Real-world effectiveness and safety of goserelin 10.8-mg depot in Chinese patients with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

Real-word data on long-acting luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists in Chinese patients with prostate cancer are limited. This study aimed to determine the real-world effectiveness and safety of the LHRH agonist, goserelin, particularly the long-acting 10.8-mg depot formulation, and the follow-up patterns among Chinese prostate cancer patients.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study in hormone treatment-naïve patients with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer who were prescribed goserelin 10.8-mg depot every 12 weeks or 3.6-mg depot every 4 weeks with or without an anti-androgen. The patients had follow-up evaluations for 26 weeks. The primary outcome was the effectiveness of goserelin in reducing serum testosterone and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. The secondary outcomes included testosterone and PSA levels, attainment of chemical castration (serum testosterone <50 ng/dL), and goserelin safety. The exploratory outcome was the monitoring pattern for serum testosterone and PSA. All analyses were descriptive.

RESULTS

Between September 2017 and December 2019, a total of 294 eligible patients received ≥ 1 dose of goserelin; 287 patients (97.6%) were treated with goserelin 10.8-mg depot. At week 24 ± 2, the changes from baseline [standard deviation (95% confidence interval)] in serum testosterone (n = 99) and PSA (n = 131) were -401.0 ng/dL [308.4 ng/dL (-462.5, -339.5 ng/dL)] and -35.4 ng/mL [104.4 ng/mL (-53.5, -17.4 ng/mL)], respectively. Of 112 evaluable patients, 100 (90.2%) achieved a serum testosterone level < 50 ng/dL. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and severe TEAEs occurred in 37.1% and 10.2% of patients, respectively. The mean testing frequency (standard deviation) was 1.6 (1.5) for testosterone and 2.2 (1.6) for PSA.

CONCLUSIONS

Goserelin 10.8-mg depot effectively achieved and maintained castration and was well-tolerated in Chinese patients with localized and locally advanced prostate cancer.

Comparison of goserelin and leuprorelin for ovarian protection during chemotherapy in young patients with breast cancer

PURPOSE

Although different gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists may have different effects, their effect of ovarian protection during chemotherapy for breast cancer has not been compared. This study aimed to compare the effects of goserelin and leuprorelin for ovarian protection during chemotherapy in young patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

This prospective study analyzed 193 patients with breast cancer aged ≤ 40 years who had regular menstruation and serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels ≥ 1 ng/mL before treatment. Patients received either goserelin or leuprorelin for ovarian protection during doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. Resumption of menstruation and changes in serum levels of AMH were compared between the two groups at 12 months after completion of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

The mean age and the pretreatment serum AMH level were 33.2 years and 4.4 ng/mL in goserelin group and 34.2 years and 4.0 ng/mL in leuprorelin group. The proportion of patients who resumed menstruation was not different between the goserelin (94.4%) and leuprorelin (95.3%) groups at 12 months after chemotherapy completion. Serum AMH levels decreased significantly in both the goserelin (from 4.4 to 1.2 ng/mL) and leuprorelin (from 4.0 to 1.2 ng/mL) groups, with no statistical significance. In addition, no difference was found in the proportion of patients with serum AMH levels ≥ 1 ng/mL between the goserelin (49.5%) and leuprorelin (44.2%) groups at 12 months after chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Goserelin and leuprorelin were comparable in terms of ovarian protection during doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy in young patients with breast cancer.

Systematic risk analysis of radiation pneumonitis in breast cancer: role of cotreatment with chemo-, endocrine, and targeted therapy

PURPOSE

A major complication of sequential and concomitant chemoradiation in breast cancer treatment is interstitial pneumonitis induced by radiation therapy (RT), systemic therapy, or a combination of both. Dose and volume of co-irradiated lung tissue directly correlate with the risk of radiation pneumonitis. Especially in case of combined treatment, it is often unclear which of the used therapeutic agents promote pneumonitis.

METHODS

This was a prospective monocentric study including 396 breast cancer patients. A systematic analysis of single and combined therapeutic measures was performed in order to identify treatment-related factors enhancing the risk of pneumonitis post RT.

RESULTS

Overall incidence of pneumonitis of any grade was 38%; 28% were asymptomatic (grade 1) and 10% were symptomatic (> grade 1). Pneumonitis > grade 2 did not occur. Beside age, smoking status, and mean lung dose, the combined treatment with goserelin and tamoxifen significantly enhanced the risk of pneumonitis in a supra-additive pattern (odds ratio [OR] 4.38), whereas each agent alone or combined with other drugs only nonsignificantly contributed to a higher pneumonitis incidence post RT (OR 1.52 and OR 1.16, respectively). None of the other systemic treatments, including taxanes, increased radiation pneumonitis risk in sequential chemoradiation.

