Advanced delivery of leuprorelin acetate for the treatment of prostatic cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is the main therapy for patients with advanced and metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) and, in combination with radiotherapy, for patients with localized high-risk PCa. Due to its favorable tolerability among different treatments available for ADT, leuprorelin acetate is well established as the leading luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analog. The development of second-generation leuprorelin acetate (LA) depot formulation (Eligard®, Recordati S.p.A) allowed a consistent and controlled release of leuprorelin between injections and a more efficient reduction of testosterone levels with respect to conventional LHRH agonists. AREAS COVERED: This work provides a summary of the biological and clinical rationale for using LA to manage PCa and presents the current evidence about the therapeutic activity of the LA gel depot formulation, used as an advanced leuprorelin acetate delivery method. EXPERT OPINION: Results of the registration studies and post-marketing clinical trials demonstrate that the LA gel depot provides long-term efficacy in the clinical practice and a good degree of tolerability. Overall, collected data suggest that the LA gel depot can represent the ADT reference therapy in advanced PCa.

Risk of Fracture During Androgen Deprivation Therapy Among Patients With Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies.

Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) suppresses the production of androgen, and ADT is broadly used for intermediate or higher risk disease including advanced and metastatic cancer. ADT is associated with numerous adverse effects derived from the pharmacological properties. Previous meta-analysis on fracture risk among ADT users possessed limited data without further subgroup analysis. Risk estimation of updated real-world evidence on ADT-related fracture remains unknown. Objectives: To assess the risk of fracture and fracture requiring hospitalization associated with ADT among prostate cancer population on different disease conditions, treatment regimen, dosage level, fracture sites. Methods: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases were systematically screened for eligible cohort studies published from inception to March 2020. Two authors independently reviewed all the included studies. The risks of any fracture and of fracture requiring hospitalization were assessed using a random-effects model, following by leave-one-out, stratified, and sensitivity analyses. The Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system was used to grade the certainty of evidence. Results: Sixteen eligible studies were included, and total population was 519,168 men. ADT use is associated with increasing fracture risk (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.26-1.52) and fracture requiring hospitalization (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.29-1.88). Stratified analysis revealed that high-dose ADT results in an elevated risk of fracture with little statistical heterogeneity, whereas sensitivity analysis restricted to adjust for additional factors indicated increased fracture risks for patients with unknown stage prostate cancer or with no restriction on age with minimal heterogeneity. The GRADE level of evidence was moderate for any fracture and low for fracture requiring hospitalization. Conclusion: Cumulative evidence supports the association of elevated fracture risk with ADT among patients with prostate cancer, including those with different disease conditions, treatment regimens, dose levels, and fracture sites. Further prospective trials with intact information on potential risk factors on fracture under ADT use are warranted to identify the risky population.

Microencapsulation of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist in poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) microspheres by spray-drying.

A spray drying technique was developed to prepare injectable and biodegradable poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) microspheres encapsulating a model luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist (LHRHa)-based peptide, leuprolide. Various spray drying parameters were evaluated to prepare 1-month controlled release formulations with a similar composition to the commercial Lupron Depot® (LD). A single water-in-oil emulsion of aqueous leuprolide/gelatin solution in PLGA 75/25 acid capped (13 kDa Mw) dissolved in methylene chloride (DCM) was spray-dried before washing the microspheres in cold ddH2O and freeze-drying. The spray-drying microencapsulation was characterized by: particle size/distribution (span), morphology, drug/gelatin loading, encapsulation efficiency, and residual DCM and water content. Long-term release was tested over 9 weeks in PBS + 0.02% Tween 80 + 0.02% sodium azide pH 7.4 (PBST) at 37 °C. Several physical-chemical parameters were monitored simultaneously for selected formulations, including: water uptake, mass loss, dry and hydrated glass transition temperature, to help understand the related long-term release profiles and explore the underlying controlled-release mechanisms. Compared with the commercial LD microspheres, some of the in-house spray-dried microspheres presented highly similar or even improved long-term release profiles, providing viable long-acting release (LAR) alternatives to the LD. The in vitro release mechanism of the peptide was shown to be controlled either by kinetics of polymer mass loss or by a second process, hypothesized to involve peptide desorption from the polymer. These data indicate spray drying can be optimized to prepare commercially relevant PLGA microsphere formulations for delivery of peptides, including the LHRHa, leuprolide.

