systemic treatments and responses, and a detailed reporting of disease subtypes based on an anatomic pattern of metastatic spread. New recommendations for trial outcome measures include the time to event end point of symptomatic skeletal events, as well as time to first metastasis and time to progression for trials in the nonmetastatic CRPC state. PCWG3 introduces the concept of no longer clinically benefiting to underscore the distinction between first evidence of progression and the clinical need to terminate or change treatment, and the importance of documenting progression in existing lesions as distinct from the development of new lesions. Serial biologic profiling using tumor samples from biopsies, blood-based diagnostics, and/or imaging is also recommended to gain insight into mechanisms of resistance and to identify predictive biomarkers of sensitivity for use in prospective trials.
Conclusion:
PCWG3 moves drug development closer to unmet needs in clinical practice by focusing on disease manifestations most likely to affect prognosis adversely for therapeutics tested in both nonmetastatic and metastatic CRPC populations. Consultation with regulatory authorities is recommended if a trial is intended to seek support for drug approval.
Context:
TAK-385 is a highly-selective, oral, non-peptide gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist being investigated as a possible prostate cancer treatment.
Objective:
Evaluate safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of TAK-385 on luteinizing hormone and testosterone.
Design, setting, and participants:
A three-part, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 dose-escalation study in 176 healthy male UK volunteers.
Interventions:
Part 1, single doses of TAK-385 (0 [placebo], 80, 120, 180, or 360 mg); Part 2, 14-day TAK-385 (40, 80, or 180 mg) daily; Part 3, 28-day TAK-385 or placebo (40 [with loading dose], 60, 80, or 160 mg) daily. Parts 2 and 3 included men aged 40-70 years.
Main outcome measures:
Plasma concentrations of TAK-385, luteinizing hormone, and testosterone.
Results:
Oral TAK-385 was readily absorbed, and steady-state was reached in ≤14 days. Food reduced TAK-385 systemic exposure by 47%-52%. Mean serum testosterone levels declined ≤6 hours after TAK-385 administration. Loading doses up to 360 mg day 1, or 360 mg day 1 followed by 240 mg day 2 reduced the time to achieve castrate testosterone levels from ≥7 to <3 days. TAK-385 doses ≥80 mg/day achieved sustained medical castration and trough TAK-385 concentrations >4 ng/mL. Following discontinuation of TAK-385 on day 28, testosterone levels normalized in most subjects in ≤28 days. Common adverse events included bradycardia, headache, and hot flush (all grade ≤2).
Conclusions:
Oral TAK-385 (40-180 mg/day) was well tolerated and effectively lowered testosterone in healthy men. Planned phase 2 doses in men with hormone sensitive prostate cancer are 80 and 120 mg/day.
Cancer constitutes an enormous burden on society in more and less economically developed countries alike. The occurrence of cancer is increasing because of the growth and aging of the population, as well as an increasing prevalence of established risk factors such as smoking, overweight, physical inactivity, and changing reproductive patterns associated with urbanization and economic development. Based on GLOBOCAN estimates, about 14.1 million new cancer cases and 8.2 million deaths occurred in 2012 worldwide. Over the years, the burden has shifted to less developed countries, which currently account for about 57% of cases and 65% of cancer deaths worldwide. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among males in both more and less developed countries, and has surpassed breast cancer as the leading cause of cancer death among females in more developed countries; breast cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death among females in less developed countries. Other leading causes of cancer death in more developed countries include colorectal cancer among males and females and prostate cancer among males. In less developed countries, liver and stomach cancer among males and cervical cancer among females are also leading causes of cancer death. Although incidence rates for all cancers combined are nearly twice as high in more developed than in less developed countries in both males and females, mortality rates are only 8% to 15% higher in more developed countries. This disparity reflects regional differences in the mix of cancers, which is affected by risk factors and detection practices, and/or the availability of treatment. Risk factors associated with the leading causes of cancer death include tobacco use (lung, colorectal, stomach, and liver cancer), overweight/obesity and physical inactivity (breast and colorectal cancer), and infection (liver, stomach, and cervical cancer). A substantial portion of cancer cases and deaths could be prevented by broadly applying effective prevention measures, such as tobacco control, vaccination, and the use of early detection tests. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65: 87-108. (c) 2015 American Cancer Society.