CONCLUSION

Common treatment schedules in sequential chemoradiation following breast-conserving surgery only moderately increase lung toxicity, mainly as an asymptomatic complication, or to a minor extent, as transient pneumonitis ≤ grade 2. However, combined treatment with tamoxifen and the LHRH analog goserelin significantly increased the risk of pneumonitis in breast cancer patients after chemoradiation. Thus, closer surveillance of involved patients is advisable.

Protective effect of goserelin on ovarian reserve during (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy in young breast cancer patients: a prospective cohort study in China

STUDY QUESTION

Does goserelin, a GnRH agonist, have a protective effect in young breast cancer patients in terms of ovarian reserve markers anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) and antral follicle count (AFC) during chemotherapy?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Compared with chemotherapy alone, concurrent goserelin is associated with a higher probability of ovarian reserve recovery at 1 year after chemotherapy.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Previous studies on the administration of goserelin to protect ovarian function during chemotherapy have produced conflicting results because of the endpoint used, namely, chemotherapy-induced amenorrhoea. Reproductive medicine specialists consider AMH and AFC as the most sensitive ovarian reserve markers; however, they have never been used as biomarkers to assess the potential protective effects on ovarian reserve of goserelin during chemotherapy.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This was a prospective cohort study in which patients were assigned to receive (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy with goserelin (the goserelin group) or without goserelin (the control group) according to each patient's preference. Of 242 breast cancer patients enrolled between December 2015 and November 2019, 76 in control group and 73 in goserelin group were able to be assessed at 1 year after chemotherapy.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Premenopausal patients with a regular menstrual cycle and aged 18-45 years were eligible for enrolment if they were newly diagnosed with stages I-III breast cancer for which treatment with adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy was planned. Each patient in the goserelin group was given a subcutaneous dose of 3.6 mg at least 1 week before the first cycle of chemotherapy and then every 4 weeks for the duration of chemotherapy. Ovarian reserve markers and menstrual status were evaluated before and after chemotherapy in the two treatment groups. The primary endpoint was the AMH recovery rate, the secondary endpoints were the recovery rates of AFC, estradiol (E2), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and menstruation.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Among 149 patients (76 in the control group and 73 in the goserelin group) with complete data at 1 year after chemotherapy, the adjusted recovery rate of AMH was 46.5% and 21.8% in the goserelin group and control group, respectively (odds ratio: 3.08; P = 0.002). The trends in AFC and FSH recovery rates were consistent with that in AMH recovery rate. Notably, AMH levels remained low in 41.3% of patients whose menstrual activity had resumed.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Randomisation was not performed because of ethical considerations, so selection bias was inevitable, although propensity score weighting was done. The study was also underpowered because 21.5% (52/242) of enrolled patients received GnRH agonist-containing endocrine therapy and could not be analysed at 1 and 2 years after chemotherapy.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Our results indicate that co-administration of goserelin with chemotherapy provides obvious ovarian reserve protection in these young breast cancer patients. We expect that these results will be applicable in clinical practice for young breast cancer patients.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China No. 2016YFC0901302, by the Research and Development Fund of Peking University People's Hospital No. RD2014-13, RDY2017-19 and by AstraZeneca. The authors have no disclosures.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02430103.

Restart of androgen deprivation therapy after goserelin induced pituitary apoplexy in a patient with disseminated prostate cancer a case report and five-years follow-up

Pituitary apoplexy is a clinical syndrome caused by hemorrhage or infarction of a pituitary adenoma. There have been a few reports in the literature of rapid onset of pituitary apoplexy after goserelin injection. To the best of our knowledge, there is no publication in the literature reporting re-introducing goserelin therapy for patients with prostate cancer after the onset of pituitary apoplexy. In this case report, we present the onset and clinico-radiological course of pituitary apoplexy induced by the initiation of goserelin and during continuation of goserelin with up to five-years follow-up.

Identification of predictors based on drug targets highlights accurate treatment of goserelin in breast and prostate cancer

Goserelin is an effective alternative to surgery or estrogen therapy in prostate cancer palliation, and possibly to ovariectomy in premenopausal breast cancer. However, not all users of goserelin can benefit from it, or some patients are not sensitive to goserelin. The advent of network pharmacology has highlighted the need for accurate treatment and predictive biomarkers. In this study, we successfully to identify 76 potential targets related to the compound of goserelin through network pharmacology approach. We also identified 18 DEGs in breast cancer tissues and 5 DEGs in cells, and 6 DEGs in prostate cancer tissues and 9 DEGs in cells. CRABP2 is the common DEG both in breast and prostate cancer. The risk prediction models constructed with potential prognostic targets of goserelin can successfully predict the prognosis in breast and prostate cancer, especially for very young breast cancer patients. Moreover, seven subgroups in breast cancer and six subgroups in prostate cancer were respectively identified based on consensus clustering using potential prognostic targets of goserelin that significantly influenced survival. The expression of representative genes including CORO1A and ANXA5 in breast and DPP4 in prostate showed strong correlations with clinic-pathological factors. Taken together, the novel signature can facilitate identification of new biomarkers which sensitive to goserelin, increase the using accuracy of goserelin and clarify the classification of disease molecular subtypes in breast and prostate cancer.

