Maximal androgen blockade for patients with metastatic prostate cancer: outcome of a controlled trial of bicalutamide versus flutamide, each in combination with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue therapy. Casodex Combination Study Group - PubMed
Clinical Trial
. 1996 Jan;47(1A Suppl):54-60; discussion 80-4.
doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(96)80010-0.
Affiliations
- PMID: 8560679
- DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(96)80010-0
Clinical Trial
Maximal androgen blockade for patients with metastatic prostate cancer: outcome of a controlled trial of bicalutamide versus flutamide, each in combination with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue therapy. Casodex Combination Study Group
P Schellhammer et al. Urology. 1996 Jan.
Abstract
Objectives: To review the outcome of therapy with maximal androgen blockade and compare the efficacy and safety of bicalutamide and flutamide, each used in combination with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue (LHRH-A) therapy, in patients with untreated metastatic (Stage D2) prostate cancer.
Methods: Randomized, double-blind (for antiandrogen therapy), multicenter study with a 2 x 2 factorial design. A total of 813 patients were allocated 1:1 to bicalutamide (50 mg once daily) or flutamide (250 mg three times daily), plus 2:1 to goserelin acetate (3.6 mg every 28 days) or leuprolide acetate (7.5 mg every 28 days).
Results: At the time of analysis (median follow-up, 49 weeks), bicalutamide plus LHRH-A was associated with a statistically significant improvement in time-to-treatment failure, the primary endpoint, when compared with flutamide plus LHRH-A. The results with longer follow-up (median, 95 weeks) support previous findings of an improved time-to-treatment failure with bicalutamide plus LHRH-A; however, the difference between groups was not statistically significant. A treatment failure endpoint was reached by 68% of patients in the bicalutamide plus LHRH-A group, compared with 72% of patients in the flutamide plus LHRH-A group. The hazard ratio of bicalutamide plus LHRH-A to flutamide plus LHRH-A was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-1.03; P = 0.10). The upper one-sided 95% confidence limit for survival was 1.00, meeting the definition for equivalence (< 1.25). With longer follow-up, overall mortality was 34%, with equivalent survival between groups: 32% of patients in the bicalutamide plus LHRH-A group died, compared with 35% in the flutamide plus LHRH-A group. The hazard ratio of bicalutamide plus LHRH-A to flutamide plus LHRH-A was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.69-1.11; P = 0.29). The upper one-sided 95% confidence limit for survival was 1.07, meeting the definition for equivalence (< 1.25). Diarrhea occurred in 24% of patients in the flutamide plus LHRH-A group compared with 10% of patients in the bicalutamide plus LHRH-A group (P < 0.001).
Conclusions: In patients with metastatic prostate cancer, bicalutamide plus LHRH-A is effective and well tolerated. Because of its efficacy and tolerability profile, together with its convenient once-daily dosing formulation, bicalutamide represents a prime candidate for antiandrogen of first choice in combination with LHRH-A therapy in the treatment of men with metastatic prostate cancer.
Similar articles
-
Schellhammer PF, Sharifi R, Block NL, Soloway MS, Venner PM, Patterson AL, Sarosdy MF, Vogelzang NJ, Schellenger JJ, Kolvenbag GJ. Schellhammer PF, et al. Urology. 1997 Sep;50(3):330-6. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(97)00279-3. Urology. 1997. PMID: 9301693 Clinical Trial.
-
Schellhammer P, Sharifi R, Block N, Soloway M, Venner P, Patterson AL, Sarosdy M, Vogelzang N, Jones J, Kolvenbag G. Schellhammer P, et al. Urology. 1995 May;45(5):745-52. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(99)80077-6. Urology. 1995. PMID: 7538237 Clinical Trial.
-
Soloway MS, Schellhammer P, Sharifi R, Venner P, Patterson AL, Sarosdy M, Vogelzang N, Jones J, Kolvenbag G. Soloway MS, et al. Eur Urol. 1996;29 Suppl 2:105-9. doi: 10.1159/000473848. Eur Urol. 1996. PMID: 8717471 Clinical Trial.
-
Bicalutamide (Casodex) in the treatment of prostate cancer: history of clinical development.
Kolvenbag GJ, Blackledge GR, Gotting-Smith K. Kolvenbag GJ, et al. Prostate. 1998 Jan 1;34(1):61-72. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0045(19980101)34:1<61::aid-pros8>3.0.co;2-n. Prostate. 1998. PMID: 9428389 Review.
-
Blackledge G, Kolvenbag G, Nash A. Blackledge G, et al. Anticancer Drugs. 1996 Jan;7(1):27-34. Anticancer Drugs. 1996. PMID: 8742095 Review.
Cited by
-
Bayala B, Zoure AA, Baron S, de Joussineau C, Simpore J, Lobaccaro JA. Bayala B, et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2020 May 23;21(10):3690. doi: 10.3390/ijms21103690. Int J Mol Sci. 2020. PMID: 32456259 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Clinical pharmacokinetics of the antiandrogens and their efficacy in prostate cancer.
Mahler C, Verhelst J, Denis L. Mahler C, et al. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1998 May;34(5):405-17. doi: 10.2165/00003088-199834050-00005. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1998. PMID: 9592622 Review.
-
Immune reaction by cytoreductive prostatectomy.
Lee GT, Srivastava A, Kwon YS, Kim IY. Lee GT, et al. Am J Clin Exp Urol. 2019 Apr 25;7(2):64-79. eCollection 2019. Am J Clin Exp Urol. 2019. PMID: 31139701 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Schultz NM, Shore ND, Chowdhury S, Klotz LH, Concepcion RS, Penson DF, Karsh LI, Yang H, Brown BA, Barlev A, Flanders SC. Schultz NM, et al. BMC Urol. 2018 Sep 6;18(1):77. doi: 10.1186/s12894-018-0387-7. BMC Urol. 2018. PMID: 30189902 Free PMC article.
-
Therapeutic Rationales, Progresses, Failures, and Future Directions for Advanced Prostate Cancer.
Wadosky KM, Koochekpour S. Wadosky KM, et al. Int J Biol Sci. 2016 Feb 6;12(4):409-26. doi: 10.7150/ijbs.14090. eCollection 2016. Int J Biol Sci. 2016. PMID: 27019626 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical