Background and purposeThe ongoing Early Prostate Cancer (EPC) programme is assessing bicalutamide (‘Casodex’) 150mg, either alone or as adjuvant to treatment of curative intent, in patients with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer (n=8113). This paper presents an exploratory analysis of the subgroup of the EPC programme who received radiotherapy with curative intent (n=1370) in order to determine the efficacy (in terms of progression-free survival [PFS]) and tolerability of bicalutamide 150mg in this setting.Patients and methods1370 patients with T1-4, M0, any N prostate cancer received bicalutamide 150mg or placebo adjuvant to radiotherapy of curative intent. This analysis was undertaken at median 5.3 years' follow-up.ResultsIn patients with locally advanced disease (n=305), bicalutamide adjuvant to radiotherapy significantly increased PFS by 53% (event-time ratio 1.53; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.16, 2.02) compared with placebo and reduced the risk of disease progression by 42% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58; 95% CI 0.41, 0.84; P=0.00348). In these patients, objective progression was experienced by 33.5% of those randomised to bicalutamide versus 48.6% for those randomised to placebo. The between-group difference in patients with localised disease (n=1065) failed to reach statistical significance (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.62, 1.03; P=0.088). The most common adverse events were breast pain (74.8%) and gynaecomastia (66.6%), which were mild to moderate in >90% of cases.ConclusionsBicalutamide 150mg/day given as adjuvant to radiotherapy significantly improved PFS in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. For patients with localised disease, the results at this stage from the radiotherapy subgroup and the overall EPC programme suggest that adjuvant hormonal therapy is currently not appropriate. There were no unexpected tolerability findings.

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of prophylactic breast irradiation in reducing the incidence and severity of bicalutamide-induced gynecomastia and breast pain.Methods and Materials: In all, 106 men with prostate cancer (T1b-T4/Nx/M0) and no current gynecomastia/breast pain were enrolled in this randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group multicenter trial. Patients received either a single dose of electron beam radiotherapy (10 Gy) or sham radiotherapy. Bicalutamide (Casodex) 150 mg/day was administered for 12 months from the day of radiotherapy. Every 3 months, patients underwent physical examination and questioning about gynecomastia and breast pain.Results: The incidence of investigator-assessed gynecomastia was significantly lower with radiotherapy vs. sham radiotherapy (52% vs. 85%; odds ratio [OR], 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04, 0.38; p < 0.001); direct questioning showed similar results. Fewer radiotherapy patients had :5 cm gynecomastia (measured by calipers; 11.5% vs. 50.0% for sham radiotherapy), and fewer cases were moderate-to-severe in intensity (21% vs. 48%). Similar proportions of radiotherapy and sham radiotherapy patients experienced breast pain (83% vs. 91%; OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.05, 1.27; p = 0.221); patients receiving radiotherapy experienced some reduction in its severity (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20, 0.97; p = 0.0429).Conclusions: Prophylactic breast irradiation is an effective and well-tolerated strategy for prevention of bicalutamide-induced gynecomastia. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc.

The impact of bicalutamide (Casodex) monotherapy on bone mineral density (BMD) was investigated in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. BMD was assessed after treatment with bicalutamide 150 mg daily (n=21) or by medical castration (goserelin acetate 3.6 mg every 28 days) (n=8) for a median of 287 weeks. In 38% of castration compared with 17% of bicalutamide patients, femoral neck Z-scores were ≤−1 SD of the reference value (accepted as a two to three times increased risk of fracture) and T-scores were ≤−2.5 SD (World Health Organization definition of osteoporosis in white females). Total hip Z-scores were ≤−1 in 43% of castration patients and 13% of bicalutamide patients. In 38% of patients, lumbar spine BMD was affected by degenerative disease. These preliminary data suggest that there may be an advantage in terms of BMD in using bicalutamide monotherapy compared with castration; a benefit confirmed in a recent prospective randomised study.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of localised radiotherapy for the treatment of bicalutarnide ('Casodex'(1))-induced gynaecomastia and/or breast pain.Methods: This open-label, non-comparative, multicentre study included 51 patients receiving bicalutamide 150 mg for the treatment of non-metastatic prostate cancer (T1b-T4, Nx, M0). Patients who developed symptomatic gynaecomastia and/or breast pain received two 6-Gy fractions of external-beam radiation to the breasts and were then assessed at two 3-monthly follow-up visits.Results: 37/51 (72.5%) patients experienced gynaecomastia and 41/51 (80.4%) experienced breast pain, typically within the first 6 months. Twenty seven and 38 patients, respectively, went on to receive breast irradiation. Following radiotherapy, gynaecomastia improved or resolved in 7/27 (25.9%) and 2/27 (7.4%) cases, respectively, and breast pain improved or resolved in 12/38 (31.6%) and 3/38 (7.9%) cases, respectively. No change was observed in 7 patients (25.9%) with gynaecomastia and 12 patients (31.6%) with breast pain, while 9 patients (33.3%) and 8 patients (21.1%), respectively, worsened. Radiotherapy-related adverse events, reported by 18/41 (43.9%) patients, were generally mild and short lived (median duration approximately 5 weeks).Conclusions: Therapeutic radiotherapy, using two fractions of 6 Gy external-beam radiation to the male breast, improves the intensity of bicalutamide-induced gynaecomastia and/or breast pain in approximately one-third of patients. Adverse events were often mild and short lived. (c) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Castration is the most widely used form of androgen ablation employed in the treatment of metastatic (M1) prostate cancer. Non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy is a potential alternative treatment option for men for whom castration is unacceptable or not indicated. Of the three non-steroidal antiandrogens, bicalutamide (‘Casodex’), flutamide and nilutamide, only bicalutamide has been compared with castration in large, controlled, randomised, Phase III trials in M1 patients. A post-hoc analysis of these studies indicated that bicalutamide 150 mg/day monotherapy may be of benefit to M1 patients with a prostate specific antigen (PSA) level ≤400 ng/ml. Significant advantages for M1 patients treated with bicalutamide were observed in subjective response rate, maintenance of sexual interest and physical capacity. Patients with a higher disease burden (PSA >400 ng/ml) may decide that quality of life and symptomatic benefits outweigh the slight survival disadvantage seen in clinical trials and opt for bicalutamide monotherapy as an alternative to castration. .