The affect of goserelin on the QoL of women having chemotherapy for EBC: Results from the OPTION trial

Background

The OPTION trial results showed that premenopausal women with early stage breast cancer (EBC) receiving chemotherapy benefited from ovarian function protection with goserelin. The impact of treatments on patient reported Quality of Life (QoL) were also examined.

Patients and methods

227 pre-menopausal women with EBC, were randomly assigned to chemotherapy±goserelin (C±G); 132 (58%) were ER-ve. Patients were stratified by age (≤40 years and >40 years). QoL was assessed with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Breast, and Endocrine Symptom checklist at baseline (pre-treatment), 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months, then annually to 5 years. Treatment Outcome Index (TOI) score was the primary outcome.

Results

213 patients were available for QoL analysis. There was a significant decrease in TOI scores for both treatment groups at 3 and 6 months that returned to pre-treatment levels at 12 months, then continued to increase reflecting improved QoL. By 3 months there was a significant difference from baseline in both groups for menopausal symptoms, and between groups in the proportion experiencing hot flushes at any time. The C + G group experienced higher levels of vasomotor symptoms generally during the treatment phase; by 24 months, the short-term negative effect of goserelin was reversed, with hot flushes twice as frequent in the chemotherapy only group (40.9% vs 21.3%).

Conclusions

These results show that young women diagnosed with breast cancer experienced only a short-term decrease in QoL from the addition of goserelin, in order to preserve ovarian function during chemotherapy treatment.

•

Ovarian damage from breast cancer chemotherapy is a concern for the younger patient.

•

OPTION showed goserelin reduced the rate of premature ovarian insufficiency in the ≤40yrs.

•

Patient reported QoL is an important consideration in evaluating these treatments.

•

OPTION QoL revealed greater vasomotor symptoms with goserelin at 3 and 6 mths.

•

Overall goserelin treatment resulted in only a short term decrease in QoL.

Evaluation of goserelin effectiveness based on assessment of inflammatory cytokines and symptoms in uterine leiomyoma

Background Uterine leiomyoma is a benign tumour of the uterine smooth muscles associated with an elevated level of inflammatory cytokines. Goserelin, a synthetic gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue, suppresses the production of sex hormones and release of inflammatory cytokines in uterine leiomyoma cells. Objective The primary objective of this study was to find out the effectiveness of subcutaneous goserelin therapy on lowering serum levels of inflammatory cytokines and improving uterine leiomyoma-related symptoms in female patients diagnosed with uterine leiomyoma. The secondary objective was to assess the tolerability to goserelin therapy used in the management of this tumour. Setting Outpatient gynaecological clinic of the medical consultation department of Baghdad Teaching Hospital, Baghdad province, Iraq. Methods A single centre, prospective, longitudinal, cohort study was carried out on female patients diagnosed with uterine leiomyoma. Goserelin 3.6 mg subcutaneous injection was given in a consecutive monthly dose for the total time duration of three months. Serum levels of inflammatory cytokines, tumour necrosis factor-α and monocyte chemotactic protein-1 were detected before and after goserelin therapy in a consecutive monthly assessment. The study also assessed the improvement in uterine leiomyoma-related symptoms, including pelvic pain alongside the incidence of goserelin-related side effects during therapy schedules. Main Outcome Measures Assessment of serum levels of tumour necrosis factor-α and monocyte chemotactic protein-1 alongside uterine leiomyoma-related symptoms, including pelvic pain and goserelin-related side effects. Results There was a significant decrease in serum levels of tumour necrosis factor-α and monocyte chemotactic protein-1 compared to the baseline level over the 3-month duration of goserelin therapy (0.11 ± 0.02 vs. 0.74 ± 0.19) pg/mL; (0.07 ± 0.00 vs. 0.44 ± 0.18) pg/mL respectively. Patients showed a clinical improvement regarding uterine leiomyoma-related symptoms following each of the consecutive monthly doses of goserelin therapy (n = 11, 55%, P < 0.0001; n = 15, 75%, P < 0.0001; n = 18, 90%, P < 0.0001) respectively. This also includes a significant decrease in the intensity of leiomyoma-related pelvic pain before and after goserelin therapy (7.2 ± 1.43 vs. 3.05 ± 1.14, P < 0.0001). The majority of patients reported vaginal dryness (60%) as the main goserelin-related side effect. Conclusion Goserelin therapy reduces serum levels of inflammatory cytokines, tumour necrosis factor- α and monocyte chemotactic protein-1, improving leiomyoma-related symptoms with good tolerability in patients with uterine leiomyoma.