A phase 3, open-label, multicenter study of a 6-month pre-mixed depot formulation of leuprolide mesylate in advanced prostate cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the safety, efficacy and pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of a pre-mixed depot formulation of leuprolide mesylate subcutaneous injectable suspension (LMIS) 50 mg for up to 1 year of treatment for subjects with advanced prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter study, prostate cancer patients with indication for androgen ablation therapy received two subcutaneous injection of LMIS 50 mg 6 months apart and were followed for an additional 6 months. Two efficacy primary end points were the percentage of subjects with a serum testosterone level ≤ 50 ng/dL by Day 28 as well as the percentage of subjects with similar testosterone suppression from Day 28 to Day 336. RESULTS: Of the 137 enrolled subjects, 15 (10.9%) subjects did not complete the study, including 5 subjects who terminated early due to an adverse event. By Day 28, 98.5% (95% confidence interval 94.8-99.8) of the subjects achieved a castrate testosterone level. At the end of the study, 97% and 95.9% of the subjects had serum testosterone level ≤ 50 ng/dL and ≤ 20 ng/dL, respectively. LMIS 50 mg significantly reduced serum prostate-specific antigen levels after its first injection and this PSA declination effect remained until the end of the study. No statistically significant change was observed in worsening bone pain or urinary symptom assessments during the study. Hot flush (48.9%) and hypertension (14.6%) were the two most common adverse events reported. CONCLUSIONS: LMIS 50 mg, administered at 6-month intervals, effectively suppressed serum testosterone level, and demonstrated a consistent safety profile.

Combined androgen blockade (CAB) versus luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist monotherapy for androgen deprivation therapy.

PURPOSE: Combined androgen blockade (CAB) and luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist monotherapy are commonly used in androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). In this randomized clinical trial, we aimed to compare the two methods of ADT in terms of quality of life (QOL). METHODS: Eighty patients who underwent primary ADT for newly diagnosed prostate cancer were randomly assigned to CAB group (Group 1) and LHRH agonist monotherapy group (Group 2). Leuprolide and anti-androgen (bicalutamide 50 mg) were used to minimize the confounding effects caused by medication. QOL was evaluated at baseline, 3 months and 6 months post-ADT using validated EORTC QLQ-C30, PR25, and depression questionnaires. A difference of > 10 points in the EORTC domain scores was defined as 'clinically significant'. RESULTS: In the baseline characteristics, there was no significant difference between the two groups. At 3 months after ADT, Group 1 had significantly lower pain scores than Group 2 (p = 0.004), while Group 1 had significantly poorer diarrhea symptom score than Group 2, without clinical significance (p = 0.047). No significant differences were observed in the C30, PR25 domains, and the depression score at 3 months. At 6 months, the QOL scores of all the groups were similar. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the patient's QOL, except that CAB group was associated with significantly better pain relief than LHRH agonist monotherapy at 3 months following ADT, which was not sustained thereafter. Our results suggest that the benefit of prolonged (≥ 3 months) CAB is questionable in terms of patients' QOL.

Investigational luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists and other hormonal agents in early stage clinical trials for prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment and management of prostate cancer continues to evolve; newer classes of agents and combination therapies are being developed and some are being investigated in early phase clinical trials. AREAS COVERED: We discuss investigational hormonal agents for the treatment of prostate cancer and focus primarily on luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists in early stage trials. We look at agents that target the hormonal axis, including anti-androgens, gonadotropins, estrogenic agents and progestogenic agents and other non-hormonal agents often used in combination with LHRH agonists. We review these candidates in the specific clinical niche in which they might find utility. EXPERT OPINION: Of all candidate compounds being evaluated in clinical trials, very few will receive FDA approval. Few, if any of the investigational agents discussed here will be used routinely in clinical practice for treating prostate cancer. Recognizing the reasons for the failure of agents to advance to later stage trials is important. Furthermore, a thorough understanding of the mechanisms underlying prostate cancer pathogenesis, including various points in the HGPA and parallel pathways, will help identify potentially actionable targets.