To investigate whether oral antiandrogen therapy before initiation of leuteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists was associated with fewer clinical flares. LHRH agonists are associated with initial testosterone rises that may cause clinical disease flares in men with metastatic prostate cancer.
We identified newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer patients treated in Veterans Affairs Hospitals from 2001-2004 with LHRH agonists with or without prior antiandrogen therapy. We assessed spinal cord compression, radiation therapy, fractures, bladder outlet obstruction, and narcotic prescriptions for pain within 30 days of starting LHRH therapy.
Of 1566 metastatic prostate cancer patients treated with LHRH agonists, 1245 (79.5%) patients received oral antiandrogens before initiating LHRH agonist treatment. Hispanic men, married patients, and those without prior cancer were treated less often with oral antiandrogens (all P < or = .05). Complication rates did not differ by receipt of oral antiandrogens (all P > or = .17). Spinal cord compression and pathologic fractures were extremely rare whether antiandrogens were used or not. In adjusted analysis, there was no decrease in odds of any event for treatment with an antiandrogen within 6 days (OR, 1.04, 95% CI, 0.78-1.40) or > or = 7 days (OR, 0.95, 95% CI, 0.72-1.25) before LHRH agonist treatment.
Antiandrogen therapy before LHRH agonists in metastatic prostate cancer was not associated with differences in fractures, spinal cord compression, bladder outlet obstruction, or narcotic prescriptions. Rates of spinal cord compression or fracture were < 1% in the first 30 days after beginning LHRH agonist therapy regardless of antiandrogen use.
GnRH and its analogues have led to exciting new avenues of therapy in virtually every subspecialty of internal medicine as well as in gynecology, pediatrics, and urology. Since their discovery in 1971, it has been demonstrated that GnRH and its analogues enable medical professionals to influence the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis in two distinct classes of therapeutic applications. The first provides natural sequence GnRH in a pulsatile fashion via portable infusion pumps to mimic the normal physiology of hypothalamic GnRH secretion and restores reproductive potential to infertile men and women with disorders of endogenous GnRH secretion. The second mode uses long-acting GnRH agonists administered in a depot delivery to produce a paradoxical desensitization of pituitary gonadotropin secretion which, in turn, results in a complete ablation of the reproductive axis. This biochemical castration induced by GnRH agonist administration is a safe, effective, complete, and reversible method of removing the overlay of gonadal steroids from a variety of diseases which they are known to exacerbate. These diseases include endometriosis and uterine fibroids in women, prostate cancer in men, and precocious puberty in both sexes. This review examines the physiologic and pharmacologic principles underlying the advances produced by these agents, the mechanism of action of GnRH and its analogues at the cellular level, and the individual therapeutic applications to which these analogues have been applied. Because virtually every subspecialty of medicine will be touched by the GnRH analogues, this review provides an overview and background of their use.
The contribution of the efflux transporter P-glycoprotein (P-gp) as a barrier to drug absorption may depend on its level of expression at the site of absorption. Accordingly, the distribution of P-gp was examined along the entire length of the human small intestine.
Homogenates prepared from mucosal scrapings from every other 30-cm segment of four unrelated human donor small intestines were analyzed for P-gp and the control protein villin by Western blot.
In each donor intestine, relative P-gp expression (P-gp/villin integrated optical density ratio) progressively increased from proximal to distal regions. Among individuals, relative P-gp levels varied 2.1-fold in the duodenal/proximal jejunal region, 1.5- to 2.0-fold in the middle/distal jejunal region, and 1.2- to 1.9-fold in the ileal region. Within-donor variation was somewhat greater, from 1.5- to 3.0-fold.
These results provide further evidence that the site of absorption can represent another source for the interindividual variation in the oral bioavailability of drugs.