Development and validation of an LC-MS/MS method for the quantification of goserelin in a Pheroid® formulation, in simulated intestinal fluid

The purpose of this reported study was to develop and validate an LC-MS/MS method for the quantification of goserelin in a Pheroid® formulation simulated intestinal fluid. Biopharmaceuticals are formulated in drug delivery systems to improve their gastrointestinal stability. Goserelin, a peptide drug was formulated in Pheroid® delivery system and its gastrointestinal stability assessed using simulated intestinal fluid, which required an assay to determine the varying amounts of goserelin remaining after a specific time. Several extraction methods and solvents investigated to extract goserelin from complex matrix led to either poor recovery, peak shape or high background interference. A rapid gradient reversed-phase method coupled to tandem mass spectrometry detection was optimized for the separation and quantification of the extracted peptide. A simple, reproducible and good recovery extraction procedure for goserelin quantification was achieved through simultaneous acetonitrile protein precipitation and water-saturated n-butanol liquid-liquid extraction with water dilution. The method was found to be rapid, specific, precise and accurate, and successfully applied to determine goserelin remaining content in a simulated intestinal fluid, with potential use in other lipid-based formulation evaluated in simulated intestinal fluids.

Efficacy and safety of degarelix in patients with prostate cancer: Results from a phase III study in China

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 28–364 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.

The LACOG-0415 phase II trial: abiraterone acetate and ADT versus apalutamide versus abiraterone acetate and apalutamide in patients with advanced prostate cancer with non-castration testosterone levels

BACKGROUND

Testosterone suppression is the standard treatment for advanced prostate cancer, and it is associated with side-effects that impair patients' quality of life, like sexual dysfunction, osteoporosis, weight gain, and increased cardiovascular risk. We hypothesized that abiraterone acetate with prednisone (AAP) and apalutamide, alone or in combination, can be an effective hormonal therapy also possibly decreasing castration-associated side effects.

METHODS

Phase II, open-label, randomized, efficacy trial of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) and Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) versus apalutamide versus the combination of AAP (without ADT) and apalutamide. Key eligibility criteria are confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma; biochemical relapse after definitive treatment (PSA ≥ 4 ng/ml and doubling time less than 10 months, or PSA ≥ 20 ng/ml); newly diagnosed locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer; asymptomatic to moderately symptomatic regarding bone symptoms. Patients with other histology besides adenocarcinoma or previous use of hormonal therapy or chemotherapy were excluded.

DISCUSSION

There is an urgent need to study and validate regimens such as new hormonal agents that may add benefit to castration with an acceptable safety profile. We aim to evaluate if apalutamide in monotherapy or in combination with AAP is an effective and safety hormonal treatment that can spare patients of androgen deprivation therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on October 16, 2017, under Identifier: NCT02867020.

Unsuspected Skin Metastasis of Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate in a Patient on Goserelin (Zoladex)

Prostate cancer remains the most common noncutaneous cancer in men, especially in this era of prostate-specific antigen assay. Prostate cancer metastases have been known to commonly affect the lymphatics, bones, and lungs. Prostate cancer metastasis to the skin is very rare (<1%) and often signifies a terminal disease. Involvement of the skin has been thought to be through lymphatic spread by embolization or permeation, hematogenous spread, and implantation during surgery (port site in radical prostatectomy). We report a 74-year-old man on management for advanced prostate cancer with subcutaneous goserelin (Zoladex) but developed skin metastasis in the course of treatment. The skin metastasis in our patient, however, was initially localized to the site of the regions of subcutaneous goserelin injection that we imagined if there is a link between the two. We reviewed the literature and currently found no connection. Is there truly a link?

Agoraphobia and Follicle-Stimulating Hormone Levels between Tamoxifen and Goserelin versus Tamoxifen Alone in Premenopausal Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: A 12-Month Prospective Randomized Study

OBJECTIVE

Tamoxifen is an estrogen receptor antagonist used to prevent recurrence of breast cancer, which may provoke depression and anxiety and increase follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) to patients. We compared anxiety and depression symptoms and FSH levels who received conventional tamoxifen alone and combination treatment of goserelin, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue, with tamoxifen.

METHODS

Sixty-four premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early-stage breast cancer were included and were assigned randomly to receive either tamoxifen and goserelin combination or tamoxifen alone for 12 months. The participants were evaluated blindly using the Hamilton Depression and Anxiety Rating Scale, the Beck Depression Rating Scale, and the Albany Panic and Phobia Questionnaire (APPQ). Blood FSH levels were assessed at baseline, 6 and 12 months.

RESULTS

A significant time×group difference was detected in the agoraphobia trends subscale of the APPQ and in FSH levels. The combination group showed significantly less increases in agoraphobia subscale of APPQ and greater decreases in FSH level than those in the tamoxifen-alone group from baseline to 12 months of treatment. No significant differences for age, tumor grade, body mass index, or family history were found at baseline between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that the combination treatment of tamoxifen and goserelin resulted in less agoraphobia than tamoxifen alone in premenopausal women with breast cancer, which may associated with FSH suppression of goserelin.