Comparison of quality of life between 2-year and 3-or-more-year administration of leuprorelin acetate every-3-months depot in combination with tamoxifen as adjuvant endocrine treatment in premenopausal patients with endocrine-responsive breast cancer: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial evaluating the appropriate treatment duration of leuprorelin acetate 3-month depot, TAP-144-SR (3M), administered postsurgically every 3 months for 2 years versus 3 or more (up to 5) years, in combination with tamoxifen, for 5 years in premenopausal endocrine-responsive breast cancer patients and reported similar survival benefit in the two treatment groups. We hereby present patient-reported quality of life (QOL) data obtained from this trial. METHODS: Three self-administered QOL questionnaires (QOL-ACD, QOL-ACD-B, FACT-ES subscale) were used, and the difference in QOL score changes between the two groups was analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures. RESULTS: Eligible patients (N = 222) were randomly assigned to a 2-year (2YG, N = 112) or 3-or-more-year treatment group (3YG, N = 110). The time courses of the three QOL scores during the trial period were similar in the two groups. The mean changes in the QOL scores from week 96 were largely stable through week 240 in the 3YG, but showed significantly greater improvement in the score changes from week 96 in the 2YG than the 3YG. Symptoms associated with menopause such as hot flashes and sweating contributed to these results. Menstruation recovery was associated with significantly greater improvement of these symptoms in the 2YG than the 3YG. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported menopause-associated symptoms and QOL improved after discontinuation of the LH-RH agonist administration and menstruation recovery. QOL information should be a consideration in long-term treatment.

Testicular vs adrenal sources of hydroxy-androgens in prostate cancer.

Neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (NADT) is one strategy for the treatment of early-stage prostate cancer; however, the long-term outcomes of NADT with radical prostatectomy including biochemical failure-free survival are not promising. One proposed mechanism is incomplete androgen ablation. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficiency of serum hydroxy-androgen suppression in patients with localized high-risk prostate cancer under NADT (leuprolide acetate plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone) and interrogate the primary sources of circulating hydroxy-androgens using our recently described stable isotope dilution liquid chromatography mass spectrometric method. For the first time, three androgen diols including 5-androstene-3ß,17ß-diol (5-adiol), 5α-androstane-3α,17ß-diol (3α-adiol), 5α-androstane-3ß,17ß-diol (3ß-adiol), the glucuronide or sulfate conjugate of 5-adiol and 3α-adiol were measured and observed to be dramatically reduced after NADT. By comparing patients that took leuprolide acetate alone vs leuprolide acetate plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone, we were able to distinguish the primary sources of these androgens and their conjugates as being of either testicular or adrenal in origin. We find that testosterone, 5α-dihydrotestosterone (DHT), 3α-adiol and 3ß-adiol were predominately of testicular origin. By contrast, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), epi-androsterone (epi-AST) and their conjugates, 5-adiol sulfate and glucuronide were predominately of adrenal origin. Our findings also show that NADT failed to completely suppress DHEA-sulfate levels and that two unappreciated sources of intratumoral androgens that were not suppressed by leuprolide acetate alone were 5-adiol-sulfate and epi-AST-sulfate of adrenal origin.

