Combination therapy with rofecoxib and finasteride in the treatment of men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

PURPOSE: Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) is expressed in human BPH tissue and displays either a pro-inflammatory effect or a proliferative effect on prostate cells. The aim of this study is to analyze whether combination therapy with rofecoxib, a COX-2 inhibitor, and finasteride offers an advantage compared to finasteride monotherapy in patients with BPH. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a single centre unblinded trial. Forty-six consecutive men with LUTS and BPH were entered into the study and were randomized to receive rofecoxib 25mg/day plus finasteride 5mg/day (group B) versus finasteride 5mg/day alone (group A) for 24 weeks. Inclusion criteria included also a prostate size greater than 40 cc. The efficacy and safety of treatments were assessed at baseline and at week 4, 12 and 24. RESULTS: In our population, both treatments (groups A and B) produced statistically significant improvements in total IPSS and Q(max) from baseline during follow-up, although they were very low in particular for the finasteride alone group at 4 weeks. We found that finasteride monotherapy produces very little improvement at the 1 month interval. In comparing group A with group B, a significantly higher improvement in IPSS (p=0.0001) and Q(max) (p=0.03) was obtained in group B at 4 weeks interval (% cases with IPSS reduction >4 points: group B=34.7, group A=0; % cases with Q(max) improvement >3 ml/s: group B=8.7, group A=0), whereas at week 24, the differences between the two treatments were not significant (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In our population, the advantage of the combination therapy compared to finasteride alone is significant in a short-term interval (4 weeks). It can be hypothesized that the association of rofecoxib with finasteride induces a more rapid improvement in clinical results until the effect of finasteride becomes predominant.

Long-term response to combination therapy with estramustine and somatostatin analogue in a patient with androgen ablation-refractory prostate cancer.

We report on a patient with androgen ablation-refractory prostate adenocarcinoma who had an objective response for longer than 24 months using a combination of estramustine and lanreotide. At baseline from our combination therapy, his prostate-specific antigen level was 21.30 ng/mL and serum chromogranin A level was 816 ng/mL. The patient discontinued complete androgen deprivation therapy and underwent combination therapy with oral estramustine 420 mg/day plus lanreotide acetate 73.9 mg intramuscularly every 4 weeks. After 33 months of follow-up, the patient was alive without clinical disease progression, and his prostate-specific antigen and chromogranin A level was 0.10 and 12 ng/mL, respectively.

Which patients with prostate cancer are actually candidates for hormone therapy?

In this article, we will try to address the following aspects: which factors are responsible of the introduction of new candidates for hormone therapy in prostate cancer, who are actually candidates for hormone therapy, classifying them on the basis of the stage of the disease, and which treatment modalities can be proposed for each candidate. Since the introduction of hormone therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer, there has been a debate about the optimal timing of hormone therapy. A modification in the timing of hormone therapy produced new candidates for hormone manipulation. In particular, the use of hormone treatment for younger patients, longer periods and early prostate cancer, absolutely requires a whole re-evaluation of which therapy is indicated and it may produce new problems such as higher risk of over-treatment, need of a better evaluation of quality of life in younger patients and the research for better tolerated therapies. Therapies that resist for longer periods without the production of a hormone-refractory disease are also required.

Somatostatin analogues and estrogens in the treatment of androgen ablation refractory prostate adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer progression to androgen ablation refractory stage D3 corresponds to cancer cell escape from androgen withdrawal induced apoptosis. Of note, salvage chemotherapy can extend the median survival of approximately 10 months in patients with stage D3. Therefore, novel therapeutic strategies that target the molecular basis of androgen resistance are required. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE and Current Content databases were used to find studies of the use of estrogens and somatostatin analogues for D3 prostate adenocarcinoma. We also analyzed the rationale and clinical results of our combination therapy using lanreotide and ethinylestradiol. RESULTS: Negative experiences have been reported with somatostatin analogues as monotherapy. On the other hand, the median progression-free survival reported in our experience using lanreotide acetate plus ethinylestradiol clearly surpassed the 10-month survival historically described in stage D3 cases. CONCLUSIONS: The use of somatostatin analogues in combination therapy for D3 prostate cancer sustains the novel concept in cancer treatment in which therapies may target not only cancer cells, but also the microenvironment in combination, which can confer protection from apoptosis.

Which patients with prostate cancer are actually candidates for hormone therapy?

In this article, we will try to address the following aspects: which factors are responsible of the introduction of new candidates for hormone therapy in prostate cancer, who are actually candidates for hormone therapy, classifying them on the basis of the stage of the disease, and which treatment modalities can be proposed for each candidate. Since the introduction of hormone therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer, there has been a debate about the optimal timing of hormone therapy. A modification in the timing of hormone therapy produced new candidates for hormone manipulation. In particular, the use of hormone treatment for younger patients, longer periods and early prostate cancer, absolutely requires a whole re-evaluation of which therapy is indicated and it may produce new problems such as higher risk of over-treatment, need of a better evaluation of quality of life in younger patients and the research for better tolerated therapies. Therapies that resist for longer periods without the production of a hormone-refractory disease are also required.