Premium
Combination treatment in M1 prostate cancer
Author(s) -
Ferrari P.,
Castagnetti G.,
Ferrari G.,
Pollastri C. A.,
Tavoni F.,
Dotti A.
Publication year - 1993
Publication title -
cancer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.052
H-Index - 304
eISSN - 1097-0142
pISSN - 0008-543X
DOI - 10.1002/1097-0142(19931215)72:12+<3880::aid-cncr2820721724>3.0.co;2-4
Subject(s) - buserelin , medicine , cyproterone acetate , flutamide , prostate cancer , testosterone (patch) , leuprorelin , androgen , cyproterone , luteinizing hormone , urology , antiandrogen , hormone , cancer , prostate , oncology , gonadotropin releasing hormone , androgen receptor , receptor , agonist
The treatment of advanced prostate cancer is based on hormone manipulation to eliminate the trophic effect of testosterone on sensitive androgen tissue of the tumor. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of the partial androgen blockage versus the complete androgen blockage. One hundred, twenty‐two patients were entered in this study and randomly were treated with buserelin alone or with buserelin and flutamide. The group that received buserelin was given cyproterone acetate (200 mg/day) during first 3 weeks of treatment to avoid “flare‐up”. During the follow‐up (range 0‐244 ± 1 weeks), we evaluated 59 patients (61.4%) that had positive response and 37 patients (38.6%) that showed progressive disease: There were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups, not even in the evaluation of median time to response and of median time to treatment failure. In conclusion, the results emphasize that total androgenic blockage is as effective as a luteinizing hormone‐releasing hormone analog used alone.