PURPOSE:Nonsteroidal antiandrogen monotherapy may be a treatment option for some patients with advanced prostate cancer. We report a survival and safety update from an analysis of 2 studies in which patients with nonmetastatic (M0) locally advanced disease were treated with either 150 mg. bicalutamide monotherapy or castration.MATERIALS AND METHODS:Data from 2 open label, multicenter studies of identical design were pooled according to protocol. Patients with stage T3/4 prostate cancer were randomized to receive 150 mg. bicalutamide daily or castration (orchiectomy or 3.6 mg. goserelin acetate every 28 days) in a 2:1 ratio.RESULTS:A total of 480 patients with locally advanced prostate cancer were randomized to treatment. After a median followup of 6.3 years mortality was 56%. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in overall survival (hazard ratio 1.05, upper 1-sided 95% confidence limit 1.31, p = 0.70) or time to progression (1.20, 1.45, p = 0.11). There were statistically significant benefits in the bicalutamide monotherapy group in the 2 quality of life parameters of sexual interest (p = 0.029) and physical capacity (p = 0.046). The highest incidences of adverse events were the pharmacological side effects of hot flashes in the castration group, and breast pain and gynecomastia in the bicalutamide group. The incidences of other types of adverse events were low. Bicalutamide was well tolerated, with few drug related withdrawals from study, and no new safety issues were identified during this longer followup.CONCLUSIONS:Monotherapy with 150 mg. bicalutamide is an attractive alternative to castration in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer for whom immediate hormone therapy is indicated.

Many men with early stage prostate cancer suffer relapse and/or die of their disease despite potentially curative surgery or radiotherapy. Early hormonal therapies are being combined with these local therapies, with the aim of facilitating local control and improving survival. In the surgical setting, neoadjuvant hormonal therapy reduces the rate of positive margins and extracapsular penetration, but most studies have failed to demonstrate an advantage with respect to biochemical progression. Further studies are needed to clarify the role of adjuvant therapy in surgical patients. In the radiotherapy setting, neoadjuvant hormonal therapy improves local control, although survival data is not available, and can be considered for stage T2b disease or higher. Adjuvant luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LH-RH) agonists improve both local control and survival after radiotherapy and should be offered to all patients. Currently, the LH-RH agonists are the drugs of choice for adjuvant therapy, whereas combined androgen blockade has generally been used as neoadjuvant therapy. Monotherapy with a nonsteroidal antiandrogen has considerable potential in both settings. Areas for future studies include appropriate endpoints for clinical studies, comparative drug efficacy and the effect of treatment on quality of life.

