The Management of Carcinoma of the Prostate after Failed Primary Therapy

Howard, G.C.W.

doi:10.1111/j.1464-410x.1993.tb00715.x

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Suppression of testicular androgen, either by surgical castration or by long‐term use of a luteinizing hormone‐releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist, is the most common treatment for newly diagnosed patients with metastatic prostate cancer. However, patients who fail the first line of endocrine therapy have a poor prognosis and their median survival is measured in months 1 . Labrie et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, patients who fail the first line of endocrine therapy have a poor prognosis and their median survival is measured in months. 1 Labrie et al proposed a theory of adrenal androgen hypersensitivity rather than androgen resistance to explain the poor response, or the relapse after an initial response, by medical or surgical castration. 2 Since then, numerous large clinical trials have compared testicular androgen blockade with maximum androgen blockade (MAB) by adding long-term treatment of anti-androgen, such as nilutamide, flutamide or cyproterone acetate, to testicular androgen blockade.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Chemohormonal therapy as primary treatment for metastatic prostate cancer: A randomized study of estramustine phosphate plus luteinizing hormone‐releasing hormone agonist versus flutamide plus luteinizing hormone‐releasing hormone agonist

Noguchi

Noda²,

Yoshida

et al. 2004

Int J of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The present study was undertaken mainly to investigate whether chemohormonal therapy with estramustine phosphate plus luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist has a more beneficial effect than the hormonal therapy with flutamide plus LHRH agonist for newly diagnosed patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Methods: A total of 57 patients with metastatic prostate cancer aged 59-80 years (median 74 years) were entered in the study and were randomized to the treatment of estramustine phosphate (560 mg/ day) plus LHRH agonist (estramustine group) or flutamide (375 mg/day) plus LHRH agonist (flutamide group) with stratification for the degree of performance status, histological differentiation and bone metastasis. Results: Both of the treatment regimens were well tolerated with similar incidences of adverse drug reactions. The overall response rates (complete response plus partial response) at 12 weeks after treatment in the estramustine and flutamide groups were 76 and 55%, respectively. The median time to objective progression for the estramustine group (25.4 months) was longer than that of the flutamide group (14.6 months). The serum levels of follicle stimulating hormone and testosterone were significantly lower in the estramustine group. Conclusions: Chemohormonal therapy with estramustine phosphate plus LHRH agonist showed longer clinical progression-free survival than the hormonal therapy with flutamide plus LHRH agonist (P = 0.03), although there was no significant difference in the overall survival. A largerscaled trial with more statistical power is required to clarify that the former regimen is more beneficial than the latter for newly diagnosed patients with advanced prostate cancer.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chemohormonal therapy as primary treatment for metastatic prostate cancer: A randomized study of estramustine phosphate plus luteinizing hormone‐releasing hormone agonist versus flutamide plus luteinizing hormone‐releasing hormone agonist

Noguchi

Noda²,

Yoshida

et al. 2004

Int J of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clinical Trials of Adjuvant Treatment [6], Hormonal manipulation used as second-line treatment in this setting has no curative intent, and its timing remains controversial [7]. However, clinical studies of adjuvant hormonal manipulation have demonstrated sig nificant improvements in local tumour control and pro gression-free survival in patients with prostate cancer [8] and breast cancer [9], Furthermore there is an accumula-A number of clinical trials of adjuvant treatment have been conducted and the results are summarised below.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%