Palbociclib Combined with Fulvestrant in Premenopausal Women with Advanced Breast Cancer and Prior Progression on Endocrine Therapy: PALOMA-3 Results

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of palbociclib, a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor, combined with fulvestrant and goserelin was assessed in premenopausal women with advanced breast cancer (ABC) who had progressed on prior endocrine therapy (ET).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred eight premenopausal endocrine-refractory women ≥18 years with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) ABC were among 521 women randomized 2:1 (347:174) to fulvestrant (500 mg) ± goserelin with either palbociclib (125 mg/day orally, 3 weeks on, 1 week off) or placebo. This analysis assessed whether the overall tolerable safety profile and significant progression-free survival (PFS) improvement extended to premenopausal women. Potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) and ovarian suppression with goserelin were assessed via plasma pharmacokinetics and biochemical analyses, respectively. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01942135) RESULTS: Median PFS for premenopausal women in the palbociclib (n = 72) versus placebo arm (n = 36) was 9.5 versus 5.6 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.50, 95% confidence interval: 0.29-0.87), and consistent with the significant PFS improvement in the same arms for postmenopausal women. Any-grade and grade ≤3 neutropenia, leukopenia, and infections were among the most frequent adverse events reported in the palbociclib arm with concurrent goserelin administration. Hormone concentrations were similar between treatment arms and confirmed sustained ovarian suppression. Clinically relevant DDIs were not observed.

CONCLUSION

Palbociclib combined with fulvestrant and goserelin was an effective and well-tolerated treatment for premenopausal women with prior endocrine-resistant HR+/HER2- ABC. Inclusion of both premenopausal and postmenopausal women in pivotal combination ET trials facilitates access to novel drugs for young women and should be considered as a new standard for clinical trial design.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

PALOMA-3, the first registrational study to include premenopausal women in a trial investigating a CDK4/6 inhibitor combined with endocrine therapy, has the largest premenopausal cohort reported in an endocrine-resistant setting. In pretreated premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer, palbociclib plus fulvestrant and goserelin (luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone [LHRH] agonist) treatment almost doubled median progression-free survival (PFS) and significantly increased the objective response rate versus endocrine monotherapy, achieving results comparable to those reported for chemotherapy without apparently interfering with LHRH agonist-induced ovarian suppression. The significant PFS gain and tolerable safety profile strongly support use of this regimen in premenopausal women with endocrine-resistant disease who could possibly delay chemotherapy.

Efficacy of switching therapy of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue for advanced prostate cancer

This study was conducted to determine the efficacy of switching therapy with a second-line luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogue after prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression for advanced prostate cancer. We enrolled 200 patients, from December 2005 to September 2013, with nodal positive, metastatic prostate cancer or disease progression after definite treatment receiving continuous LHRH analogue therapy with monthly depot leuprorelin(sc) acetate 3.75 mg/vial (LA) or goserelin acetate(sc) 3.6 mg/vial (GA). If the patients had castration-resistant prostate cancer, the treatment choice of switching therapy (from LA to GA or from GA to LA) prior to starting chemotherapy was given. The LH, testosterone level, and PSA change were recorded. The records showed that there were 127 patients receiving LA as initial ADT therapy, whereas the other 73 patients were in GA therapy. A total of 92 patients received LHRH analogue switching therapy (54 patients switched from LA to GA and 38 switched from GA to LA). The effect of LH and testosterone reduction prior to and after switching therapy was comparable between the two groups, and increased PSA level after 3 months of treatment was seen in both groups (median PSA: 15.7-67.7 ng/mL in the LA to GA group; 15.2-71.4 ng/mL in the GA to LA group). This study concluded that switching therapy for patients with PSA progression after ADT has no efficacy of further PSA response.

Goserelin plus tamoxifen compared to chemotherapy followed by tamoxifen in premenopausal patients with early stage-, lymph node-negative breast cancer of luminal A subtype

OBJECTIVES

To study the outcomes of adjuvant goserelin combined with tamoxifen (GosTam) compared to chemotherapy followed by tamoxifen (ChemTam) in premenopausal patients with early stage, luminal A breast cancer.

METHODS

From 2008 until 2013, data were retrospectively collected for premenopausal patients who underwent surgery for invasive tumors that were ≤2.0 cm, node-negative, strongly positive for estrogen and progesterone receptors, HER-2-negative, and Ki-67 < 25%. The patients were divided into two groups according to adjuvant regimen, either GosTam or ChemTam. All patients who underwent different adjuvant regimens were excluded.