Efficacy and safety of leuprorelin acetate 6-month depot, TAP-144-SR (6M), in combination with tamoxifen in postoperative, premenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: a phase III, randomized, open-label, parallel-group comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Leuprorelin acetate, a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist, is used worldwide in premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. This study was conducted to assess the non-inferiority of the 6-month depot formulation, TAP-144-SR (6M) 22.5 mg to the 3-month depot formulation, TAP-144-SR (3M) 11.25 mg in postoperative, premenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. METHODS: This was a 96-week phase III, randomized, open-label, parallel-group comparative study. All patients concomitantly received oral tamoxifen (20 mg daily). The primary endpoint was the suppression rate of serum estradiol (E2) to the menopausal level (≤30 pg/mL) from Week 4 through Week 48. RESULTS: In total, 167 patients were randomized to receive TAP-144-SR (6M) (n = 83) or TAP-144-SR (3M) (n = 84) and the E2 suppression rate was 97.6 and 96.4 %, respectively. The estimated between-group difference was 1.2 % (95 % confidence interval -5.2 to 7.8). The non-inferiority of TAP-144-SR (6M) to TAP-144-SR (3M) for E2 suppression was confirmed. As for safety, common adverse events were hot flush and injection site reactions including induration, pain, and erythema in both treatment groups, which were of ≤Grade 2 in severity and not serious. No significant between-group differences in safety profiles and tolerability were observed. CONCLUSIONS: TAP-144-SR (6M) was not inferior to TAP-144-SR (3M) for its suppressive effect on serum E2. TAP-144-SR (6M) was also as well tolerated as TAP-144-SR (3M).

Degarelix monotherapy compared with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists plus anti-androgen flare protection in advanced prostate cancer: an analysis of two randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess differences in efficacy outcomes between luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist plus antiandrogen (AA) flare protection and monotherapy with the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist degarelix in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: Data from 1455 patients were pooled from two prospective, phase III randomized 1-year clinical trials of degarelix versus LHRH agonist with or without AA. The AA bicalutamide was administered at the investigator's discretion. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model and a conditional logistic regression model was used for a case-control analysis of odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS: Patients received degarelix monotherapy (n = 972) or LHRH agonist (n = 483) of whom 57 also received AA. Overall, prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival (PSA PFS) was improved with degarelix versus LHRH agonist + AA (Cox proportional hazards regression model-adjusted HR for PSA PFS failure was 0.56 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33-0.97, p = 0.038]). To compensate for a higher proportion of patients with metastases, Gleason score 7-10, and PSA >20 ng/ml in the LHRH agonist + AA group, a case-control analysis using a conditional logistic regression model was utilized. This resulted in an OR for PSA PFS of 0.42 (95% CI 0.20-0.89; p = 0.023) in the overall population, and 0.35 (95% CI 0.13-0.96; p = 0.042) in patients with PSA >50 ng/ml at baseline, when treated with degarelix versus LHRH agonists + AA. There were a small number of deaths, 1.9% with degarelix and 7% with LHRH agonists + AA (case-control analysis OR = 0.37; p = 0.085). CONCLUSIONS: Degarelix monotherapy produced a more favorable effect on PSA PFS outcomes than a LHRH agonist + AA flare protection therapy in patients with prostate cancer when a case-control analysis was used to compensate for differences between treatment groups.

Efficacy of degarelix in prostate cancer patients following failure on luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist treatment: results from an open-label, multicentre, uncontrolled, phase II trial (CS27).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of second-line degarelix in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) after treatment failure with a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist. METHODS: This 1-year exploratory, multicentre, open-label phase II trial was performed in 2 patient cohorts (Cohort 1, n = 25; Cohort 2, n = 12) in Germany. Patients with castrate-resistant PCa after primary hormonal treatment received degarelix 240 mg, followed by 11 monthly maintenance doses of 80 mg. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with decreasing/stable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (relative change ⩽+10% of baseline PSA) after 3 months. RESULTS: At Month 3, the response rate (intention-to-treat, last observation carried forward analysis) was 16.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.74-37.38] in Cohort 1 and 33.3% (95% CI: 9.92-65.11) in Cohort 2. The probability of completing 12 months without PSA progression was 8.8% (95% CI: 1.51-24.3) in Cohort 1 and 8.3% (95% CI: 0.5-31.1) in Cohort 2. Degarelix was well tolerated; the most frequently reported adverse events were local injection-site reactions. CONCLUSIONS: In PCa patients who failed LHRH therapy, degarelix was well tolerated and achieved a limited PSA response. Phase III trials show that disease control benefits with degarelix versus agonists are more clearly demonstrated as first-line therapy.