Objectives. To compare the efficacy, tolerability, and quality of life benefits of bicalutamide (Casodex) 150-mg/ day monotherapy and castration in previously untreated nonmetastatic (MO) advanced prostate cancer.Methods. A total of 480 patients with Stage T3/T4 nonmetastatic disease randomly received oral bicalutamide 150 mg/day or castration (either bilateral orchiectomy or goserelin acetate [Zoladex] 3.6 mg every 28 days) in a 2:1 ratio in two open multicenter studies (studies 306 and 307). The design of these studies was similar to allow a pooled analysis.Results. In the combined survival analysis, at median follow-up of 202 and 205 weeks in studies 306 and 307, respectively with 31% of the cases resulting in death, bicalutamide 150-mg monotherapy was statistically equivalent to castration; the risk of death from any cause was 7% less with bicalutamide than with castration (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.93). Data on time to treatment failure and objective progression could not be pooled, as results for these end points differed between the trials. In study 306, bicalutamide 150-mg monotherapy increased time to objective progression (HR = 0.58; P = 0.033) and treatment failure (HR = 0.66; P = 0.074), whereas in study 307, time to progression (HR = 1.35; P = 0.0471) and treatment failure (HR = 1.24; P = 0.097) favored castration. Bicalutamide therapy showed significant advantages over castration for both sexual interest (P = 0.029) and physical capacity (P = 0.046). Bicalutamide 150-mg monotherapy was well tolerated.Conclusions. Bicalutamide 150-mg monotherapy provides a similar survival outcome to castration in previously untreated patients with nonmetastatic advanced prostate cancer and confers statistically significant benefits over castration with respect to sexual interest and physical capacity. (C) 1998, Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, endocrinological effects and the pharmacokinetics of CasodexTM, when given as monotherapy during daily dosing of 10–200 mg to patients with advanced prostate cancer. Methods: A total of 390 patients with advanced prostate cancer were treated for a minimum of 12 weeks with a daily monotherapy dose of Casodex. The doses ranged from 10 to 200 mg. Objective assessments of efficacy included: review of measurable metastases, prostate dimension, prostatic acid phosphatase and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. Subjective assessments of efficacy included review of urological symptoms, performance status, bone scan and analgesic requirement. Pharmacokinetic samples were taken at various time points up to 3 months, and assayed using an achiral HPLC method. Results: Clear objective responses were observed, particularly at doses of 50 mg and above. Specifically, the median percentage decrease in PSA at 50 mg was 90.0%, and at 100 and 200 mg it was 93.4 and 94.8%, respectively. Up to 53% of symptomatic patients demonstrated a subjective response at 3 months. Casodex was well tolerated at all doses with no effect on haematological or cardiovascular parameters and no effect on renal function. The expected pharmacological effects of potent antiandrogen therapy, such as breast tenderness (58%), gynaecomastia (48%), and hot flushes (17%), were reported, but these incidences reflected the direct eliciting of these events. The intrinsic efficacy of Casodex was demonstrated despite increases of 60% in testosterone levels. However, this increase reached a plateau after 4–12 weeks of therapy, but the majority of values remained within the normal range. Casodex has a half-life of approximately 1 week, enabling once-daily dosing with no effect of age or renal impairment on its pharmacokinetics. Conclusion: Casodex has a favourable side effect profile compared with the known safety profiles of other antiandrogens and has demonstrated intrinsic efficacy. Casodex warrants further investigation as a monotherapy for the management of advanced prostate cancer.

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of ‘Casodex’TM monotherapy (150 mg daily) for metastatic and locally advanced prostate cancer. Methods: A total of 1,453 patients with either confirmed metastatic disease (M1), or T3/T4 non-metastatic disease with elevated prostate-specific antigen (M₀) were recruited into one of two identical, multicentre, randomsied studies to compare ‘Casodex’ 150 mg/day with castration. The protocols allowed for combined analysis. Results: At a median follow-up period of approximately 100 weeks for both studies, ‘Casodex’ 150 mg was found to be less effective than castration in patients with metastatic disease (M1) at entry (hazard ratio of 1.30 for time to death) with a difference in median survival of 6 weeks. In symptomatic M1 patients, ‘Casodex’ was associated with a statistically significant improvement in subjective response (70%) compared with castration (58%). Analysis of a validated quality-of-life questionnaire proved an advantage for ‘Casodex’ in sexual interest and physical capacity. ‘Casodex’ had a substantially lower incidence of hot flushes compared to castration (6–13% compared with 39–44%) and the most commonly reported adverse events were those expected for a potent antiandrogen. However, in patients with M₀ disease at entry, the data are still immature with only 13% of M₀ patients having died. An initial analysis of this immature data has suggested that the results in these patients may be different to those obtained in patients with M1 disease. A further survival analysis in patients with M₀ disease is therefore planned when the data are more mature. Conclusions: ‘Casodex’ 150 mg is less effective than castration in patients with M1 disease. However, ‘Casodex’ has shown a benefit in terms of quality of life and subjective response when compared to castration and has an acceptable tolerability profile. Thus ‘Casodex’ 150 mg monotherapy is an option for patients with M1 prostate cancer for whom surgical or medical castration is not indicated or is not acceptable.

OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, endocrinological effects and the pharmacokinetics of Casodex, when given as monotherapy during daily dosing of 10-200 mg to patients with advanced prostate cancer.METHODS:A total of 390 patients with advanced prostate cancer were treated for a minimum of 12 weeks with a daily monotherapy dose of Casodex. The doses ranged from 10 to 200 mg. Objective assessments of efficacy included: review of measurable metastases, prostate dimension, prostatic acid phosphatase and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. Subjective assessments of efficacy included review of urological symptoms, performance status, bone scan and analgesic requirement. Pharmacokinetic samples were taken at various time points up to 3 months, and assayed using an achiral HPLC method.RESULTS:Clear objective responses were observed, particularly at doses of 50 mg and above. Specifically, the median percentage decrease in PSA at 50 mg was 90.0%, and at 100 and 200 mg it was 93.4 and 94.8%, respectively. Up to 53% of symptomatic patients demonstrated a subjective response at 3 months. Casodex was well tolerated at all doses with no effect on haematological or cardiovascular parameters and no effect on renal function. The expected pharmacological effects of potent antiandrogen therapy, such as breast tenderness (58%), gynaecomastia (48%), and hot flushes (17%), were reported, but these incidences reflected the direct eliciting of these events. The intrinsic efficacy of Casodex was demonstrated despite increases of 60% in testosterone levels. However, this increase reached a plateau after 4-12 weeks of therapy, but the majority of values remained within the normal range. Casodex has a half-life of approximately 1 week, enabling once-daily dosing with no effect of age or renal impairment on its pharmacokinetics.CONCLUSION:Casodex has a favourable side effect profile compared with the known safety profiles of other antiandrogens and has demonstrated intrinsic efficacy. Casodex warrants further investigation as a monotherapy for the management of advanced prostate cancer.

For advanced prostate cancer, the main hormone treatment against which other treatments are assessed is surgical castration. It is simple, safe and effective, however it is not acceptable to all patients. Medical castration by means of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LH-RH) analogues such as goserelin acetate provides an alternative to surgical castration. Diethylstilboestrol, previously the only non-surgical alternative to orchidectomy, is no longer routinely used. Castration reduces serum testosterone by around 90%, but does not affect androgen biosynthesis in the adrenal glands. Addition of an anti-androgen to medical or surgical castration blocks the effect of remaining testosterone on prostate cells and is termed combined androgen blockade (CAB). CAB has now been compared with castration alone (medical and surgical) in numerous clinical trials. Some trials show advantage of CAB over castration, whereas others report no significant difference. The author favours the view that CAB has an advantage over castration. No study has reported that CAB is less effective than castration. Of the anti-androgens which are available for use in CAB, bicalutamide may be associated with a lower incidence of side-effects compared with the other non-steroidal anti-androgens and, in common with nilutamide, has the advantage of once-daily dosing. Only one study has compared anti-androgens within CAB: bicalutamide plus LH-RH analogue and flutamide plus LH-RH analogue. At 160-week follow-up, the groups were equivalent in terms of survival and time to progression. However, bicalutamide caused significantly less diarrhoea than flutamide. Withdrawal and intermittent therapy with anti-androgens extend the range of treatment options.

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of the new aromatase inhibitor 'ARIMIDEX' (anastrozole) with megestrol acetate in the treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Anastrozole is a new potent and highly selective non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor. We conducted a prospective randomised trial comparing two doses of anastrozole (1 and 10 mg orally once daily) with megestrol acetate (40 mg orally four times daily) in postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer who progressed after prior tamoxifen therapy. All patients were analysed for efficacy as randomised (intention to treat) and for tolerability as per treatment received. Of the 378 patients who entered the study, 135 were randomised to anastrozole 1 mg, 118 to anastrozole 10 mg, and 125 patients to megestrol acetate. After a median follow-up of 192 days, response rate which included complete response, partial response and patients who had disease stabilisation for 6 months or more was 34% for anastrozole 1 mg, 33.9% for anastrozole 10 mg and 32.8% for megestrol acetate. There were no statistically significant differences between either dose of anastrozole and megestrol acetate in terms of objective response rate, time to objective progression of disease or time to treatment failure. The three treatments were generally well tolerated, but more patients on megestrol acetate reported weight gain, oedema and dyspnoea as adverse events while more patients on anastrozole reported gastro-intestinal disorders, usually in the form of mild transient nausea. Patients on anastrozole did not report higher incidences of oestrogen withdrawal symptoms. Anastrozole is an effective and well tolerated treatment for postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer. The higher 10 mg dose did not result in additional clinical benefit, but was well tolerated reflecting the good therapeutic margin with anastrozole. Based on this data, anastrozole 1 mg should be the recommended therapeutic dose.