RESULTS

In total, 235 patients underwent GosTam and 171 patients underwent ChemTam. There were significantly more patients younger than 40 years in the GosTam group (32% GosTam vs. 22% ChemTam, p = 0.031). Mean tumor size was significantly smaller (1.19 cm vs. 1.48 cm, p < 0.001), Ki-67 significantly lower (p = 0.049), and nuclear grade was low in a significant number of patients in the GosTam group (2% vs. 13%, p < 0.001). After a median follow-up of 51.3 months, there was no mortality in either group. There was no significant difference in 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) between the two groups even after univariate analysis considering age, tumor size, nuclear grade, and P53% (GosTam = 98.9% vs. ChemTam = 95.7%, HR = 0.404, 95% CI = [0.073, 2.222], p = 0.248).

CONCLUSION

There was no difference between treatment groups, and neither chemotherapy nor ovarian suppression seemed to improve the outcome. Thus, tamoxifen alone might be a sufficient option for this low-risk patient population.

The role of the addition of ovarian suppression to tamoxifen in young women with hormone-sensitive breast cancer who remain premenopausal or regain menstruation after chemotherapy (ASTRRA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial and progress

Background

Ovarian function suppression (OFS) has been shown to be effective as adjuvant endocrine therapy in premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. However, it is currently unclear if addition of OFS to standard tamoxifen therapy after completion of adjuvant chemotherapy results in a survival benefit. In 2008, the Korean Breast Cancer Society Study Group initiated the ASTRRA randomized phase III trial to evaluate the efficacy of OFS in addition to standard tamoxifen treatment in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients who remain or regain premenopausal status after chemotherapy.

Methods

Premenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer treated with definitive surgery were enrolled after completion of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Ovarian function was assessed at the time of enrollment and every 6 months for 2 years by follicular-stimulating hormone levels and bleeding history. If ovarian function was confirmed as premenopausal status, the patient was randomized to receive 2 years of goserelin plus 5 years of tamoxifen treatment or 5 years of tamoxifen alone. The primary end point will be the comparison of the 5-year disease-free survival rates between the OFS and tamoxifen alone groups. Patient recruitment was finished on March 2014 with the inclusion of a total of 1483 patients. The interim analysis will be performed at the time of the observation of the 187th event.

Discussion

This study will provide evidence of the benefit of OFS plus tamoxifen compared with tamoxifen only in premenopausal patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer treated with chemotherapy.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00912548. Registered May 31 2009. Korean Breast Cancer Society Study Group Register KBCSG005. Registered October 26 2009.

Goserelin acetate before transurethral resection of moderately enlarged benign prostatic hyperplasia: Prospective randomised-controlled clinical trial

Objective

To evaluate the impact of a luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist, goserelin acetate (GA), on surgical blood loss during transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), as well as its histopathological effect on prostatic microvessel density (MVD).

Patients and methods

Patients who underwent TURP due to benign prostatic enlargement (60–100 mL) were randomly subdivided into two equal groups according to whether they received preoperative GA administration (3.6 mg; group A) or not (group B). Evaluation parameters were operative time, weight of resected prostatic tissue, perioperative haematocrit (HCT) changes, estimation of intraoperative blood loss, and suburethral and stromal prostatic MVD. Effects of GA on prostate weight and any possible side-effects were also monitored.

Results

In all, 35 and 33 patients were included in groups A and B, respectively. Operative time and HCT values’ changes were significantly less in group A (P < 0.05). Also, operative blood loss (both total and adjusted per weight of resected tissue) was lower in group A, at a mean (SD) of 178.13 (77.71) mL and 3.74 (1.52) mL/g vs 371.75 (91.09) mL and 8.59 (2.42) mL/g (P < 0.001). The median MVD in both suburethral [8 vs 11 vessels/high-power field (HPF)] and stromal tissues (9 vs 17 vessels/HPF) were significantly lower in group A (P < 0.001). Side-effects were minimal.

Conclusion

A single dose of GA, a LHRH agonist, before TURP is safe and effective in reducing surgical blood loss. It significantly reduced MVD in both suburethral and stromal nodular prostatic tissues without regional discrepancy.

Goserelin, as an ovarian protector during (neo)adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy, prevents long term altered bone turnover

Background

The Ovarian Protection Trial In Premenopausal Breast Cancer Patients “OPTION” trial (NCT00427245) was a prospective, multicenter, randomised, open label study evaluating the frequency of primary ovarian insufficiency (POI) at 12 months in women randomised to 6–8 cycles of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) +/− goserelin (G). Here we report the results of a secondary endpoint analysis of the effects of CT+/-G on markers of bone turnover.

Methods

Serum for bone alkaline phosphatase (BALP) and urine for N-terminal telopeptide (NTX) were collected at baseline, 6, 12, 18, 24 and 36 months. Changes in median levels of bone turnover markers were evaluated for the overall population, according to age stratification at randomisation (≤40 vs >40 years) and with exploratory analysis according to POI rates at 12 months.