Current trends for the use of androgen deprivation therapy in conjunction with radiotherapy for patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, localized, and locally advanced prostate cancer.

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is now a well-established standard of care in combination with definitive radiotherapy for patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk to high-risk locally advanced prostate cancer. It is also well established that combination modality treatment with ADT and radiotherapy is superior to either of these modalities alone for the treatment of patients with high-risk locally advanced disease. Current treatment guidelines for prostate cancer in the United States are based on the estimated risk of recurrence and death. This review examines the clinical evidence underpinning the use of ADT and radiotherapy among patients with high-risk localized and locally advanced disease in the United States. This review also considers the rationale for moving from traditional luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists to more recently developed gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists.

Is high-dose leuprorelin acetate effective and safe in asian men with prostate cancer? An open-label, non-comparative, multi-center clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Leuprorelin is a well known luteinizing hormone releasing hormone agonist. However, there are insufficient data on the efficacy and safety of high dose leuprorelin acetate, especially in Asian patients with prostate cancer. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of leuprorelin acetate 22.5 mg administered at three-month intervals in patients with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In an open, prospective clinical trial enrolling 47 patients, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of leuprorelin acetate 22.5 mg in treating patients with histologically confirmed prostate cancer. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the leuprorelin acetate 22.5 mg in producing and maintaining castration levels of testosterone over a 6-month follow-up period and to determine its safety profile. RESULTS: All 42 patients achieved serum testosterone levels within the castration range by 4 weeks. A breakthrough response was observed in one of 36 patients by 8 weeks. However, this patient was medically castrated by 12 weeks. There were no significant prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or testosterone changes according to clinical stage or body mass index. Twenty adverse events (AEs) in 15 of 42 patients (35.7%) were observed during this study. The most common AEs were hot flushes (n=4, 20.0%) with mild intensity, pain (n=2, 10.0%), and infection (n=2, 10.0%). No patient withdrew from the study due to AEs. CONCLUSION: Leuprorelin acetate 22.5 mg was shown to be effective and safe in Asian patients with prostate cancer, even though sexual function decreased.

Is High-Dose Leuprorelin Acetate Effective and Safe in Asian Men with Prostate Cancer? An Open-Label, Non-Comparative, Multi-Center Clinical Trial

PURPOSE: Leuprorelin is a well known luteinizing hormone releasing hormone agonist. However, there are insufficient data on the efficacy and safety of high dose leuprorelin acetate, especially in Asian patients with prostate cancer. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of leuprorelin acetate 22.5 mg administered at three-month intervals in patients with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In an open, prospective clinical trial enrolling 47 patients, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of leuprorelin acetate 22.5 mg in treating patients with histologically confirmed prostate cancer. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the leuprorelin acetate 22.5 mg in producing and maintaining castration levels of testosterone over a 6-month follow-up period and to determine its safety profile. RESULTS: All 42 patients achieved serum testosterone levels within the castration range by 4 weeks. A breakthrough response was observed in one of 36 patients by 8 weeks. However, this patient was medically castrated by 12 weeks. There were no significant prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or testosterone changes according to clinical stage or body mass index. Twenty adverse events (AEs) in 15 of 42 patients (35.7%) were observed during this study. The most common AEs were hot flushes (n=4, 20.0%) with mild intensity, pain (n=2, 10.0%), and infection (n=2, 10.0%). No patient withdrew from the study due to AEs. CONCLUSION: Leuprorelin acetate 22.5 mg was shown to be effective and safe in Asian patients with prostate cancer, even though sexual function decreased.