Results

In the overall population, there was a significant increase in NTX at 6 months compared to baseline in patients treated with CT+G (40.81 vs 57.82 p=0.0074) with normalisation of levels thereafter. BALP was significantly increased compared to baseline at 6 months and 12 months in those receiving CT+G, but normalised thereafter. BALP remained significantly higher compared to baseline at 12, 24 and 36 months in patients receiving CT, resulting in a significant difference between treatment groups at 36 months (CT+G 5.845 vs CT 8.5 p=0.0006). These changes were predominantly seen in women >40 years. Women with POI at 12 months showed altered bone formation compared to baseline levels for a longer duration than women who maintained menses.

Conclusion

Addition of G to CT increases bone turnover during treatment with normalisation after cessation of treatment suggesting G may offer sufficient ovarian protection against CT induced POI to negate longstanding altered bone turnover associated with POI.

Effects of surgical and chemical castration on spatial learning ability in relation to cell proliferation and apoptosis in hippocampus

PURPOSE

Chemical castration using luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists and/or anti-androgens is an alternative to surgical castration. Goserelin and bicalutamide are representative drugs used for chemical castration. The effects of chemical castration on sexual functions are well documented; however, the possibility that chemical castration might induce undesirable effects on brain functions has been raised. We investigated the effects of chemical castration and surgical castration on spatial learning ability in relation to cell proliferation and apoptosis in hippocampus.

METHODS

Bilateral orchiectomy was performed for surgical castration, and chemical castration was induced by treatment with goserelin or bicalutamide for 28 days. To find out the effects of goserelin and bicalutamide with those of orchiectomy on the spatial learning ability, radial eight-arm maze test was performed. To find out the effects of goserelin and bicalutamide with those of orchiectomy in relation to cell proliferation and apoptosis in the hippocampus, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated dUTP nick end labeling staining, and immunohistochemistry for 5-bromo-2'-deoxyuridine, doublecortin, and caspase-3 were performed. Western blot for brain-derived neurotrophic factor, tyrosine kinase receptor B, Bax, and Bcl-2 in the hippocampus was also performed.

RESULTS

Orchiectomy caused deterioration of spatial learning ability with suppression of cell proliferation and enhancement of apoptosis in the hippocampus. However, treatment with goserelin and bicalutamide had no effect on spatial learning ability. Cell proliferation and apoptosis were not altered by treatment with goserelin and bicalutamide either.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical castration causes deterioration of spatial learning ability, while chemical castration does not impair spatial learning ability. We should find out further mechanisms affect to the relationship between androgen level and neurogenesis and neuronal apoptosis.

Degarelix for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer compared with GnRh-Agonists: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hormone therapy is currently the mainstay in the management of locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer. We performed a systematic review to compare safety, efficacy and effectiveness of degarelix, a new gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist (blocker), versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Web of Science and the Cochrane library were searched to identify all of the published Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) that used degarelix versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists with or without anti-androgen therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer. We performed meta-analysis of extracted data on safety and efficacy of the target medication.

RESULTS

Six studies were included. They involved a total of 2296 patients which were used in the meta-analysis. Follow-up times after treatment were between 12 weeks and 12 months. Three of six RCTs compared degarelix with goserelin and the others compared it with leuprolide. Meta-analysis on safety outcomes revealed that the only statistically significant difference between the degarelix treated group and GnRH agonists treated group was complication in the injection site which was higher in degarelix-treated group (OR= 46.34, 95% CI: 15.79 to 136, p<0.001). Although general mortality rate was lower in degarelix-treated group (OR= 2.06, 95% CI: 1.08 to 3.93, p=0.03); mortality due to the drug side effects was not different. Meta-analysis of efficacy data also showed that International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) reduction at week 12, (MD=-1.85, 95% CI: -2.97 to - 0.72, p=0.001) and Testosterone reduction between day 1-28, (OR=11.58, 95% CI: 5.77 to 23.22, p<0.001) was statistically higher in degarelix-treated group. Testosterone reduction after day 28 and prostate volume reduction did not have significant difference.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis indicates that, compared with GnRH agonists, degarelix has significantly more effects on lower urinary tract symptoms and also Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) and testosterone reduction in the first month of the treatment. Except minor complications in the injection site like pain, erythema and swelling, there is no increase in major side effects and mortality due to degarelix. This is while the effect on testosterone and PSA after the first month of treatment is not statistically different between the two groups.

Phase 3, open-label, randomized study comparing 3-monthly with monthly goserelin in pre-menopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Monthly goserelin 3.6 mg dosing suppresses estradiol (E2) production and has proven efficacy in pre-menopausal women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer. This non-inferiority study evaluated the efficacy and safety of 3-monthly goserelin 10.8 mg compared with monthly goserelin 3.6 mg.

METHODS

This was a Phase 3, open-label, multicenter trial. Pre-menopausal women with ER-positive advanced breast cancer were randomized to 3-monthly goserelin 10.8 mg or monthly goserelin 3.6 mg; all patients received concomitant tamoxifen (20 mg daily). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 24 weeks; non-inferiority was to be confirmed if the entire 95 % confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was above -17.5 %. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), serum E2 levels, safety, and tolerability.

RESULTS

In total, 222 patients were randomized (goserelin 10.8 mg, n = 109; goserelin 3.6 mg, n = 113). PFS rate at week 24 was 61.5 % (goserelin 10.8 mg) and 60.2 % (goserelin 3.6 mg); treatment difference (95 % CI) was 1.3 % (-11.4, 13.9), confirming non-inferiority of goserelin 10.8 mg compared with goserelin 3.6 mg. ORR was 23.9 % (goserelin 10.8 mg) and 26.9 % (goserelin 3.6 mg); treatment difference (95 % CI) was -3.0 % (-15.5, 9.7). At week 24, mean serum E2 concentrations were similar in the goserelin 10.8 mg and goserelin 3.6 mg groups (20.3 pg/mL and 24.8 pg/mL, respectively).

CONCLUSION

A regimen of 3-monthly goserelin 10.8 mg demonstrated non-inferiority compared with monthly goserelin 3.6 mg for PFS rate at 24 weeks, with similar pharmacodynamic and safety profiles, in pre-menopausal women with ER-positive breast cancer.

Ovarian Ablation Using Goserelin Improves Survival of Premenopausal Patients with Stage II/III Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer without Chemotherapy-Induced Amenorrhea

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to assess the value of ovarian ablation using goserelin in premenopausal patients with stage II/III hormone receptor-positive breast cancer without chemotherapy-induced amenorrhea (CIA).

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the data of breast patients treated between October 1999 and November 2007 without CIA. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for calculation of the survival rate. Log rank method and Cox regression analysis were used for univariate and multivariate prognostic analysis.

Results

The median follow-up period was 61 months. Initially, 353 patients remained without CIA after chemotherapy and 98 among those who received goserelin and tamoxifen (TAM). In univariate analysis, goserelin improved locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) (98.9% vs. 94.1%, p=0.041), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) (85.4% vs. 71.9%, p=0.006), disease-free survival (DFS) (85.4% vs. 71.6%, p=0.005), and overall survival (OS) (93.5% vs. 83.5%, p=0.010). In multivariate analysis, goserelin treatment was an independent factor influencing DMFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.603; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.228 to 2.092; p=0.001), DFS (HR, 1.606; 95% CI, 1.231 to 2.096; p=0.001), and OS (HR, 3.311; 95% CI, 1.416 to 7.742; p=0.006). In addition, treatment with goserelin resulted in significantly improved LRFS (p=0.039), DMFS (p=0.043), DFS (p=0.036), and OS (p=0.010) in patients aged < 40 years. In patients aged ≥ 40 years, goserelin only improved DMFS (p=0.028) and DFS (p=0.027).

Conclusion

Ovarian ablation with goserelin plus TAM resulted in significantly improved therapeutic efficacy in premenopausal patients with stage II/III hormone receptor-positive breast cancer without CIA.

Disease control outcomes from analysis of pooled individual patient data from five comparative randomised clinical trials of degarelix versus luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists. Eur Urol. 2014;66:1101-1108. [PMID: 24440304 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.063]

BACKGROUND

Studies comparing the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, degarelix, with luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists indicate differences in outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To assess differences in efficacy and safety outcomes in a pooled analysis of trials comparing degarelix with LHRH agonists.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Data were pooled from five prospective, phase 3 or 3b randomised trials (n=1925) of degarelix and leuprolide or goserelin in men requiring androgen deprivation therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer. Patients received either 3 mo (n=467) or 12 mo (n=1458) of treatment.

INTERVENTION

Men were randomised to receive degarelix (n=1266), leuprolide (n=201), or goserelin (n=458).

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier analyses were supported by the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for disease-related baseline factors, to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of efficacy and safety outcomes. The Fisher exact test compared crude incidences of adverse events.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival (PFS) was improved in the degarelix group (HR: 0.71; p=0.017). For patients with baseline PSA levels >20 ng/ml, the HR for PSA PFS was 0.74 (p=0.052). Overall survival (OS) was higher in the degarelix group (HR: 0.47; p=0.023). OS was particularly improved with degarelix in patients with baseline testosterone levels >2 ng/ml (HR: 0.36; p=0.006). In terms of disease-related adverse events, there were, overall, fewer joint-related signs and symptoms, musculoskeletal events, and urinary tract events in the degarelix group.

CONCLUSIONS

These data indicate clinical benefits with degarelix, including a significant improvement in PSA PFS and OS, as well as reduced incidence of joint, musculoskeletal, and urinary tract adverse events, compared with LHRH agonists.